This video was a little difficult to get into, but I was able to understand the general concept of what the men were discussing. I’ll begin by discussing my own views about the videotaping. I do not agree with Kevin Mincey when he said that he believes that police act erratically, almost like savages, to destroy any evidence that may get them into trouble. I’m a firm believer that police officers don’t wake up with the intent on getting into scuffles. We also don’t always know the entire story. People are known to leave out details in order to make the officers look bad. In the video shown, a police officer reaches out and takes the camera of a pedestrian (we’re assuming). Prior to this event, the man could have been interfering with what the police were doing, which would cause the officer to speak to him.
My second point is the issue of search and seizure. Yes, police do have to have probable cause in order to pull you over. If they want you bad enough, they’ll wait for you to do any kind of violation. In my personal experience, the only time I’ve been pulled over (knock on wood) was just a few months back. The officer claimed it was because I hadn’t used my blinker when I was turning. He let me off with a verbal warning, but I later found out that they were looking for a guy with a truck that was very similar to mine. However, had they seen that I had a bag of cocaine on my front seat they would have had every right to arrest me (they stopped me for a legal reason, found illegal substances in plain view, and did an arrest).
I believe that if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to be scared of. Gators123
I agree that this video was difficult to get into. I also agree that police officers don't wake up with the thought that they are going to get into a scuffle, but it has been happening a lot more recently thanks to the media. I think the media plays a big part in showing us what the police is doing everyday which the media only shows the bad things that happen. I also agree with your statement that if you have nothing to hide you shouldn't be scared which is true because an innocent person wouldn't fight an officer. Explorer123
It's true that police officers don't work for the intention of getting into a scuffle, but it's not acceptable to just pull anyone over because they think they have a probable cause. Although its true that if the victim has nothing to hide and there should be no problem at all. JSN012
I agree that not everything is always shown when it comes to interactions with the police and sometimes it can paint either party in a bad light. I also do not agree that officers of the law are "savages". They are people just like us that have a rather stressful job and until we are in their shoes we cannot really understand the decisions they make and why they are made. Acquainted123
I agree, I do believe if an officer has a legitimate probable cause to pull you over or to make a stop then they should. especially if it is for a legal reason. I also agree that if you have nothing to hide then you should not be worried about it. However, this doesn't mean that you should always give consent to a search considering the fact that they could find property that may not be illegal but could allow them to "profile what kind of person you are." Sparks123
we live in bias no not saying that all police are bad but come on we have those officers who do way to much in situations that are not necessary. we live in a world were people or different ethnicity are targeted and just because of there color or religion the amendments aren't being polish for no reason. more and more people are opening there eyes to the real issues.patient 123
This video talks a lot about the new search and seizure that went into affect in Pennsylvania. In Pennsylvania the police is allowed to search someones car if they have “probable cause.” The officer could say they smelt weed and search the persons car. I think this law in Pennsylvania is violating American Citizens 4th amendment and they shouldn't be able to search someone’s car just because of probable cause it should have to be in plain view in order for them to search. Also the video shows two clips where officers shot two people of color who weren't doing anything wrong. When I am buying something I like to check out what I am buying and that seems like thats what the gentlemen was doing in the video from Walmart and he was shot twice and died a few hours later. I agree with the video that we are “shooting first and asking questions later.” Yes I know you never know what someone will do but this doesn't give anyone the right to shoot someone more than once, they could have just shot them in the leg or somewhere to make them drop or stop moving but not numerous times. This video also hits on racial profiling which seems to be a huge issue in America where if you aren't white you get stopped because they assume you don't belong in the US or you are a terrorist and this didn't happen until after 9/11. It seems like we still have to suffer everyday from 9/11 even after if was years ago. Explorer123
Explorer, I agree with you by saying that there is racial profiling in America today. However, I don't think that every single time we need to bring race into the equation. Race isn't everything and I wish the media would learn that.
