|
|
#261
10-25-2007, 01:53 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Just Say NO
[ QUOTE ]
This is very naive. The probable cause to search arises when the suspect refuses the search then suddenly becomes nervous, fidgety, sweating etc etc. (Ways and means) But we are getting off topic. That mobile phone was an item of evidence therefore the Police had the power to seize it. End of move on. Cops laid it on thick and told the lad "look if you want to keep your phone tell us the name of your friend and give us your number, otherwise we take the phone and you don't see it for a very long time". Friend thinking "wait a minute here I didn't burst an old codgers eardrums" decides [censored] it I done nothing wrong, here ya go. What I don't get is why OP returned to the scene of the crime lol. There isn't a law about NOT making yourself available to the cops now is there. [/ QUOTE ] WTF is wrong with you. This is either completely made up or applies to some country other than the US. The guy with the cell phone is not even suspected on anything. How can there possibly be probable cause to believe he committed a crime. There is no reasonable suspicion either, so no Terry stop can be made. It is clear that you have no legal training and are completely talking out of your ass. Please do everyone a favor and stick to subjects you know something about rather than spreading misinformation. TYIA! 
|
|
#262
10-25-2007, 01:56 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Just Say NO
[ QUOTE ]
This thread is tilting me, I'm done. [/ QUOTE ] thank god, cuz if I had to read any more of your stupidity I was going to start raping small children and clubbing baby seals
|
|
#263
10-25-2007, 01:58 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Just Say NO
[ QUOTE ]
Heck it depends what the Cops are pulling you over for in the first place. Of course they arent just pulling over randoms and demanding looking in your boot. Perhaps I didn't make that clear. But if they suspect there might be for example dope in the car simply saying NO will not stop them looking in the car. Again back to OP's friend. Simply saying NO would not have helped him. Cops would have jsut taken his phone if they were of the mind. [/ QUOTE ] Some cops actually obey the law, and refrain from illegal searches or seizures. Those that don't eventually get themselves into trouble.
|
|
#264
10-25-2007, 02:00 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Just Say NO
[ QUOTE ]
Heck it depends what the Cops are pulling you over for in the first place. Of course they arent just pulling over randoms and demanding looking in your boot. Perhaps I didn't make that clear. But if they suspect there might be for example dope in the car simply saying NO will not stop them looking in the car. Again back to OP's friend. Simply saying NO would not have helped him. Cops would have jsut taken his phone if they were of the mind. [/ QUOTE ] You really are an idiot. In America, which is the country we are discussing, the police don't ask to search your car if they have probable cause. They just search it. And even if they were to ask for permission when they didn't need it, saying "no" does not hurt you at all. Please STFU.
|
|
#265
10-25-2007, 02:06 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Just Say NO
[ QUOTE ]
2) They were going to find him anyways due to his player's card and the fact that yes they do indeed videotape the entrances and exits to the parking lots (not they even need his license given they had his name, but w/e). [/ QUOTE ] I really think you exaggerate the effects of the videotape in the parking lot. In Tunica, Miss in summer of 2003 there was a rash of I believe 23 robberies at all 9 of the areas relatively modern casinos (gambling wasn't legal there until the 90's). It took them forever to catch these guys. Some of the casinos would have had mostly similar camera technology to Foxwoods and obviously they have video of these guys coming in the entrance as well as holding a gun to the cashier's face...but it still took them a seriously long time to catch them. Obviously they didn't use players-cards on their way in. But I fail to see how that is going to make things very easy for this Foxwoods situation unless he dropped it on the table or something. They would have to have a camera on each player as they checked-in and then would have to scan the exact time of each check-in/swipe and compare it with the camera. In other words, even if they look through the tape and find the video of the exact-time he swiped in his players-card they are still are left there looking at each other and going "okay, we have his picture...now we have to go through some computer print-out of all the names that checked-in during that 1 minute stretch and try to figure out which one is him." Maybe this is super-easy for them. But it sounds like an awful lot of effort in their pursuit of some guy who threw a beer. There are actually people who steal chips or even purses who they have on tape walking to the parking lot who do actually get away with it. If pick-pocketing like that much less armed-robbers are actually able to get in and out ON THE TAPE without being identified then there's a decent chance that they would not be able to track down TJ whether he checked-in with his players-card or not.
