Your Rights When Dealing With a Cop in One Infographic

[Silver Rocket Bitches!]

http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/know-your-rights.png

[Twisted Titan]

Good stuff to remember.....

[Hitch]

Good stuff to remember.....

Indeed, most people simply do not understand anything regards to their 4th amendment rights. This infographic is excellent and helpful, and I'd recommend to anyone to not just glance it over, but study it and truly understand it.

The most important thing to know, when dealing with cops, is whether your contact with them is consensual or a detention. Also, if a cop pulls you over while driving, you are being detained.

[palani]

it would be in vain to claim the keeping a thing which was lawful to be kept without any claim

[Hatha Sunahara]

it would be in vain to claim the keeping a thing which was lawful to be kept without any claim

Assert your rights if you want to keep them? Or did I miss the mark?



Hatha

[EE_]

Police have no responsibility to protect individuals (reference)
Public Rights ^ | 2005 | compiled by Neal Seaman

Posted on 02/26/2008 3:14:25 AM PST by NewJerseyJoe


Police have no legal duty to respond and prevent crime or protect the victim. There have BEEN OVER 10 various supreme and state court cases the individual has never won. Notably, the Supreme Court STATED about the responsibility of police for the security of your family and loved ones is "You, and only you, are responsible for your security and the security of your family and loved ones. That was the essence of a U.S. Supreme Court decision in the early 1980's when they ruled that the police do not have a duty to protect you as an individual, but to protect society as a whole."

"It is well-settled fact of American law that the police have no legal duty to protect any individual citizen from crime, even if the citizen has received death threats and the police have negligently failed to provide protection."

Sources:

7/15/05 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. 04-278 TOWN OF CASTLE ROCK, COLORADO, PETITIONER v. JESSICA GONZALES, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS NEXT BEST FRIEND OF HER DECEASED MINOR CHILDREN, REBECCA GONZALES, KATHERYN GONZALES, AND LESLIE GONZALES
On June 27, in the case of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, the Supreme Court found that Jessica Gonzales did not have a constitutional right to individual police protection even in the presence of a restraining order. Mrs. Gonzales' husband with a track record of violence, stabbing Mrs. Gonzales to death, Mrs. Gonzales' family could not get the Supreme Court to change their unanimous decision for one's individual protection. YOU ARE ON YOUR OWN FOLKS AND GOVERNMENT BODIES ARE REFUSING TO PASS THE Safety Ordinance.

(1) Richard W. Stevens. 1999. Dial 911 and Die. Hartford, Wisconsin: Mazel Freedom Press.
(2) Barillari v. City of Milwaukee, 533 N.W.2d 759 (Wis. 1995).
(3) Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1982).
(4) DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, 489 U.S. 189 (1989).
(5) Ford v. Town of Grafton, 693 N.E.2d 1047 (Mass. App. 1998).
(6) Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. 1981).
"...a government and its agencies are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen..." -Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App. 1981)

(7) "What makes the City's position particularly difficult to understand is that, in conformity to the dictates of the law, Linda did not carry any weapon for self-defense. Thus by a rather bitter irony she was required to rely for protection on the City of NY which now denies all responsibility to her."
Riss v. New York, 22 N.Y.2d 579,293 N.Y.S.2d 897, 240 N.E.2d 806 (1958).

(8) "Law enforcement agencies and personnel have no duty to protect individuals from the criminal acts of others; instead their duty is to preserve the peace and arrest law breakers for the protection of the general public."
Lynch v. N.C. Dept. of Justice, 376 S.E. 2nd 247 (N.C. App. 1989)

New York Times, Washington DC
Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone By LINDA GREENHOUSE Published: June 28, 2005
The ruling applies even for a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1976377/posts

[Hitch]

EE, that is a good thing. Collectively, we don't want cops to be responsible for our own security, or bound by "duty". Whenever cops are blamed we lose more rights.