Also, when you mentioned the probable cause in Pennsylvania, I understand where you're coming from, however I disagree with you. I had an experience a few years back that was somewhat like this. In a neighbour's driveway, a man passed out (with his car still in drive) because he was high (I believe he said 3 different drugs he was on). The police came, had probable cause to arrest, however let him go. Two years later he was found guilty of giving two teenage girls drugs which resulted in their deaths. I believe that if an officer has reason to believe that you've got some kind of illegal substance on your person, they should be able to search you. Gators123
I agree that there are instances where the probable cause can be misused by police but if there are cases where they do smell marijuana then it would be easier to justifiably say that they have probable cause instead of wait for a warrant to search the car. With the gentleman in Walmart it can be easy to say it was a bad shooting since it was a pellet gun but with the recent mass shootings around the country and the lack of information about what type of gun I don’t think the police are going to instantly assume that it is a nonviolent situation. They could see it as a situation that needs to be neutralized as fast as possible to save lives. I am not promoting it was the right thing to do I’m saying that there are different factors with that shooting. Birdman123
Each and every day probable cause authority is truly misused and abused. Another thing in the video the camera was sort of unsteady. There are possibly many officers that turn their cameras off when they are engaging in activities that they should not be engaged in. Though there are still many good cops left out there. However, media and television will only give us the bad of it all. Forensic123
Explorer, I agree with some of your points, I also think that police officers need more training then they currently are able to get. I believe the more training police officers get that’s less they would have to resort to pulling out their guns. I would have to disagree with shooting a suspect that you think is armed in the leg, the reason I think this is because a leg is a small target to hit and if you miss then the cop would have to hope that bullet will not hit someone els in that area. GRUNT123
This video seems so odd. I had no idea that police in Pennsylvania had the right to stop a car without a search warrant. What shocks me even more is the fact that the victim is pulled over on a mere gut opinion. Like - “I think I smell cocaine. Let’s go check it out.” And it turns out the gut opinion was a false alarm. Although at that point it would be too late to say or do anything and make it seem like you’re actually sorry. This to me is not acceptable. If I were the victim I would be traumatized, especially if I were factoring in what the society would say or how my family would react to such a thing. Just imaging such a thing happening gives me the shiver. I think that police should not be given the right to pullover anyone and just search everything without a warrant. It’s as if our freedom is being taken away, with the law leaving us no choice but to listen to the police. JSN012
Parts of this video were a little hard to follow because of the constant bouncing around from topic to topic. However I was able to follow where they were going with their opinions. First off I feel as if though searching a car without a warrant and just going off of “probable cause” such as “I smelt marijuana” is a risky situation for not only the officer conducting the search, but for the owner of the property. If an officer searches a car because of an apparent smell of marijuana and perhaps doesn’t find any illegal drugs or narcotics but ends up finding that firearm that the owner of the vehicle genuinely did not know about then it could result in an even worse conviction. My second view on the being videotaped conflict is that sure, an officer may not have intentions of partaking in an illegal action but if something provokes it to happen it can look shady on the officer. Sometimes the videos that are taken can become misleading as well. I feel as if though a body camera should be put on an officer and the stipulations behind it being turned on all of the time need to be enforced. Sparks123
At times the video was difficult to keep up with but I think of how it was interesting to hear that Pennsylvania police went from needing a warrant to only needing probably cause to search a vehicle. Now it can be easy to abuse the probable cause, like they said some officers state they smell marijuana in the car and that gives them the probable cause they need to enter a vehicle. I think that filming an officer can be helpful at times and sometimes it just does not work right. On body cameras it can show what the officer sees but if the officer gets in an altercation with a suspect then usually all that the camera shows is black when they are in an altercation or falls off and all the evidence that you can get is how many gunshot or what was said. I think that the thought that body cameras will solve all these issues that the police are having won’t be really fixing too much. Birdman123
The video was very interesting and the video was hard to keep up with I think because of all the conflicting opinions. The issue with the camera's is that the officers can just turn them off. Filming a officer can be useful in some cases. Elite123
This video touches a lot on the fourth amendment and privacy as well. They talk about newer policy's such as putting video cameras on the officers to insure that they are kept in check. A problem with the camara's on officers is that they can turn them off and most the time they are recording maybe 40 percent of the time. The videos that they showed really gives you a perception of how police officers act when they think they are not being recorded such as the video we saw when the officer shot that guy when he was reaching for his wallet, when the officer asked to see his identification. For a officer to get probable cause to search it doesn't take much they could say they smelled drugs in the car and that would give them probable cause to search and they could find something else in the car. Elite123