|
|
#267
10-25-2007, 02:29 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Just Say NO
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] 2) They were going to find him anyways due to his player's card and the fact that yes they do indeed videotape the entrances and exits to the parking lots (not they even need his license given they had his name, but w/e). [/ QUOTE ] I really think you exaggerate the effects of the videotape in the parking lot. In Tunica, Miss in summer of 2003 there was a rash of I believe 23 robberies at all 9 of the areas relatively modern casinos (gambling wasn't legal there until the 90's). It took them forever to catch these guys. Some of the casinos would have had mostly similar camera technology to Foxwoods and obviously they have video of these guys coming in the entrance as well as holding a gun to the cashier's face...but it still took them a seriously long time to catch them. Obviously they didn't use players-cards on their way in. But I fail to see how that is going to make things very easy for this Foxwoods situation unless he dropped it on the table or something. They would have to have a camera on each player as they checked-in and then would have to scan the exact time of each check-in/swipe and compare it with the camera. In other words, even if they look through the tape and find the video of the exact-time he swiped in his players-card they are still are left there looking at each other and going "okay, we have his picture...now we have to go through some computer print-out of all the names that checked-in during that 1 minute stretch and try to figure out which one is him." Maybe this is super-easy for them. But it sounds like an awful lot of effort in their pursuit of some guy who threw a beer. There are actually people who steal chips or even purses who they have on tape walking to the parking lot who do actually get away with it. If pick-pocketing like that much less armed-robbers are actually able to get in and out ON THE TAPE without being identified then there's a decent chance that they would not be able to track down TJ whether he checked-in with his players-card or not. [/ QUOTE ] exactly. good post. everyone going on about how the could have caught him and talking about the cops spending time on this instead of spending time thwarting real crime is forgetting THE GUY THREW A [censored] A BEER!!!!!!! I love how the argument is that we're naive to the real world and how police really are because they can just do whatever they want. But in what world do you live in were cops waste time on dumb [censored] like this? I know people who have gotten out of DUIs simply because the cop didnt want to have to fill out the paperwork at the station cuz his shift was almost over. I've seen cops on TV let people go and say the reason was because the couple hours they would waste on this, would be better spent stopping worse crime. I've been burglarized and had valuable items stolen and the cops didnt even fingerprint because, and I quote "its basically just a waste of time".
|
|
#268
10-25-2007, 02:34 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Just Say NO
[ QUOTE ]
This is very naive. The probable cause to search arises when the suspect refuses the search then suddenly becomes nervous, fidgety, sweating etc etc. (Ways and means) But we are getting off topic. That mobile phone was an item of evidence therefore the Police had the power to seize it. End of move on. Cops laid it on thick and told the lad "look if you want to keep your phone tell us the name of your friend and give us your number, otherwise we take the phone and you don't see it for a very long time". Friend thinking "wait a minute here I didn't burst an old codgers eardrums" decides [censored] it I done nothing wrong, here ya go. What I don't get is why OP returned to the scene of the crime lol. There isn't a law about NOT making yourself available to the cops now is there. [/ QUOTE ] Look, we can argue all day about what nuances are involved in determining reasonable suspicion and probable cause. The fact is, it's a subjective judgment that is sometimes allowed to be verified by its ends. Regardless, it is indisputable that denial of search does not justify suspicion. Perhaps "acting nervous" is enough for some cops to detain someone, but this is vague (as is the point) and is not good enough to search or arrest anyone. Some evidence must be obtained to make this step, and not in any other order. Further, even assuming what you're saying is true, this is not grounds to make the jump that all cops behave this way.Therefore, you can't use that logic to determine that the phone should have been given up. I think you have to assume that cops, by and large, err on the side of not breaking the law. The phone was an item of evidence in what way? I just skimmed the thread, but it seems it did not belong to the OP? All this garbage is based on some assumption the casino makes, which is not grounds for search, sorry. We can agree that the OP should not have returned to the casino, but I'm afraid your willingness to tie the phone to the crime is baseless.
|
|
#269
10-25-2007, 02:37 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Arrested at Foxwoods and banned for life
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Posts patting him on the back: 0. [/ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] tj, i [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] you. [/ QUOTE ] Does not compute. [/ QUOTE ] That was because it was entertaining, not because he found that he was right in the situation like the old man was trying to imply.
|
|
#270
10-25-2007, 02:54 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Just Say NO
[ QUOTE ]
I've been burglarized and had valuable items stolen and the cops didnt even fingerprint because, and I quote "its basically just a waste of time". [/ QUOTE ] I've had the same thing happen and it even included the contents inside an item that could be easily finger-printed and would only have his prints and mine most likely. I had a coffee-mug full of about $50 change that he emptied. You don't have to finger-print the whole place. Just this little mug. He might not have wiped it clean and if it turns up in your database or whatever then we know who broke into my home and stole my laptop and the other stuff. They still wouldn't print just the mug but maybe they would have done it if I had really insisted though. There's a lot of unsolved and even uninvestigated crime in this country. There aren't enough cops and they only have so many man-hours that they can devote to petty and non-violent crimes much less the limited man-hours they can use on the bigger stuff. I previously thought this was pretty well understood by everyone but evidently I was wrong.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