[EE_]

EE, that is a good thing. Collectively, we don't want cops to be responsible for our own security, or bound by "duty". Whenever cops are blamed we lose more rights.

Yes it is, and everyone should know that.
Some people call cops thinking they will save them, when they should be calling them to clean up the mess and/or write the report for the insurance company.

[Hypertiger]

Or you can avoid breaking the rules of the game you all are playing...It is the best way to avoid entanglement with angels of death.

rights are cherished delusions those ignorant of Truth believe they have...Until that delusion is shattered.

Like you all here...you think you deserve something from me...the only thing you deserve is what you need...not what you want.

GOD is Truth and Truth is GOD

LAW is Truth and Truth is LAW

Allow me to take more power than I give and I care not who makes or break the rules of the game you all are playing.

Because eventually I will concentrate the power from the hands of the many into the hands of the few or one.

Then they who have the power will make and break the rules of the game you all are playing.

People have no power to make or break LAW

All that people have the power to do is make and break rules can call rules LAW.

But if a rule attempts to break LAW

LAW (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinity) will break the rule (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finite).

In this domain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MUD) of course I'm ruled by domain masters (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dungeon_Master)...Out in the real world...I'm ruled by Truth (LAW)...You all are ruled by the lies (rules) you "believe" are Truth (LAW).

The police are just poor unfortunate souls that want to sustain their existence for as long as possible and were deceived into the position they find themselves in...like everyone else.

I just do not tolerate game players...I'm ground zero...you better have massive amounts of power when you are around me...or you will find what ever game you are playing with me was over long before you became aware of it.

Jesus = Troll


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBzuNIQ6-sM

Pilate = Domain master.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WEzEROSj11Q

I'm not Jesus of course...I'm Michael (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quis_ut_Deus%3F).

Read and weep (https://www.google.ca/search?q=policeman's+prayer+michael&hl=en&qscrl=1&rlz=1T4GGNI_enCA533CA533&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=x_fGUpeaEsLEoATz04DgCg&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAQ&biw=1519&bih=748)

If you do not walk up to me and blow my head off...It's game over...checkmate.

Actors get paid millions of Dollars to pretend to do what I do nanosecond to nanosecond for free...

The "belief" that Jews or anyone or anything else has control over me other than Truth (LAW) which I know does have absolute power over my destiny...Is why the word ludicrous was invented...To describe such a "belief".

I'm not an entertainer.

Especially on the world wide web of lies ruled by the horror of babble on.

[Hitch]

Yes it is, and everyone should know that.
Some people call cops thinking they will save them, when they should be calling them to clean up the mess and/or write the report for the insurance company.

It's a combination of people willing to give up freedoms to feel "safe", and people not accepting responsibility for what happens to them. I think about the legality of enforcing a local police policy that went into effect after a man murdered his wife. Basically, what happened was the cops showed up to domestic dispute call. Both man and wife told the cop everything was fine. Cop leaves, minutes later the man kills the wife. The cops get called back to a murder scene.

Now the cops got blamed on that one. The city was sued, etc. The dept basically shouldered the blame, and decided we can't let THAT happen again. They should have prevented this murder, was the basic premise of it all. So, the policy was after that if a cop gets called out to a domestic dispute. Regardless of how peaceful the situation may be, either the man or woman must leave the house before the cops can close the call. So, the cops now can enforce making one person leave the home.

[iOWNme]

So if i want to know what Rights i have when dealing with a 'Police Officer', i am supposed to look to the scribbles of 'Attorners' and 'Politicians' to figure it out?

What about my own conscience? What about my own Free Will? What about my own morals and values set? I guess i am supposed to throw them away and let the 'Government' decide what Rights i should have.

I didnt see anything in the infographic that tells me to be a human when dealing with 'Police', i am merely supposed to be a mindless robot who looks to OTHER PEOPLE to tell him what is Right and what is Wrong.