I agree. Though if you are missing any piece to the puzzle the entire story can be misleading. It really is sickening when you get stories such as when the cop asked the man for his identification then the guy goes to reach for his wallet and the officer kills him. It is as if he was fishing for a reason to shoot. The movie ‘Crash’ takes an entire outreach level on community policing and what it means to serve and protect today. Though there are still officers that go around and give hat and glove sets to the homeless, or maybe buy them a meal and bring it to them when they know they’ll have down time, or even the woman who got caught stealing groceries and the officer paid for her food instead of arresting. Yet, there is so much bad brought into the forefront of it all, we seem to forget the good. Forensic123
I do think that the search and seizure laws that went into effect in Pennsylvania do to an extent violate a person’s right as a citizen. Just because you smell as if you have been using cannabis that gives me probable cause to search your vehicle and though I don’t find what I am intending to; if there is any illegal weapons or controlled substance inside the vehicle I am going to arrest and charge you for it. That is very absurd, because for one I could have just left from hanging around some friends who use cannabis though I do not and the lingering smell could just be hanging in my clothing. Outside from that when they search my car a friend whom I drove to court earlier today had a pocket knife in her purse and knew it was a violation to take it inside the courthouse. Hid the knife under my seat instead of the bushes around the courthouse. So not only am being being searched for probable cause for smelling like weed, yet I am being charged with riding around with a blade that I did not even know was in my vehicle. However, certain laws are to help the state make more money and get their tax dollars year around. Sadly, as we viewed in the clips and on television and on the internet each and every day how cops kill innocent African American and Hispanics who were not committing a crime or harming anyone. To be truthful I believe that there is an illegal and legal way to do any and everything. Many people today get into a certain profession just to abuse the power they know they will have and to kill off a certain race, creed, or religion of people for their own hateful beliefs they have buried within themselves or been brought up to believe. Forensic123
Based on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling in question, the defense attorney and district attorney viewed the impact in individual rights in a predictable fashion. The district attorney believes this will ease the limits on law enforcement (and make conviction easier?) while the defense attorney believes it restricts individual rights and makes it harder to defend a client. The actual effect of the ruling will take time and court cases to resolve. Interesting comment on the militarization of the police and the perception that officers in combat gear are not there to “protect and serve.” Given the amount of combat footage we have seen on TV in the last few years, it would be hard to not make comparisons with police backed up with armored personnel carriers, as seen in one of the clips. Some of the discussion revolved around trust in the judgement of the officers to conduct proper searches in accordance with the law. Shouldn’t we have special trust and confidence in those sworn to uphold the law? Humvee123
I think this video about search and seizure was a great video to watch, there are many things about search and seizure that I agree with. But I also do not agree with police officers pulling cars over for no reason at all and then making one up so they can search the car. I have seen many videos of police taking advantage of situations like that. But on the other hand if search and seizure is used correctly a lot of good can come from that for example, smelling drugs when the driver rolls down the window of the car. This video also talked some about police officers being video taped and the way I see it is that if the police officer knows his job he will not care about being video taped because the police officer will know that he is in the right and the person doing the video tapping will have nothing to hold against the police officer. GRUNT123
It's hard to find the line between using it for good and bad purposes. Even if an officer is racially profiling or doesn't like the person and searches based solely on that, but still finds something, is it bad? Ethically and morally yes. But he still found the crime. Obviously I don't agree with doing the example I just made but it is what ends up happening. Laws like this are a pain to debate about. Hard to really find what else to do. I do not believe in "fishing" for crime by just pulling random people over and searching. Buckeyes123
I personally have been in a situation where my friends and I were stopped for just sitting at a park at a reasonable time. As soon as the police officer started walking over to us my buddy pulled out his phone and began recording as soon as the officer saw this he yelled at him to stop and said it was against the law to record a police officer and if he did not stop he would have to take his phone. Even though a police officer was on camera he was still worried about what he was already doing by stopping some kids for doing literally nothing. Just goes to show that even though some officers are good under a camera it should be sought out that they will have to get used to this because this is a new era where cameras are every where and it only takes one video for an officers job to be gone.
