Cop arrests random girl, takes her cell, steals nudes

[deluxeCITY]

It takes six years to learn the law but only six months to be handed a badge and a gun to enforce it

This is why there are checks and balances that prevent the police from giving sentences to people that allegedly break the law. 

Actually, there aren't. You can get charged for obstruction of justice for merely observing a police officer and documenting the scenario (your first amendment right)

You can get charged with any crime for any reason at all, however it is up to the courts to determine if a law has actually been broken. Obstruction of justice and resisting arrest are two very common crimes for people to be charged with however they are also crimes that are rarely prosecuted and have a very low conviction rate

It's innocent until proven guilty, not guilty until proven innocent. Cops shouldn't be allowed to give false tickets.

A ticket is nothing more then a summons for you to appear in court so the court can determine if you are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Most people choose to plead guilty and pay the associated fine ahead of time because they do not want to deal with the hassle of going to court.

[awesome31312]

I don't wanna have to argue this with you.

Cops get paid overtime to appear in court, even though that's part of the job.

[TECSHARE]

It takes six years to learn the law but only six months to be handed a badge and a gun to enforce it

This is why there are checks and balances that prevent the police from giving sentences to people that allegedly break the law.  

Actually, there aren't. You can get charged for obstruction of justice for merely observing a police officer and documenting the scenario (your first amendment right)

You can get charged with any crime for any reason at all, however it is up to the courts to determine if a law has actually been broken. Obstruction of justice and resisting arrest are two very common crimes for people to be charged with however they are also crimes that are rarely prosecuted and have a very low conviction rate

It's innocent until proven guilty, not guilty until proven innocent. Cops shouldn't be allowed to give false tickets.

A ticket is nothing more then a summons for you to appear in court so the court can determine if you are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Most people choose to plead guilty and pay the associated fine ahead of time because they do not want to deal with the hassle of going to court.

Technically signing a ticket is signing a contract.

[dontCAREhair]

It takes six years to learn the law but only six months to be handed a badge and a gun to enforce it

This is why there are checks and balances that prevent the police from giving sentences to people that allegedly break the law.  

Actually, there aren't. You can get charged for obstruction of justice for merely observing a police officer and documenting the scenario (your first amendment right)

You can get charged with any crime for any reason at all, however it is up to the courts to determine if a law has actually been broken. Obstruction of justice and resisting arrest are two very common crimes for people to be charged with however they are also crimes that are rarely prosecuted and have a very low conviction rate

It's innocent until proven guilty, not guilty until proven innocent. Cops shouldn't be allowed to give false tickets.

A ticket is nothing more then a summons for you to appear in court so the court can determine if you are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Most people choose to plead guilty and pay the associated fine ahead of time because they do not want to deal with the hassle of going to court.

Technically signing a ticket is signing a contract.

signing a ticket is the officer signing the order for the citizen to appear in court to be tried for the crime they are alleged to have committed. Generally speaking the citizen will be asked to sign the ticket and they are signing that they are promising to appear in court

[TECSHARE]

You are still entering into a binding contract.

[dontCAREhair]

You are still entering into a binding contract.

The contract has nothing to do with you being guilty though. All the contact says is that you will appear in court to face the accusation that you committed a crime.

The court system is the only institution that is able to make the conclusion that you committed a crime beyond a reasonable doubt

[cutesakura]

but sometimes the current court system into a system that is unfair, the judge may be paid for certain cases, an adjustable perkaran winner, depending on how much money can be given to the judges are corrupt, I am confused where more justice can be sought this time, I hope that justice can be achieved in the near future ... 

[awesome31312]

You guys are missing TECSHARE's point. You should not have to prove you are not guilty of a crime, the burden of proof lies on the accuser.

By forcing you to sign a contract they are impeding on your first amendment rights.

[TECSHARE]

You are still entering into a binding contract.

The contract has nothing to do with you being guilty though. All the contact says is that you will appear in court to face the accusation that you committed a crime.

The court system is the only institution that is able to make the conclusion that you committed a crime beyond a reasonable doubt

Regardless of your guilt or innocence it entangles you into a contractual agreement that you do not willfully wish to enter into. If you do not you will usually be arrested in most jurisdictions. Any contract where you are forced to sign under duress is not valid, but in this case it has the full weight of contract law behind it in addition to any criminal penalties.

[MelodyRowell]

You are still entering into a binding contract.

