of course, jodi, but i think he was saying more that erislover’s had already committed a felony*. like, if he was convicted, he would be a felon because he committed a crime, not because of the conviction… that is to, say, it’d be his fault, not the jury’s or the court’s or the cop’s. does that make sense?
i’m not meaning to argue that he’s not a felon until he’s convicted, just that it was his actions, not the actions of the cops, that made him one.
*that is, if what he’d done was a felony.
I was being charged with a felony. I was offered to plea it down to a first degree misdemeanor. Had I chose to “fight back” I was risking being a felon when I had the opportunity to not be.
According to my lawyer it was quite possible that they weren’t within reason to search my car; however, considering this was a matter of facing indeterminite odds of no charges versus 100% chance of no felony, it wasn’t really much of a choice for me.
A couple of minor points for you, eris:
[ul][li]There’s a difference between “felon” and “convicted felon.”[/li][li]You already admitted that back then you were well aware of the criminal nature of the deed.[/ul][/li]
That being said, let’s look at this from the rationale of the police:
[ul][li]They hear an alarm.[/li][li]They have no idea why the alarm went off.[/li][li]That’s why they’re investigating the alarm. You might recall that you mentioned above you expected them to do just that.[/li][li]Your vehicle was exiting the driveway in the immediate vicinity of the alarm.[/li][li]You admitted to the officer to committing a crime when you informed him that there’s a gun in the car.[/li][li]That gave him probable cause to not only search the car, but also to detain you while he searched same.[/li][li]During the search, the cop found dark clothing. While not illegal, combine the clothing with the illegal weapon–illegal concealed weapon, mind you–and what do you expect the coppers to think?[/li][li]It’s also a common practice to ask the same, or nearly same, questions of suspects a number of times. The idea, of course, is to see if the story changes with the retelling.[/ul][/li]
You would’ve been better off, as you admit, had you not carried the piece. But, you would’ve been WAY better off had you not gotten saddled with that moron shyster lawyer.
Anyway, it happened a long time ago and I presume you’ve moved on with your life since then and have no record (expunged?). Why bring it up?
No, Jodi; I recognize that one becomes a felon when commits a felony. One becomes a convicted felon when one is convicted of a felony. Since the law here treats people as innocent until proven guilty (like, upon admission to a crime), one is not treated as a felon until convicted. One can definitely be practically considered a felon for the purpose of this particular thread.
One becomes a murderer by comitting murder. One also becomes “one who is in the commission of the offense of carrying a concealed weapon, a felony,” by–you guessed it!–being in the commission of carrying a concealed weapon, a felony. Exactly as you described the felonious deed of murder above.
They were in the car searching around already when I mentioned what was in it, and where it was.
He was a county prosecutor for over 15 years. What he advised, I listened. He was also reffered to me by the “family” lawyer, who is a prosecuting attourney in another area.
Bottom line: two sets of people did something wrong, one of them being me, and I got the shaft for it. On equal terms, the government wins.
Aaaaaaallright, a couple of things have got to be said. Sure, Erislover shouldn’t have had a gun in his car, his attitude reflected his age and the circumstances would look suspicious to a policeman. However, none of that really justifies the officers behaving like assholes.
Respect the Officer, do what you’re told? I’m sorry, respect has to be earned, what we’re talking about here is the officer getting his ass kissed. You respect a doctor or a fireman too, but you don’t kiss their asses like this, try painfully to please them, make sure you don’t really speak your mind in case you upset them. Why? Because the police officer has a gun and you may literally get your butt kicked if you talk back like Eris, and there’s nothing you can do about it. Just because Eris did something foolish doesn’t mean that the police get to treat him like shit. I don’t see any of the Law & Order freaks stepping in and telling k.os that he got everything that was coming to him, and why is that? Because the police fucked up, and it happens again and again.
That brings me onto my next rant. Sure there’s lots of good police out there, sure there’s only a few bad apples, nobody doubts it. But the police are there to uphold the law, and they get special priviledges for doing what is at times a dangerous job. But that doesn’t mean that they get special priviledges to behave like assholes, and it doesn’t make them unaccountable. They are in a position of trust, that means they should be held to higher standards of behaviour than other people, not lower.
Where does the expectation come from that you should treat police officers somehow better or more politely or with kid gloves when you wouldn’t treat your doctor or your priest the same way? How the hell can the fact that they can take you out into the bushes and beat you senseless, or that they may get a little nervy and shoot your brains all over the pavement be any kind of a justification?
MONTY – Dang, I hate being wrong. But in this case, you’re right and I’m . . . well, you know. Not right. 