I agree that maybe the search laws in Penn. State can be a bit far reaching. Allowing any officer that kind of discretion could be great and could be bad. Not every officer is an Eagle Scout that is purely looking for justice and getting bad people off the streets. Racial bias and other bad tendencies. But most officers will follow the law how it is actually intended. Waiting for warrants to search a trunk seems like a huge waste of time and manpower involved to get it in the first place. One of the men said that if a judge sees the same officer in the court he will slowly start to just automatically believe everything he says. I paraphrased but that was the main point. This can be seen as a bad thing but you have to ask yourself, has the officer ever did anything to disprove he is a bad egg? Militarization of police can seem scary but they are just using the tools that they are giving. We are far from a police state. This isn't a totalitarian regime banging on doors making sure you're not drinking a now banned brew of beer. I have no problem with police being equipped with anything thats better than the bad guys who shouldn't have anything to begin with. Buckeyes123
I agree with you completely. Why not use the tools we are given? Yes a cop in full military attire may frightening but that's the point. Officers have to be intimidating to dangerous criminals. Officers also need to have the upper hand at all times. Criminals can get there hands on some heavy artillery and police need to be able to over power them. gabegun123
4th amendment rights have been a problem for quite a long time. Being said all these different cases really do open up the question to whether or not you are really safe from law enforcement no matter where you are. Relating to car searches it seems that if a police officer wanted to search your car more than likely he will be searching it. It only takes an officer to say that it smells like weed in the car and boom he or she is in. With that being said even if they were to go to court to figure it out I bet that the court will rule in favor of the officer just because its his or her word versus yours. It makes the crimanl justice system seem one sided or unequal and it is up to the supreme court to fix this error in the system.
The laws put into effect in Penn. are pretty controversial and for good reason. Like with any profession there are people that aren't suited very well for it. There are officers out there with all kinds of bias and prejudice. Being able to have that much power over pulling someone over on a whim could be abused pretty easily. While we hope that police are doing everything in their power to keep us safe it is important to remember that there are bad apples in the bunch. I also disagree that police are too "geared" nowadays and that they are merely keeping up with technology. With the capabilities of weapons becoming more and more deadly there is a demand for equal power and a better defense against it. As for filming police officers I believe that it is a right we hold as citizens to monitor the ones protecting us and hold them to the code that they swore to. Acquainted123
the 4th amendment rights needed to be adjusted because we live in a world were not all people are good people. and we as people have rights but yet we still have these corrupted officers whom there word over any individual of course the officers is the most credible. the system is so one sided that's why you have more and more people who don't bother with the law. people of color are targets and they have been and will forever be no matter how good the media makes it look. that's why the 4th amendment is so controversial people are begin to see what people have been crying about for years and I don't believe there will be no sudden changes. these amendments were meant mess over colors. #patient123
This video had loads of great information. We've obviously been struggling as a country with how our 4th amendment right is being handled. I like how this video brought up the reoccurring problem of officers "taking action first and asking questions later." The clips showed how officers take action when action isn't needed. The 2nd clip though could be argued. The man leaps into his car to grab his license. The manner in which he did this did kind of seem threatening. With that being said though there should have been a different approach to the situation. The officer immediately shot the man, and proceeded to shoot a couple more rounds even after the mans hands were in the air. I think the threat was there but the officers actions were uncalled for. It was also interesting to hear about the new policy where officers are required to have a live camera on them during calls. When officers only use there cameras for 40% of there calls, this allows them to pick and choose what is being recorded. This helps out somewhat but it still has its flaws. I personally think all calls should be recorded. This would make officers act lawfully every time and also clear up any questions after wards. Privacy has become scarce in today's society. Its kind of scary to think about but with the technology we have today I don't understand how anyone could really be surprised. gabegun123
I’m not the only one that had trouble following this video do to the bouncy nature. Penn state rule that a officer can search based on “probable cause”. Now in a perfect world we could only hope that officers wouldn’t abuse this. Reality is, just like any job there are those that are going to stretch the rule and ride that fine line. The prosecutor stated that they feel that a officer would still have to prove later that there was a legit probable cause and if not the case would be dismissed. If I was a prosecutor this would frustrate me to no end. I as the prosecutor would be facing a battle of cases being dismissed on technicality when the officers could have done the right thing and not stretched the rule. I feel when stretching the rule is when doubt can come into play. Silverline123
This video was a little difficult to get into, but I was able to understand the general concept of what the men were discussing. I’ll begin by discussing my own views about the videotaping. I do not agree with Kevin Mincey when he said that he believes that police act erratically, almost like savages, to destroy any evidence that may get them into trouble. I’m a firm believer that police officers don’t wake up with the intent on getting into scuffles. We also don’t always know the entire story. People are known to leave out details in order to make the officers look bad. In the video shown, a police officer reaches out and takes the camera of a pedestrian (we’re assuming). Prior to this event, the man could have been interfering with what the police were doing, which would cause the officer to speak to him.