The contract has nothing to do with you being guilty though. All the contact says is that you will appear in court to face the accusation that you committed a crime.

The court system is the only institution that is able to make the conclusion that you committed a crime beyond a reasonable doubt

Regardless of your guilt or innocence it entangles you into a contractual agreement that you do not willfully wish to enter into. If you do not you will usually be arrested in most jurisdictions. Any contract where you are forced to sign under duress is not valid, but in this case it has the full weight of contract law behind it in addition to any criminal penalties.

A ticket is merely a summons to appear in court, and your signature is merely your acknowledgment of receipt of the summons. In the event that you refuse to sign the ticket, you are correct that you would likely be arrested, however when you are brought before a magistrate you would likely be released on your own recognize after the magistrate can document that you have been served the summons to later appear in court to face the charge.

When you are summoned to appear in court you do not have a choice as to if you wish to appear or not, it is an order to appear.   

[BADecker]

This is nothing. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jose_Guerena_shooting :

Asleep after returning from a 12-hour overnight shift at the ASARCO Mission mine, Guerena was awakened about 9:30 am by his wife who heard noises outside their house, later identified as flash/bang grenades deployed by police in the back yard as a diversion. He instructed his wife and 4-year-old son to hide inside a closet while he grabbed his AR-15 rifle and crouched down preparing to defend himself from the unidentified people breaking and entering into his home. The Sheriff's Department initially claimed that Guerena had fired on officers; at least three of the SWAT members including the team commander reported in their post-operation debriefings that they had observed muzzle flashes aimed at them from inside the house. After an examination of the rifle Guerena allegedly pointed at the officers however, it was determined that the rifle had not been fired; the safety was still engaged. Other officers claimed they saw splinters from the doorjamb being hit by bullets; the shots that caused this were determined to come from other members of the SWAT team themselves. "There were five officers at the door beginning to make entry into this home, when they engaged this individual that they believed was actually firing at them." Other versions of this story claim that officers started shooting after Guerena pointed the gun at them, though under questioning they were initially unsure whether he had actually moved to target them. A video of the raid shows roughly 38 seconds expired from the time the police briefly sounded a siren upon pulling into Guerena's driveway until they shot him. At this point the five person team fired at least 71 rounds at Guerena in less than seven seconds, who died after being hit 22 times.

Guerena's wife called 911 to request medical assistance for her husband shortly after the shooting. Paramedics, however, were instructed to hold back. Guerena was denied attention, for about one hour, until the team declared the "area secured". Ambulance crews were then notified they were no longer needed, one hour and fourteen minutes after Guerena's wife's call to 911. An official autopsy report was released on 6 June. It confirmed that Guerena had been shot 22 times, including one grazing shot to the head. No drugs were found in his system. The medical examiner expressed doubts that medics could have saved Guerena, even if they had reached him quickly. The report also notes that the body showed "no evidence of medical intervention".

[MakingMoneyHoney]

This is nothing. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jose_Guerena_shooting :

Asleep after returning from a 12-hour overnight shift at the ASARCO Mission mine, Guerena was awakened about 9:30 am by his wife who heard noises outside their house, later identified as flash/bang grenades deployed by police in the back yard as a diversion. He instructed his wife and 4-year-old son to hide inside a closet while he grabbed his AR-15 rifle and crouched down preparing to defend himself from the unidentified people breaking and entering into his home. The Sheriff's Department initially claimed that Guerena had fired on officers; at least three of the SWAT members including the team commander reported in their post-operation debriefings that they had observed muzzle flashes aimed at them from inside the house. After an examination of the rifle Guerena allegedly pointed at the officers however, it was determined that the rifle had not been fired; the safety was still engaged. Other officers claimed they saw splinters from the doorjamb being hit by bullets; the shots that caused this were determined to come from other members of the SWAT team themselves. "There were five officers at the door beginning to make entry into this home, when they engaged this individual that they believed was actually firing at them." Other versions of this story claim that officers started shooting after Guerena pointed the gun at them, though under questioning they were initially unsure whether he had actually moved to target them. A video of the raid shows roughly 38 seconds expired from the time the police briefly sounded a siren upon pulling into Guerena's driveway until they shot him. At this point the five person team fired at least 71 rounds at Guerena in less than seven seconds, who died after being hit 22 times.