ERISLOVER –
Here’s where I get a little impatient. The government “wins” what? Their right to charge you with a misdemeanor for a crime you fully admit having done? You “lose” what? Your right to break the law? I’m truly confused as to whether or not you can even attempt to see this from the cops’ point of view and if not, why not. YOU chose not to fight a charge you believed was unjust. YOU chose not to take the chance that you would be convicted of a felony. If the government “won” regarding a charge you consider unjust, then it’s only because you didn’t even attempt to dispute it – as is your right, and as may well have been the smartest thing for you to do.
What misdemeanor were you charged with, anyway? Carrying an unlicensed and concealed firearm? Because that’s something you admit you were doing. So the government “wins” because you were stupid enough to do it in the first place, and then unlucky enough to get caught? What am I missing here?
Moonshine: Sure there’s lots of good police out there, sure there’s only a few bad apples, nobody doubts it. But the police are there to uphold the law, and they get special priviledges for doing what is at times a dangerous job. But that doesn’t mean that they get special priviledges to behave like assholes, and it doesn’t make them unaccountable. They are in a position of trust, that means they should be held to higher standards of behaviour than other people, not lower.
All true. But I think the moral of this story is that when you’re under arrest is perhaps not the best time to try to teach a cop how to do his job. If a cop is being an asshole to you, you make an official complaint about it or write a letter to the newspaper or take it to a citizens’ rights advocacy group or something like that. You don’t lecture him about being an asshole or make assholish statements off your own bat in an effort to retaliate. Being hostile and assholish is a classic symptom of a dangerous person, and most cops figure that when dealing with a dangerous person, the best defense is a good offense. I agree that all police ought to show good manners and self-restraint at all times, and in fact I think it would actually enable them to do their jobs better, by giving them an impressive air of real respect-worthiness. But there is a time and a place for everything, and the time to start discussing the issue of police gentility is not when a police officer is talking to you about your having broken the law.
(Speaking of showing good manners and self-restraint at all times, by the way, I’m a little startled by the resentment some posters have expressed about “having to” be polite and respectful to a cop who’s being rude to you. Aren’t you always polite and respectful to anybody who’s being rude to you, because that’s what your self-respect demands? Don’t you show good manners and self-restraint at all times? Isn’t the only difference between talking to polite people and talking to rude people the fact that in the first case your manner is polite, respectful, and friendly, whereas in the second case it’s polite, respectful, and icy icy cold? Surely your own standards for your conduct to rude people don’t depend on whether those rude people happen to be carrying guns? …Good. My gosh, you had me worried there for a minute. ;))
I know there is no real point to responding to this thread, because I think it all boils down to the comments of the OP that it’s me v. the government, or me v. the cops. That’s exactly how some people see the world, and no amount of explaining or discussion will change it. But of course this is in the Pit, so you’re welcome to your rants, I’ll throw in one to help keep your fire burning:
I am sick and fucking tired of people who see the police as some kind of facist, evil empire that is only out there to cause people pain and feed they’re own need for bullying. Do you who complain have any idea how hard it is to be a cop? Fucking try it for a week, and then do your bitching. Are there bad cops, fuck yeah, are there rude cops, fuck yeah, so get the fuck over it. In your case, you committed what was a felony and get all out of sorts because the cop wasn’t Mister fucking Rodgers? Get a life.
I don’t see why the cop who dealt with Eris was an asshole who should just fuck off. Because he asked the same question numerous times? Tough shit, he was questioning someone who committed a felony, and was being a arrogant smartmouth. Maybe he should have brought you a fucking candy and appreciated your urbane wit.
Was it because he told you that he was close to shooting you? I’ve read the OP twice, and you were the one who was there, so, of course, I’m sure you’ll tell me I’m wrong, but it sounds like you and the cop were bullshitting, talking about crap. Did he say, yeah I shoulda just fucking shot your ass? No. It sounds to me like he was telling you how hard his job is and that he was as scared of being shot as you were, a little bonding over how tense a situation was by two survivors. Not what I would call being an asshole. I know in advance in eris’s mind, I’m definately wrong, but the cop isn’t here to tell you his side of the story.
And why the fuck do you have a problem showing cops respect? They have to earn your respect before you will treat them with common courtesy? Get the fucking chip off your shoulder.
Scheif: You were in the park after hours. You were setting off fireworks. You were stopped and ticketed and fined for the offenses? Waste of manpower? Possibly. But in your second case, they thought you may have had a fucking automatic weapon, so I have no problem with them stopping your car, even with their guns drawn, to check it out. Again, you committed a crime and whine about how cops caught you.
kos: Sorry that that happened to you, and you didnt’ bring anything on yourself. It sounds like the cops were looking for someone who had committed a serious offense, and had a gun on him. They found you instead. I’m sorry they didn’t apologize to you, but they were looking for someone who was armed and dangerous, and could they have been nicer? yes, but I don’t necessarily think they are assholes for being overly cautious with their lives.