ReplyDeleteMy second point is the issue of search and seizure. Yes, police do have to have probable cause in order to pull you over. If they want you bad enough, they’ll wait for you to do any kind of violation. In my personal experience, the only time I’ve been pulled over (knock on wood) was just a few months back. The officer claimed it was because I hadn’t used my blinker when I was turning. He let me off with a verbal warning, but I later found out that they were looking for a guy with a truck that was very similar to mine. However, had they seen that I had a bag of cocaine on my front seat they would have had every right to arrest me (they stopped me for a legal reason, found illegal substances in plain view, and did an arrest).
I believe that if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to be scared of. Gators123
I agree that this video was difficult to get into. I also agree that police officers don't wake up with the thought that they are going to get into a scuffle, but it has been happening a lot more recently thanks to the media. I think the media plays a big part in showing us what the police is doing everyday which the media only shows the bad things that happen. I also agree with your statement that if you have nothing to hide you shouldn't be scared which is true because an innocent person wouldn't fight an officer.
DeleteExplorer123
It's true that police officers don't work for the intention of getting into a scuffle, but it's not acceptable to just pull anyone over because they think they have a probable cause. Although its true that if the victim has nothing to hide and there should be no problem at all. JSN012
DeleteI agree that not everything is always shown when it comes to interactions with the police and sometimes it can paint either party in a bad light. I also do not agree that officers of the law are "savages". They are people just like us that have a rather stressful job and until we are in their shoes we cannot really understand the decisions they make and why they are made. Acquainted123
DeleteI agree, I do believe if an officer has a legitimate probable cause to pull you over or to make a stop then they should. especially if it is for a legal reason. I also agree that if you have nothing to hide then you should not be worried about it. However, this doesn't mean that you should always give consent to a search considering the fact that they could find property that may not be illegal but could allow them to "profile what kind of person you are." Sparks123
Deletewe live in bias no not saying that all police are bad but come on we have those officers who do way to much in situations that are not necessary. we live in a world were people or different ethnicity are targeted and just because of there color or religion the amendments aren't being polish for no reason. more and more people are opening there eyes to the real issues.patient 123
DeleteThis video talks a lot about the new search and seizure that went into affect in Pennsylvania. In Pennsylvania the police is allowed to search someones car if they have “probable cause.” The officer could say they smelt weed and search the persons car. I think this law in Pennsylvania is violating American Citizens 4th amendment and they shouldn't be able to search someone’s car just because of probable cause it should have to be in plain view in order for them to search. Also the video shows two clips where officers shot two people of color who weren't doing anything wrong. When I am buying something I like to check out what I am buying and that seems like thats what the gentlemen was doing in the video from Walmart and he was shot twice and died a few hours later. I agree with the video that we are “shooting first and asking questions later.” Yes I know you never know what someone will do but this doesn't give anyone the right to shoot someone more than once, they could have just shot them in the leg or somewhere to make them drop or stop moving but not numerous times. This video also hits on racial profiling which seems to be a huge issue in America where if you aren't white you get stopped because they assume you don't belong in the US or you are a terrorist and this didn't happen until after 9/11. It seems like we still have to suffer everyday from 9/11 even after if was years ago.
ReplyDeleteExplorer123
Explorer, I agree with you by saying that there is racial profiling in America today. However, I don't think that every single time we need to bring race into the equation. Race isn't everything and I wish the media would learn that.