Guerena's wife called 911 to request medical assistance for her husband shortly after the shooting. Paramedics, however, were instructed to hold back. Guerena was denied attention, for about one hour, until the team declared the "area secured". Ambulance crews were then notified they were no longer needed, one hour and fourteen minutes after Guerena's wife's call to 911. An official autopsy report was released on 6 June. It confirmed that Guerena had been shot 22 times, including one grazing shot to the head. No drugs were found in his system. The medical examiner expressed doubts that medics could have saved Guerena, even if they had reached him quickly. The report also notes that the body showed "no evidence of medical intervention".

That made me sick. 

[TECSHARE]

You are still entering into a binding contract.

The contract has nothing to do with you being guilty though. All the contact says is that you will appear in court to face the accusation that you committed a crime.

The court system is the only institution that is able to make the conclusion that you committed a crime beyond a reasonable doubt

Regardless of your guilt or innocence it entangles you into a contractual agreement that you do not willfully wish to enter into. If you do not you will usually be arrested in most jurisdictions. Any contract where you are forced to sign under duress is not valid, but in this case it has the full weight of contract law behind it in addition to any criminal penalties.

A ticket is merely a summons to appear in court, and your signature is merely your acknowledgment of receipt of the summons. In the event that you refuse to sign the ticket, you are correct that you would likely be arrested, however when you are brought before a magistrate you would likely be released on your own recognize after the magistrate can document that you have been served the summons to later appear in court to face the charge.

When you are summoned to appear in court you do not have a choice as to if you wish to appear or not, it is an order to appear.   

You are describing to me what happens according to policy during a ticket. It is a fact signing a ticket is a BINDING CONTRACT with a corporation, regardless of how many thousands of other ways you can also describe it.

[BootstrapCoinDev]

That's why I always have some sort of screen lock on. Not saying that makes it any more okay that the CHP did that

[TECSHARE]

That's why I always have some sort of screen lock on. Not saying that makes it any more okay that the CHP did that

They don't need you to unlock it to access every bit of info on your phone. Police regularly copy the entire contents of people's phone upon detainment. They have all the default password settings, they don't need your assistance.

[deluxeCITY]

You are still entering into a binding contract.

The contract has nothing to do with you being guilty though. All the contact says is that you will appear in court to face the accusation that you committed a crime.

The court system is the only institution that is able to make the conclusion that you committed a crime beyond a reasonable doubt

Regardless of your guilt or innocence it entangles you into a contractual agreement that you do not willfully wish to enter into. If you do not you will usually be arrested in most jurisdictions. Any contract where you are forced to sign under duress is not valid, but in this case it has the full weight of contract law behind it in addition to any criminal penalties.

A ticket is merely a summons to appear in court, and your signature is merely your acknowledgment of receipt of the summons. In the event that you refuse to sign the ticket, you are correct that you would likely be arrested, however when you are brought before a magistrate you would likely be released on your own recognize after the magistrate can document that you have been served the summons to later appear in court to face the charge.

When you are summoned to appear in court you do not have a choice as to if you wish to appear or not, it is an order to appear.   

You are describing to me what happens according to policy during a ticket. It is a fact signing a ticket is a BINDING CONTRACT with a corporation, regardless of how many thousands of other ways you can also describe it.

What exactly are you claiming that the contract is binding you do? From what I can tell a ticket is a summons for you to appear in court and your signature is your acknowledgment of you being served such summons. Can you give a different explanation as to what your signature means on a ticket?

[TECSHARE]

You are still entering into a binding contract.

The contract has nothing to do with you being guilty though. All the contact says is that you will appear in court to face the accusation that you committed a crime.

The court system is the only institution that is able to make the conclusion that you committed a crime beyond a reasonable doubt

Regardless of your guilt or innocence it entangles you into a contractual agreement that you do not willfully wish to enter into. If you do not you will usually be arrested in most jurisdictions. Any contract where you are forced to sign under duress is not valid, but in this case it has the full weight of contract law behind it in addition to any criminal penalties.

A ticket is merely a summons to appear in court, and your signature is merely your acknowledgment of receipt of the summons. In the event that you refuse to sign the ticket, you are correct that you would likely be arrested, however when you are brought before a magistrate you would likely be released on your own recognize after the magistrate can document that you have been served the summons to later appear in court to face the charge.

When you are summoned to appear in court you do not have a choice as to if you wish to appear or not, it is an order to appear.  