I won’t even waste my breath (or typing hands) with Moonshine’s comments.
Come on, I didn’t call anyone fascist. I respect much of what the government does. I do not like the fact that, given equal ground, the government really does have the benefit of the doubt. Its a stacked game. Fucking casino.
Because they had the means to find out if the building was actually broken into. It was a two-minute walk away from where I was, and it didn’t take them much more than a half-hour to investigate everything. I was a local resident, as they would have noted from my liscence. I had never had any run in with the law before, with the exception of a speeding ticket three years earlier. No warrants. No outstanding anything. Its a small town: it was impossible to live more than 3 or 4 miles away from anything. Bottom line: they take my name and make me wait while they investigate. If nothing obvious turns up, they let me go with the knowledge that should they find anything I will be needed for more questioning. Consider: it was totally circumstantial, and had they not searched my car the only thing “incriminating” was my presence there in the first place.
The fucking court let me out on my own recognizance. As far as the entire world was concerned I was an upstanding citizen, except for that fucking cop. And he had all the power he needed to push in whatever direction he wanted. I had the power to sit there and take it, regardless of whether I was actually breaking the law or not. Get it? Remove my criminality and the cop is still a dick, and he has the power to use that dickishness to smear his smegma all over my face.
Maybe he should have avoided jumping to conclusions when there was an easy means to avoid doing so which would have involved no extra effort on anyone’s part.
I wasn’t scared about being shot; I didn’t know until after the fact that my life was ever close to being in danger.
Now I’m lying? I present what occurred, admitting my faults in the matter, and my opinion of the situation.
Every single person in the world needs to earn respect. As a default people can expect simple courtesy; respect is a little more valuable to me to just toss it around to whoever happens to be carrying a gun.
I do not feel they had any right to search my car without asking. Shine a fucking flashlight in it, look for broken glass in my shoe-heels. Hell, make me wait in 'cuffs until they decided whether or not there was any real indication of a crime.
But how could any semi-rational person try and compete with the government? A cost-benefit analysis in this case left me with no choice but to let the government get away with searching my car in the manner that they did. You’re a lawyer: do you think they were within their rights to search without asking? And how would I go about demonstrating that, regardless of whether you agree or not? I had to take the plea bargain. They set the rules; no suprise that they won. And they knew it, too. That’s why I got the bargain in the first place.
Do you still not understand? Do you think that the cop should have let you go after seeing that the building wasn’t broken into?
He came upon two guys in a car leaving the premises of building with an alarm going off. That gave him probable cause to search your car (which your lawyer said was arguable in court, not bullshit, and he didn’t try that hard to argue it, apparently). In your car he found black gloves and a scarf, and an illegal weapon.
I wouldn’t have let you go if I was that cop. At that point, I’d be pretty certain that I’d caught two guys who gave up on the B+E when the alarm went off. And I’d proceed on that assumption, as the cop did. Frankly, he’d have to be fucking stupid to have let you go after that.
Which doesn’t mean that you’re innocent, it means that court believes you’ll show up for your court appearance.
Unless some lawyer here contradicts me, I’d say the cop had a reason to search your car. I’d have searched it if I were in the cop’s shoes, because, as I said, my first impression of the scene would be that I stopped two guys fleeing an attempted B+E.
There are good arguments to make that the government, the police, the DA, and the courts have too much power, and do not exercise it responsibly. Your case is not one of them.
I still disagree. I happened to be there. I was totally cooperative. I explained my situation, even while I was already in handcuffs. They could obviously confirm my story by checking to see if it was a false alarm or not.
The entire sitation could have been cleared up in thirty minutes without doing a goddamn thing to me. They didn’t have to let me go during that time; I’d even understand why they wouldn’t. I’d sit in the back of the cop car if they wanted.
The only evidence they had was that I was there. It wasn’t like we had bags of loot in the car (which could have been seen by a qucik glance in my car: a two-seater). We weren’t wearing dark clothes. We weren’t (well, I wasn’t) even really all that nervous. I thought everyting would pan out until I saw the cop opening the door and searching around.
It wasn’t like I was “at the scene, smoking gun in my hand,” I was just “at the scene.”
Right. which is why, after they found no evidence of a break in, they would have let me go. Simple, isn’t it?
