Cohiba Nightmare!

Get a little more experience in the way the world works, and appreciate the fact that people sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough menand women stand ready to do violence on your behalf.
Click to expand...

While I respect the difficult job many men and women in law enforcement do, the reason I sleep peaceably in my bed at night is because I (a fairly soft man, actually) stand ready to do violence on my own behalf, and on behalf of those I love.

It would be a grave mistake to assume that anyone but me will be there to stand up should the need ever arise.

And I still don't understand how General has been able to pull off its Cohiba scam for as long as it has. :D
 
Rodrigo de Jerez said:
Oh, I really appreciate being called naive and ignorant. Being insulted is why I get up every morning.
-Mark
Click to expand...

Seriously - I truly don't see that it was an insult. It really wasn't meant as such. You did, after all, offer that up.

However - I don't believe you are totally naive and ignorant - after all you did correctly identify the fourth amendment as the source of "probable cause". But I do think you are naive and ignorant about what value "probable cause" and "search and seizure" mean on the practical side.

I'm thinking that if you were to have a sit down with myself and Jonathan (and, as a matter of fact, quite a few others on this board in similar circumstances) you would be much more enlightened (i.e. less naive and ignorant). And hopefully more respectful of what GOOD law enforcement represents and how it functions.

Cheers!
 
I am not quite sure how you ascertained that I somehow have a lack of respect for law enforcement and I am sorry that it was taken that way. I took issue with the tone of a post and what it communicated to me; perhaps, and I would never presume to speak for anybody, the like may have happened on the other side. Rather than continuing on under a topic that, at the end of the day, is about a perfectly good smoke wasted, I think we should just move on. Lets get to the business of cigars and one day we might have the chance to talk over a nice smoke. Take care.

-Mark
 
You guys keep on doing the dirty job ;)

... and you can look in my car any time you want, I've nothing to hide.
But you're NOT entering my house without the warrant. (nothing to hide there, either, so there's nothing to see anyway)!
 
ggiese said:
I'm thinking that if you were to have a sit down with myself and Jonathan (and, as a matter of fact, quite a few others on this board in similar circumstances) you would be much more enlightened (i.e. less naive and ignorant). And hopefully more respectful of what GOOD law enforcement represents and how it functions.

Cheers!
Click to expand...


X 2. Geez George, you just seem to have a way with words!! It's that old, experienced, Salty Dog helping the Boot along from stickin' his Kiwi-polished foot in his mouth!! :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
 
Interesting thread. For those concerned with the constitutionality of the actions portrayed or of those proposed, neither approval nor a search warrant was prerequisite to search the car as the scenario was portrayed. It does not appear that any 4th Amendment rights were aggrieved (or proposed of same). For those unfamiliar with "plain view doctrine" and "exigent circumstance exceptions(s)", they may be worthwhile research and reading material.

Also, when making anyone's job harder by choice than it could be, they are likely to be less inclined to exercise discretion in said person's favor.
 
badhangover said:
Interesting thread. For those concerned with the constitutionality of the actions portrayed or of those proposed, neither approval nor a search warrant was prerequisite to search the car as the scenario was portrayed. It does not appear that any 4th Amendment rights were aggrieved (or proposed of same). For those unfamiliar with "plain view doctrine" and "exigent circumstance exceptions(s)", they may be worthwhile research and reading material.

Also, when making anyone's job harder by choice than it could be, they are likely to be less inclined to exercise discretion in said person's favor.
Click to expand...


What he said... :laugh:
 
ggiese said:
(snip)
Seriously - I truly don't see that it was an insult. It really wasn't meant as such. You did, after all, offer that up.

However - I don't believe you are totally naive and ignorant - after all you did correctly identify the fourth amendment as the source of "probable cause". But I do think you are naive and ignorant about what value "probable cause" and "search and seizure" mean on the practical side.

I'm thinking that if you were to have a sit down with myself and Jonathan (and, as a matter of fact, quite a few others on this board in similar circumstances) you would be much more enlightened (i.e. less naive and ignorant). And hopefully more respectful of what GOOD law enforcement represents and how it functions.

Cheers!
Click to expand...
And there is the rub. I have met some wonderful "good" police officers in my day. Sadly, I have met some bad apples along the way too.
 
StinkiMonki said:
ggiese said:
(snip)
Seriously - I truly don't see that it was an insult. It really wasn't meant as such. You did, after all, offer that up.