DeleteAlso, when you mentioned the probable cause in Pennsylvania, I understand where you're coming from, however I disagree with you. I had an experience a few years back that was somewhat like this. In a neighbour's driveway, a man passed out (with his car still in drive) because he was high (I believe he said 3 different drugs he was on). The police came, had probable cause to arrest, however let him go. Two years later he was found guilty of giving two teenage girls drugs which resulted in their deaths. I believe that if an officer has reason to believe that you've got some kind of illegal substance on your person, they should be able to search you. Gators123
I agree that there are instances where the probable cause can be misused by police but if there are cases where they do smell marijuana then it would be easier to justifiably say that they have probable cause instead of wait for a warrant to search the car. With the gentleman in Walmart it can be easy to say it was a bad shooting since it was a pellet gun but with the recent mass shootings around the country and the lack of information about what type of gun I don’t think the police are going to instantly assume that it is a nonviolent situation. They could see it as a situation that needs to be neutralized as fast as possible to save lives. I am not promoting it was the right thing to do I’m saying that there are different factors with that shooting. Birdman123
DeleteEach and every day probable cause authority is truly misused and abused. Another thing in the video the camera was sort of unsteady. There are possibly many officers that turn their cameras off when they are engaging in activities that they should not be engaged in. Though there are still many good cops left out there. However, media and television will only give us the bad of it all. Forensic123
DeleteExplorer, I agree with some of your points, I also think that police officers need more training then they currently are able to get. I believe the more training police officers get that’s less they would have to resort to pulling out their guns. I would have to disagree with shooting a suspect that you think is armed in the leg, the reason I think this is because a leg is a small target to hit and if you miss then the cop would have to hope that bullet will not hit someone els in that area.
DeleteGRUNT123
This video seems so odd. I had no idea that police in Pennsylvania had the right to stop a car without a search warrant. What shocks me even more is the fact that the victim is pulled over on a mere gut opinion. Like - “I think I smell cocaine. Let’s go check it out.” And it turns out the gut opinion was a false alarm. Although at that point it would be too late to say or do anything and make it seem like you’re actually sorry. This to me is not acceptable. If I were the victim I would be traumatized, especially if I were factoring in what the society would say or how my family would react to such a thing. Just imaging such a thing happening gives me the shiver. I think that police should not be given the right to pullover anyone and just search everything without a warrant. It’s as if our freedom is being taken away, with the law leaving us no choice but to listen to the police. JSN012
ReplyDeleteParts of this video were a little hard to follow because of the constant bouncing around from topic to topic. However I was able to follow where they were going with their opinions. First off I feel as if though searching a car without a warrant and just going off of “probable cause” such as “I smelt marijuana” is a risky situation for not only the officer conducting the search, but for the owner of the property. If an officer searches a car because of an apparent smell of marijuana and perhaps doesn’t find any illegal drugs or narcotics but ends up finding that firearm that the owner of the vehicle genuinely did not know about then it could result in an even worse conviction. My second view on the being videotaped conflict is that sure, an officer may not have intentions of partaking in an illegal action but if something provokes it to happen it can look shady on the officer. Sometimes the videos that are taken can become misleading as well. I feel as if though a body camera should be put on an officer and the stipulations behind it being turned on all of the time need to be enforced. Sparks123
ReplyDeleteAt times the video was difficult to keep up with but I think of how it was interesting to hear that Pennsylvania police went from needing a warrant to only needing probably cause to search a vehicle. Now it can be easy to abuse the probable cause, like they said some officers state they smell marijuana in the car and that gives them the probable cause they need to enter a vehicle. I think that filming an officer can be helpful at times and sometimes it just does not work right. On body cameras it can show what the officer sees but if the officer gets in an altercation with a suspect then usually all that the camera shows is black when they are in an altercation or falls off and all the evidence that you can get is how many gunshot or what was said. I think that the thought that body cameras will solve all these issues that the police are having won’t be really fixing too much. Birdman123
ReplyDeleteThe video was very interesting and the video was hard to keep up with I think because of all the conflicting opinions. The issue with the camera's is that the officers can just turn them off. Filming a officer can be useful in some cases. Elite123
DeleteThis video touches a lot on the fourth amendment and privacy as well. They talk about newer policy's such as putting video cameras on the officers to insure that they are kept in check. A problem with the camara's on officers is that they can turn them off and most the time they are recording maybe 40 percent of the time. The videos that they showed really gives you a perception of how police officers act when they think they are not being recorded such as the video we saw when the officer shot that guy when he was reaching for his wallet, when the officer asked to see his identification. For a officer to get probable cause to search it doesn't take much they could say they smelled drugs in the car and that would give them probable cause to search and they could find something else in the car. Elite123