Well, it seems that the cops believed that while Erislover hadn’t actually commited a crime, since the building hadn’t been broken into, they believed that he intended to commit a crime.
But of course, that is not a crime…or at least a crime that they couldn’t prove he commited. Sure, there may be some consipiracy laws or some such, but there’s no way the cops could prove that he intended to break into the building and rob it.
So, believing that while he intended to commit a crime, he had not actually commited the crime, they decided to punish him themselves. Nothing illegal, just holding him, threatening him, hassling him, telling him he’s in trouble, and trying to figure out any possible misdemenors he might have commited. Because they felt he was getting away without official punishmet for his intended felony burglary, they gave him a little unofficial punishment. That’s what this is all about.
And cops get in the habit of doing this. So, once you get on the “bad side” of a cop, they tend to start looking for ways to punish you because they figure you’ve gotten away with something…even when you haven’t. This is often an expected but unacknowledged part of a cops job…keeping the perps in line. Once you get put in the “perp” column you’re going to face a whole different kind of treatment than you do if you’re in the “citizen” category.
Y’all just don’t get it. The cops had a constitutional right to search the vehicle: said vehicle was departing the apparent scene of a crime. Or have you forgotten that nifty little alarm going off?
Any evidence turned up in said search is also fair game. As long as the cops were acting in good faith, which they were–remember the nifty little alarm?–the results of the search are valid for evidence in court.
Just because you don’t feel the cops had a right to perform a search does not, in fact, mean they did not have that right.
But, since this is the United States of America, you do have a right many people in other lands, even in other democracies, do not have: you can petition to have the Constitution changed. Good luck on getting that searching bit chucked out, though.
All of which is meaningless if you planned to break in, but were scared off by the alarm, which is a plausible reason to hang on to you and to question you. Attempted B+E is a crime, too.
You were there: two young guys (the most likely profile to commit a B+E), at night (the most popular time to commit a B+E), saying “we were just cruising around”, at a building were an alarm was going off, leaving quickly when the cops pulled up.
What would you think? Even if the guy was co-operative, what would you think?
I’m resisting the urge to put this all in caps, because you seem to be deliberately missing the point: attempted B+E is a crime, too. The fact that the building wasn’t broken into really doesn’t further the argument “it’s all a misunderstanding, officer”. In some jurisdictions, it’s illegal to carry stuff in your car that’s merely usable for the purposes of B+E.
At your court date, there was a lot more evidence to go on than when the cop was arresting you: the fact that you were generally co-operative; that you had no arrest record; that the building wasn’t broken into (really not broken into, not just apparently); that you had plead to a misdemeanor, and weren’t facing felony charges.
On rereading the OP, it sounds like the cop and you got along pretty well once he was satisfied that you weren’t an attempted B+E. When he said he would have shot you if you’d twitched, it sounds more to me like to he was trying to tell you how serious the situation was at the time.
Horseshit. Pure horseshit. With this much testosterone-driven teenage angst, it’s a wonder that any young males survive into their twenties to become cops at all.
A lot of stuff could happen in 30 minutes, I trust you realize. The alarm could’ve been set off by an armed murderer and the cops, had they not stopped said murderer departing the scene, would surely have gotten the full force of the public’s wrath.
Let’s see: we have the cops conducting the investigation the way they, presumably, were trained. And then we have you, the dude in the car leaving the apparent scene of a crime with dark clothing and an illegal loaded weapon in the vehicle. My money’s on the cops being vindicated had you gone to trial.
Exactly. That’s known as probable cause, by the waÜ
Oh, and these particular cops had those nifty x-ray eyes? Seeing as they had probable cause, of which you were informed by your own admission, they were on the money when they found, if not incrimination, at least suspicious items in the vehicle. Remember the vehicle, the one leaving the apparent scene of a crime, don’t you?
Didn’t you say that cop informed you that he had probable cause to search the vehiclë
Nope. You were at the scene, departing the scene, and had the illegal weapon in the car. Since the cop had probable cause, the fact that you didn’t commit the apparent crime to which they were responding is irrelevant to the results of the search.
Not exactly. Since the cops have to act on the scene on the evidence they discover at the scene, you might want to look at it that way and not as someone who already knows both sides of the event, which you apparently now do know. Since the matter of the break-in is irrelevant to the results of the lawful search turning up evidence of the crime you did, in fact, commit, being just let go wasn’t an option for the cop. You remember the cop, don’t you? You know, the dude who’s charged with enforcing the laws, one of which, a felony IIRC, you were violating at the time.
Jodi, would you be so kind as to explain to Eris the difference between “extenuating and mitigating circumstances” and “innocent.” Thank you.