However - I don't believe you are totally naive and ignorant - after all you did correctly identify the fourth amendment as the source of "probable cause". But I do think you are naive and ignorant about what value "probable cause" and "search and seizure" mean on the practical side.

I'm thinking that if you were to have a sit down with myself and Jonathan (and, as a matter of fact, quite a few others on this board in similar circumstances) you would be much more enlightened (i.e. less naive and ignorant). And hopefully more respectful of what GOOD law enforcement represents and how it functions.

Cheers!
Click to expand...
And there is the rub. I have met some wonderful "good" police officers in my day. Sadly, I have met some bad apples along the way too.
Click to expand...

You really need to hear my 5% theory then...

When I was first a police officer, I used to deal with crap almost continuously. I seriously thought our world was truly messed up. I began to believe that the world contained 95% assholes - the only good people I knew were the fellow officers I worked with and my family and close friends - which worked out to about 5%.

But as my career progressed, and I had more and more interaction with people - I realized that the world actually contained 5% assholes, with 95% being good people. I've sat in auditoriums full of people and counted them, I've looked at student populations in a high school - and their parents, traffic stops I've made, domestics I've been to, church groups, the greatest hot spots and bars, sports venues - it always works out to be pretty doggone close to five out of a hundred.

5% of doctor's are, 5% of teachers are, 5% of Christians are, 5% of Muslims are, 5% of Athiests are, 5% of lawyers are... okay, well maybe a few more than 5%, but I'm willing to give them the benefit here to preserve my argument... And of course - last but not least - from the inside looking inside - I'll admit it - five out of one hundred cops I know are assholes.

I challenge you to look around. Seriously - you can't escape it - it is true - 5% of the world are total assholes. :cool:


...oh, and BTW - I'm not one of the 5% - I'm a "dick", but that's a whole different theory... :sign:
 
This is a variation of the "Bell Curve" theory, and I find it to be generally true. Police officers, being humans and fallible themselves, certainly fall within all the ranges of the curve as well.

Younger officers are often placed in assignments of high degrees of public contact. Contact that is most often in less than savory situations. Contact of both good and bad people at their worst. That, and often encountering resistance of spirit when encountering even the best of people. Many people are wont to display their displeasure at even so much as a simple traffic stop. Americans just do not like their "rights" infringed upon, even when done so legally. Young officers also are often surprised at the "Monday morning quarterbacking" and lawsuits stemming from their actions, and often retrench into the comfortable confines of their cohorts. It often takes years of experience for them to fully grasp the goodness in all people and embrace the public with goodness more so than the public is often embracing of them. Yes, many people are appreciative of police efforts, but many still do not enjoy being told what to do and when to do it - and often let that be known in no uncertain fashion.
 
That's a great theory G.

I'll have a hard time being in a crowd and not find myself counting now.



So, if 95% of new officers, believe that 95% (basically ALL non law enforcement people) are assholes, and spend 95% of their time in contact with the public. Where does that leave us? :D
 
ggiese said:
5% of doctor's are, 5% of teachers are, 5% of Christians are, 5% of Muslims are, 5% of Athiests are, 5% of lawyers are... okay, well maybe a few more than 5%, but I'm willing to give them the benefit here to preserve my argument... And of course - last but not least - from the inside looking inside - I'll admit it - five out of one hundred cops I know are assholes.
Click to expand...

Hey, wait a minute...you need to retract this one because 95% of lawyers would easily say that more than 5% of our number are a$$es. The fact of the matter is that we lawyers just simply have to be aggressive since ours is an adversarial profession. We fight for a living. Sometimes if you have a bad case then you fight louder in order to make some kind of point...thus you must be an a$$ or risk failing to zealously advocate for your client. (Lawyers can be sued for failing to protect every aspect of a client's case).

That being said, the 's' letters were replaced with '$' because of the number one reason that lawyers are considered to be a$$es.

I take no side on the consensual search of the vehicle other than to say that if the case were brought to me for defense, I would cringe at the fact that my client's gave consent when they did not have to do so. On the other hand, it is good police work if you ask for the search and consent is given!
 