ReplyDeleteI agree. Though if you are missing any piece to the puzzle the entire story can be misleading. It really is sickening when you get stories such as when the cop asked the man for his identification then the guy goes to reach for his wallet and the officer kills him. It is as if he was fishing for a reason to shoot. The movie ‘Crash’ takes an entire outreach level on community policing and what it means to serve and protect today. Though there are still officers that go around and give hat and glove sets to the homeless, or maybe buy them a meal and bring it to them when they know they’ll have down time, or even the woman who got caught stealing groceries and the officer paid for her food instead of arresting. Yet, there is so much bad brought into the forefront of it all, we seem to forget the good. Forensic123
DeleteI do think that the search and seizure laws that went into effect in Pennsylvania do to an extent violate a person’s right as a citizen. Just because you smell as if you have been using cannabis that gives me probable cause to search your vehicle and though I don’t find what I am intending to; if there is any illegal weapons or controlled substance inside the vehicle I am going to arrest and charge you for it. That is very absurd, because for one I could have just left from hanging around some friends who use cannabis though I do not and the lingering smell could just be hanging in my clothing. Outside from that when they search my car a friend whom I drove to court earlier today had a pocket knife in her purse and knew it was a violation to take it inside the courthouse. Hid the knife under my seat instead of the bushes around the courthouse. So not only am being being searched for probable cause for smelling like weed, yet I am being charged with riding around with a blade that I did not even know was in my vehicle. However, certain laws are to help the state make more money and get their tax dollars year around. Sadly, as we viewed in the clips and on television and on the internet each and every day how cops kill innocent African American and Hispanics who were not committing a crime or harming anyone. To be truthful I believe that there is an illegal and legal way to do any and everything. Many people today get into a certain profession just to abuse the power they know they will have and to kill off a certain race, creed, or religion of people for their own hateful beliefs they have buried within themselves or been brought up to believe. Forensic123
ReplyDeleteBased on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling in question, the defense attorney and district attorney viewed the impact in individual rights in a predictable fashion. The district attorney believes this will ease the limits on law enforcement (and make conviction easier?) while the defense attorney believes it restricts individual rights and makes it harder to defend a client. The actual effect of the ruling will take time and court cases to resolve. Interesting comment on the militarization of the police and the perception that officers in combat gear are not there to “protect and serve.” Given the amount of combat footage we have seen on TV in the last few years, it would be hard to not make comparisons with police backed up with armored personnel carriers, as seen in one of the clips. Some of the discussion revolved around trust in the judgement of the officers to conduct proper searches in accordance with the law. Shouldn’t we have special trust and confidence in those sworn to uphold the law? Humvee123
ReplyDeleteI think this video about search and seizure was a great video to watch, there are many things about search and seizure that I agree with. But I also do not agree with police officers pulling cars over for no reason at all and then making one up so they can search the car. I have seen many videos of police taking advantage of situations like that. But on the other hand if search and seizure is used correctly a lot of good can come from that for example, smelling drugs when the driver rolls down the window of the car. This video also talked some about police officers being video taped and the way I see it is that if the police officer knows his job he will not care about being video taped because the police officer will know that he is in the right and the person doing the video tapping will have nothing to hold against the police officer.
ReplyDeleteGRUNT123
It's hard to find the line between using it for good and bad purposes. Even if an officer is racially profiling or doesn't like the person and searches based solely on that, but still finds something, is it bad? Ethically and morally yes. But he still found the crime. Obviously I don't agree with doing the example I just made but it is what ends up happening. Laws like this are a pain to debate about. Hard to really find what else to do. I do not believe in "fishing" for crime by just pulling random people over and searching.
DeleteBuckeyes123
I personally have been in a situation where my friends and I were stopped for just sitting at a park at a reasonable time. As soon as the police officer started walking over to us my buddy pulled out his phone and began recording as soon as the officer saw this he yelled at him to stop and said it was against the law to record a police officer and if he did not stop he would have to take his phone. Even though a police officer was on camera he was still worried about what he was already doing by stopping some kids for doing literally nothing. Just goes to show that even though some officers are good under a camera it should be sought out that they will have to get used to this because this is a new era where cameras are every where and it only takes one video for an officers job to be gone.