ERIS –
Apparently, and what all due respect, what you mean by “any real indication of a crime” is what you, personally, would consider any indication of a crime. See, to a cop, young guys, cruising around, gun in car, leaving scene, alarm going off, history of burglaries at that location – those are all “real indications” of a crime, if not in progress then possibly foiled by the alarm. And that make you a suspect. So far as I can see, you have not even attempted to put yourself in the shoes of a cop (suspicious shoes though they certainly are) and tried to see it from his point of view. You know you were innocent; he didn’t.
This is a contradiction, as you surely recognize. A cost-benefit analysis implies a choice, or else there is nothing to weigh. YOU decided you couldn’t or wouldn’t take the chance on having a jury go the wrong way on you, leaving you with a felony conviction. And I’m not for one minute saying that was a bad choice. But let’s have no more nonsense that it was no choice.
Yeah, actually I do. They only need probable cause to search an automobile without a warrant (the fact you can drive off in it provides what is called “exigent circumstances” for a warrantless search). You likely provided the probable cause by being seen exiting a location where a burglar alarm was going off, when there was a history of burglary at that location, and when you didn’t have a good explanation for being there. I’m not saying it’s a no-brainer and that the stop would not be subject to attack by a good lawyer, but on the whole I think they probably had sufficient probable cause. And once they have probable cause for a search, they can go ahead and do it. They are under no obligation to investigate other avenues (such as confirming the alarm was real or false) before performing the search.
By recounting your story, pointing out that you were just turning around and had nothing to do with the alarm going off, and arguing they did not have sufficient probable cause.
No, man, you didn’t. You could have taken your chances with the court. You chose not to. And I think it was a good call when it was undisputed you were carrying unlicensed and concealed, assuming that’s what you were charged with. You were guilty, and judges look very hard at warrant challenges when they know granting them will reward the guilty.
Yeah, fucked by the system. :rolleyes: Pardon my asperity, but you were breaking the law, you got caught, and you were not prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law for it – you bargained down to a misdemeanor. Which you could have fought if you chose to – but you did not. I’m not seeing the butt-reaming here. Sorry.
That you consider this a viable choice baffels me. 100% chance of not being a felon versus an indeterminable chance of not becoming a felon; hmmm…
How about, a previous robbery, and alarm going off, and someone at the scene. Dark clothes in car+gun were not determined until after they “decided” I was guilty.
Well, allow your mind to spread to a colloquial usage of “no choice” as in, you see, no viable choice given the already mentioned cost-benefit analysis.
And I find this to be bullshit. It wasn’t like they’d be going out of their way to clear me of the incident; that happened anyway in about thirty minutes. It wasn’t an “other avenue”; it was something they were doing anyway.
And demonstrating this is a gamble. But proving it was also a gamble, hence the plea bargain. It wasn’t like they said, “Look, erl, we had plenty of good reasons to assume you were lying and that we could search your property without a warrant.” Because they didn’t. They had one somewhat shakey reason. But how shakey? Hard to say for either side; so look, we’ll give you a first degree mis and take your weapon if you agree to plead guilty to illegal transportation of a firearm.
Consider that this is a fifty-fifty bet for both parties, given sufficient legal representation (which I did have, albeit at quite a cost on my McDonald’s budget). If I lose the bet, I’m fucked. If they lose the bet?-- no sweat, really. But why lose the bet when they can simply fix the odds? Obviously they wouldn’t, especially since they lost nothing either way. It was both in their favor, and in my favor, to stack the odds on their side. For me it was a lose/lose situation, but one loss was worse than the other.
That, in all honesty, constitutes a screwing.
Jodi, they pulled a guy over who had no warrants, no speeding tickets, no unpaid parking tickets (no parking tickets ever), no accountable brush with the law, who has proof of registration, ownership, and insurance, and who claims that he did nothing to trigger the alarm. He is acting somewhat courteously (again, the conversation was paraphrased above) and is cooperating 100%. Forget the fact that I’m a criminal waiting to be caught here-- they don’t know that yet. Given the evidence at hand, I think they made an unwarranted assumption. Given the means they had at their disposal to determine what had happened without making assumptions, I feel they acted without warrant. But if jury members were selected from this thread alone, not to mention stodgy conservative suburban citizens, I knew damn well I didn’t have a good chance of beating it. And in the end their reasoning was probably the same as mine: why take a chance pushing one case when we can guarantee a different one?
Add at night, two young guys, and no good reason for being there, which still gives them probable cause to search the car.
None of which they would know until they’d investigated everything, by which time they would have found the illegal and concealed firearm in your car, which trumps all.