In actuality, by "Bell Curve" theory, 5% of people are at each end of the "saints" and "sinners" spectrum, with the remaining 90% being generally good people who can sometimes falter in their goodness. Officers are mostly called upon and seek out the 5% of sinners - and also the the 90% of the generally good only when they are being at their bad. Unfortunately, officers rarely have the need or the time to interact with the 5% "saints". When one is deluged with bad people, and mostly encounter good people only when they are being bad (drunk and angry, for example), they are susceptible to having a poorly skewed image of the public. It takes years of experience to soften that view and realize and appreciate the goodness prevalent in society.
 
punk_lawyer said:
I take no side on the consensual search of the vehicle other than to say that if the case were brought to me for defense, I would cringe at the fact that my client's gave consent when they did not have to do so. On the other hand, it is good police work if you ask for the search and consent is given!
Click to expand...
If this were a murder rap, or other serious charge, I would fully agree with you. It would be folly to hang one's own self by self admittance or dispensing of one's own legal rights. However, in matters of minor concern wherein officer discretion can be exercised, I think it is best to be upfront and affable with an officer. Not everyone who speeds receives a citation for such, for example.
 
punk_lawyer said:
ggiese said:
5% of doctor's are, 5% of teachers are, 5% of Christians are, 5% of Muslims are, 5% of Athiests are, 5% of lawyers are... okay, well maybe a few more than 5%, but I'm willing to give them the benefit here to preserve my argument... And of course - last but not least - from the inside looking inside - I'll admit it - five out of one hundred cops I know are assholes.
Click to expand...

Hey, wait a minute...you need to retract this one because 95% of lawyers would easily say that more than 5% of our number are a$es. The fact of the matter is that we lawyers just simply have to be aggressive since ours is an adversarial profession. We fight for a living. Sometimes if you have a bad case then you fight louder in order to make some kind of point...thus you must be an a$ or risk failing to zealously advocate for your client. (Lawyers can be sued for failing to protect every aspect of a client's case).

That being said, the 's' letters were replaced with ' because of the number one reason that lawyers are considered to be a$es.

I take no side on the consensual search of the vehicle other than to say that if the case were brought to me for defense, I would cringe at the fact that my client's gave consent when they did not have to do so. On the other hand, it is good police work if you ask for the search and consent is given!
Click to expand...

...actually, I publically have an adversarial relationship with attorney's (for the reasons you state), but personally know that the true asshole population is only 5% like the general population. I just like to play up the adversarial relationship and continuing the stereotype (my best friend is an attorney - he and I both know, it benefits us both)... :D

Under all circumstances, though - attorney's are in an advantageous ($$$) position. If you're guilty - you need an attorney. If you're "not guilty" - you need an attorney. And - if you're innocent - you need an attorney...

That's why - during my entire career - I was always upset with the legal community - despite sending them hundreds of paying clients - I never received so much as a Christmas or Birthday card... :sign:
 
ggiese said:
punk_lawyer said:
ggiese said:
5% of doctor's are, 5% of teachers are, 5% of Christians are, 5% of Muslims are, 5% of Athiests are, 5% of lawyers are... okay, well maybe a few more than 5%, but I'm willing to give them the benefit here to preserve my argument... And of course - last but not least - from the inside looking inside - I'll admit it - five out of one hundred cops I know are assholes.
Click to expand...

Hey, wait a minute...you need to retract this one because 95% of lawyers would easily say that more than 5% of our number are a$es. The fact of the matter is that we lawyers just simply have to be aggressive since ours is an adversarial profession. We fight for a living. Sometimes if you have a bad case then you fight louder in order to make some kind of point...thus you must be an a$ or risk failing to zealously advocate for your client. (Lawyers can be sued for failing to protect every aspect of a client's case).

That being said, the 's' letters were replaced with ' because of the number one reason that lawyers are considered to be a$es.

I take no side on the consensual search of the vehicle other than to say that if the case were brought to me for defense, I would cringe at the fact that my client's gave consent when they did not have to do so. On the other hand, it is good police work if you ask for the search and consent is given!
Click to expand...

...actually, I publically have an adversarial relationship with attorney's (for the reasons you state), but personally know that the true asshole population is only 5% like the general population. I just like to play up the adversarial relationship and continuing the stereotype (my best friend is an attorney - he and I both know, it benefits us both)... :D

Under all circumstances, though - attorney's are in an advantageous ($$$) position. If you're guilty - you need an attorney. If you're "not guilty" - you need an attorney. And - if you're innocent - you need an attorney...

That's why - during my entire career - I was always upset with the legal community - despite sending them hundreds of paying clients - I never received so much as a Christmas or Birthday card... :sign:
Click to expand...
PM me your addy brother. I'll take care of that little problem immediately.

Geoff
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top