All of the scribbles from the US CON got us where we are today. Adding more scribbles, reading more scribbles, memorizing more scribbles or re-writing some more scribbles is NEVER going to free individuals from the mental chains they wear.

GACK.

[Hitch]

So if i want to know what Rights i have when dealing with a 'Police Officer', i am supposed to look to the scribbles of 'Attorners' and 'Politicians' to figure it out?

No, it's all about the Constitution, as written, that needs to be upheld. The 4th amendment in particular. That's what this thread is about. Understanding the 4th amendment.

[iOWNme]

No, it's all about the Constitution, as written, that needs to be upheld. The 4th amendment in particular. That's what this thread is about. Understanding the 4th amendment.

Really? The 4th Amendment is going to protect you? Unless you have a giant copy of the 4th Amendment that you can use to beat your attacker (Police), the 4th Amendment IS NOT GOING TO DO A GOD DAMN THING TO SAVE YOU.

The US CON PRETENDED to give to something called 'Congress' the power to steal (sometimes called taxation). It also says the 'Government' can kidnap you (sometimes called conscription), can take your property via eminent domain (sometimes called the PLUNDER of Private Property). Shall i go on? And you claim this is some sort of amazing document? Come on man! Try and actually THINK once in a while.

You have the UNALIENABLE RIGHT to live in peace with your personal privacy REGARDLESS of any scribbles on parchment. Do you know why? BECAUSE YOU OWN YOURSELF. But apparently thats not enough for the STATISTS of GSUS, most GSUS'ers STILL need to look to the scribbles of 'Lawyers' and 'Politicians' in order to figure out Right from Wrong.

How about instead of wasting precious time and energy trying to 'understand' the scribbles of insane lobotomized monkeys (sometimes called 'Politicians'), you spend some time understanding REALITY as it exists right now: YOU OWN YOURSELF. Good idea?

Right and Wrong existed BEFORE 'GOVERNMENT' was even thought up. And scribbling words on paper DOES NOT ALTER THIS FACT.

[Hitch]

Really? The 4th Amendment is going to protect you? Unless you have a giant copy of the 4th Amendment that you can use to beat your attacker (Police), the 4th Amendment IS NOT GOING TO DO A GOD DAMN THING TO SAVE YOU.

The US CON PRETENDED to give to something called 'Congress' the power to steal (sometimes called taxation). It also says the 'Government' can kidnap you (sometimes called conscription), can take your property via eminent domain (sometimes called the PLUNDER of Private Property). Shall i go on? And you claim this is some sort of amazing document? Come on man! Try and actually THINK once in a while.

You have the UNALIENABLE RIGHT to live in peace with your personal privacy REGARDLESS of any scribbles on parchment. Do you know why? BECAUSE YOU OWN YOURSELF. But apparently thats not enough for the STATISTS of GSUS, most GSUS'ers STILL need to look to the scribbles of 'Lawyers' and 'Politicians' in order to figure out Right from Wrong.

How about instead of wasting precious time and energy trying to 'understand' the scribbles of insane lobotomized monkeys (sometimes called 'Politicians'), you spend some time understanding REALITY as it exists right now: YOU OWN YOURSELF. Good idea?

Right and Wrong existed BEFORE 'GOVERNMENT' was even thought up. And scribbling words on paper DOES NOT ALTER THIS FACT.

Sui, what you are discussing is laws, unjust laws. The 4th amendment was created to protect us from those very unjust laws we both agree take our fundamental rights away. It's not 'scribbling words'. In my opinion, coupled with the 2nd amendment, the most important part of our constitution. The problem is people willing give it up, hand it over to the lobotomized monkeys in order to feel safe and snug at home. The patriot act, in particular.

[palani]

Assert your rights if you want to keep them? Or did I miss the mark?
Hatha

Beats me. I was hoping someone here could fill me in. I ran across that comment where a claim to falconry was asserted in a forest.

My own take is that if you have a lawful right to do that which you are doing then you have no need for a claim and it would be vain to assert such a claim under those conditions.