You are describing to me what happens according to policy during a ticket. It is a fact signing a ticket is a BINDING CONTRACT with a corporation, regardless of how many thousands of other ways you can also describe it.

What exactly are you claiming that the contract is binding you do? From what I can tell a ticket is a summons for you to appear in court and your signature is your acknowledgment of you being served such summons. Can you give a different explanation as to what your signature means on a ticket?

"In contract law, ticket cases are a series of cases that stand for the proposition that if you are handed a ticket or another document with terms, and you retain the ticket or document, then you are bound by those terms. Whether you have read the terms or not is irrelevant, and in a sense, using the ticket is analogous to signing the document. This issue is an important one due to the proliferation of exclusion clauses that accompany tickets in everyday transactions.

The case of Parker v. The South Eastern Railway Co (1877) 2 CPD 416 illustrates restrictions on this concept:

    Knowledge of writing and of terms: If the recipient of the ticket knew that there was writing on the ticket and also knew that the ticket contained terms, then the recipient is bound by the terms of the contract.
    Reasonable person: If the recipient did not know of the existence of the terms, then the court will consider whether a reasonable person would have known that the ticket contained terms. If that is so, then the ticket-holder is bound by those terms; if not, then the court will return to the general test of whether reasonable notice of the terms was given.

The test of whether a document fits within the description of a ticket is an objective test, that is, whether a reasonable person in the position of the ticket-holder would perceive it to be contractual in nature. For instance, if exclusion clauses accompany a docket, it may be held that it is not contractual in nature since it is just a receipt.

Furthermore, Interfoto Picture Library Ltd v. Stiletto Visual Programmes Ltd [1989] 1 QB 433 held that if a party wishes to incorporate onerous terms into a document that is to be just accepted by the other party, reasonable notice must be given to make it a term of the contract."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ticket_cases

"CITATIONS:
The CITATION process can be handled much easier; through the mail.  When a Police Officer issues you a CITATION, he is actually requesting you to CONTRACT with him!  He is alleging that you violated a corporate regulation in writing, which you have accepted by signing and thus requires you to respond.

The Police Officer is instructed to explain that your signature is merely an acknowledgment that you received a copy of the CITATION but in actuality, your signature is notification to the Court and Judge that you have accepted or CONSENTED to this offer to CONTRACT, which also grants the Judge CONSENT; PERSONAM and SUBJECT MATTER jurisdiction over you and the case!
You can cancel that CONTRACT however by rescinding your CONSENT.  The Federal Truth in Lending Act provides that any party to a CONTRACT may rescind his CONSENT, within three business days of entering into such a CONTRACT.  So across the face of the CITATION you should print or type in large print, the following words:
I DO NOT ACCEPT THIS OFFER TO CONTRACT
and
I DO NOT CONSENT TO THESE PROCEEDINGS.
Use blue ink [for admiralty] or purple ink [for royalty].  Admiralty is the Court and Royalty represents your Sovereignty.  Either way is appropriate.  Sign your signature underneath in blue or purple ink and in front of a Notary and under your signature type: Without prejudice, UCC 1-308.  This is another way to declare that you may not be held responsible for this Contract pursuant to the Uniform Commercial Code.

Serve Cancelled Citation back it on the Clerk / Court, along with a Certificate of Service, by Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested.  This kills the CITATION; removes your CONSENT and removes the JURISDICTION of the Court, all at the same time.  It really is that simple!"

http://lucas2012infos.wordpress.com/2012/05/25/judge-dale-retired-the-great-american-adventure-secrets-of-america-part-1-5-25-may-2012/

[deluxeCITY]

You are still entering into a binding contract.

The contract has nothing to do with you being guilty though. All the contact says is that you will appear in court to face the accusation that you committed a crime.

The court system is the only institution that is able to make the conclusion that you committed a crime beyond a reasonable doubt

Regardless of your guilt or innocence it entangles you into a contractual agreement that you do not willfully wish to enter into. If you do not you will usually be arrested in most jurisdictions. Any contract where you are forced to sign under duress is not valid, but in this case it has the full weight of contract law behind it in addition to any criminal penalties.

A ticket is merely a summons to appear in court, and your signature is merely your acknowledgment of receipt of the summons. In the event that you refuse to sign the ticket, you are correct that you would likely be arrested, however when you are brought before a magistrate you would likely be released on your own recognize after the magistrate can document that you have been served the summons to later appear in court to face the charge.