Deletewutang123
I agree that maybe the search laws in Penn. State can be a bit far reaching. Allowing any officer that kind of discretion could be great and could be bad. Not every officer is an Eagle Scout that is purely looking for justice and getting bad people off the streets. Racial bias and other bad tendencies. But most officers will follow the law how it is actually intended. Waiting for warrants to search a trunk seems like a huge waste of time and manpower involved to get it in the first place. One of the men said that if a judge sees the same officer in the court he will slowly start to just automatically believe everything he says. I paraphrased but that was the main point. This can be seen as a bad thing but you have to ask yourself, has the officer ever did anything to disprove he is a bad egg? Militarization of police can seem scary but they are just using the tools that they are giving. We are far from a police state. This isn't a totalitarian regime banging on doors making sure you're not drinking a now banned brew of beer. I have no problem with police being equipped with anything thats better than the bad guys who shouldn't have anything to begin with.
ReplyDeleteBuckeyes123
I agree with you completely. Why not use the tools we are given? Yes a cop in full military attire may frightening but that's the point. Officers have to be intimidating to dangerous criminals. Officers also need to have the upper hand at all times. Criminals can get there hands on some heavy artillery and police need to be able to over power them. gabegun123
Delete4th amendment rights have been a problem for quite a long time. Being said all these different cases really do open up the question to whether or not you are really safe from law enforcement no matter where you are. Relating to car searches it seems that if a police officer wanted to search your car more than likely he will be searching it. It only takes an officer to say that it smells like weed in the car and boom he or she is in. With that being said even if they were to go to court to figure it out I bet that the court will rule in favor of the officer just because its his or her word versus yours. It makes the crimanl justice system seem one sided or unequal and it is up to the supreme court to fix this error in the system.
ReplyDeletewutang123
The laws put into effect in Penn. are pretty controversial and for good reason. Like with any profession there are people that aren't suited very well for it. There are officers out there with all kinds of bias and prejudice. Being able to have that much power over pulling someone over on a whim could be abused pretty easily. While we hope that police are doing everything in their power to keep us safe it is important to remember that there are bad apples in the bunch. I also disagree that police are too "geared" nowadays and that they are merely keeping up with technology. With the capabilities of weapons becoming more and more deadly there is a demand for equal power and a better defense against it. As for filming police officers I believe that it is a right we hold as citizens to monitor the ones protecting us and hold them to the code that they swore to. Acquainted123
ReplyDeletethe 4th amendment rights needed to be adjusted because we live in a world were not all people are good people. and we as people have rights but yet we still have these corrupted officers whom there word over any individual of course the officers is the most credible. the system is so one sided that's why you have more and more people who don't bother with the law. people of color are targets and they have been and will forever be no matter how good the media makes it look. that's why the 4th amendment is so controversial people are begin to see what people have been crying about for years and I don't believe there will be no sudden changes. these amendments were meant mess over colors. #patient123
ReplyDeleteThis video had loads of great information. We've obviously been struggling as a country with how our 4th amendment right is being handled. I like how this video brought up the reoccurring problem of officers "taking action first and asking questions later." The clips showed how officers take action when action isn't needed. The 2nd clip though could be argued. The man leaps into his car to grab his license. The manner in which he did this did kind of seem threatening. With that being said though there should have been a different approach to the situation. The officer immediately shot the man, and proceeded to shoot a couple more rounds even after the mans hands were in the air. I think the threat was there but the officers actions were uncalled for. It was also interesting to hear about the new policy where officers are required to have a live camera on them during calls. When officers only use there cameras for 40% of there calls, this allows them to pick and choose what is being recorded. This helps out somewhat but it still has its flaws. I personally think all calls should be recorded. This would make officers act lawfully every time and also clear up any questions after wards. Privacy has become scarce in today's society. Its kind of scary to think about but with the technology we have today I don't understand how anyone could really be surprised. gabegun123
ReplyDeleteI’m not the only one that had trouble following this video do to the bouncy nature. Penn state rule that a officer can search based on “probable cause”. Now in a perfect world we could only hope that officers wouldn’t abuse this. Reality is, just like any job there are those that are going to stretch the rule and ride that fine line. The prosecutor stated that they feel that a officer would still have to prove later that there was a legit probable cause and if not the case would be dismissed. If I was a prosecutor this would frustrate me to no end. I as the prosecutor would be facing a battle of cases being dismissed on technicality when the officers could have done the right thing and not stretched the rule. I feel when stretching the rule is when doubt can come into play. Silverline123
ReplyDelete