When you are summoned to appear in court you do not have a choice as to if you wish to appear or not, it is an order to appear.  

You are describing to me what happens according to policy during a ticket. It is a fact signing a ticket is a BINDING CONTRACT with a corporation, regardless of how many thousands of other ways you can also describe it.

What exactly are you claiming that the contract is binding you do? From what I can tell a ticket is a summons for you to appear in court and your signature is your acknowledgment of you being served such summons. Can you give a different explanation as to what your signature means on a ticket?

-snip-
The Police Officer is instructed to explain that your signature is merely an acknowledgment that you received a copy of the CITATION but in actuality, your signature is notification to the Court and Judge that you have accepted or CONSENTED to this offer to CONTRACT, which also grants the Judge CONSENT; PERSONAM and SUBJECT MATTER jurisdiction over you and the case!
-snip

So you are claiming that by signing a ticket you are acknowledging that the subject court has jurisdiction over the subject case? If this is the case then what is the downside to consenting to this? You should have the same rights if your case is heard in the 1st district or the 2nd district (for example), and in the event the court makes an incorrect ruling then you can appeal to a higher court which can correct any incorrect ruling.

[TECSHARE]

You are still entering into a binding contract.

The contract has nothing to do with you being guilty though. All the contact says is that you will appear in court to face the accusation that you committed a crime.

The court system is the only institution that is able to make the conclusion that you committed a crime beyond a reasonable doubt

Regardless of your guilt or innocence it entangles you into a contractual agreement that you do not willfully wish to enter into. If you do not you will usually be arrested in most jurisdictions. Any contract where you are forced to sign under duress is not valid, but in this case it has the full weight of contract law behind it in addition to any criminal penalties.

A ticket is merely a summons to appear in court, and your signature is merely your acknowledgment of receipt of the summons. In the event that you refuse to sign the ticket, you are correct that you would likely be arrested, however when you are brought before a magistrate you would likely be released on your own recognize after the magistrate can document that you have been served the summons to later appear in court to face the charge.

When you are summoned to appear in court you do not have a choice as to if you wish to appear or not, it is an order to appear.  

You are describing to me what happens according to policy during a ticket. It is a fact signing a ticket is a BINDING CONTRACT with a corporation, regardless of how many thousands of other ways you can also describe it.

What exactly are you claiming that the contract is binding you do? From what I can tell a ticket is a summons for you to appear in court and your signature is your acknowledgment of you being served such summons. Can you give a different explanation as to what your signature means on a ticket?

-snip-
The Police Officer is instructed to explain that your signature is merely an acknowledgment that you received a copy of the CITATION but in actuality, your signature is notification to the Court and Judge that you have accepted or CONSENTED to this offer to CONTRACT, which also grants the Judge CONSENT; PERSONAM and SUBJECT MATTER jurisdiction over you and the case!
-snip

So you are claiming that by signing a ticket you are acknowledging that the subject court has jurisdiction over the subject case? If this is the case then what is the downside to consenting to this? You should have the same rights if your case is heard in the 1st district or the 2nd district (for example), and in the event the court makes an incorrect ruling then you can appeal to a higher court which can correct any incorrect ruling.

The down side of this is you are not required to, and any contract that is forced and signed under duress is not legally enforceable. By signing the ticket you submit to jurisdiction as well as all of the terms written on the ticket.  You are entering into a binding agreement regardless of what you think your rights are.

[deluxeCITY]

You are still entering into a binding contract.

The contract has nothing to do with you being guilty though. All the contact says is that you will appear in court to face the accusation that you committed a crime.

The court system is the only institution that is able to make the conclusion that you committed a crime beyond a reasonable doubt

Regardless of your guilt or innocence it entangles you into a contractual agreement that you do not willfully wish to enter into. If you do not you will usually be arrested in most jurisdictions. Any contract where you are forced to sign under duress is not valid, but in this case it has the full weight of contract law behind it in addition to any criminal penalties.

A ticket is merely a summons to appear in court, and your signature is merely your acknowledgment of receipt of the summons. In the event that you refuse to sign the ticket, you are correct that you would likely be arrested, however when you are brought before a magistrate you would likely be released on your own recognize after the magistrate can document that you have been served the summons to later appear in court to face the charge.

When you are summoned to appear in court you do not have a choice as to if you wish to appear or not, it is an order to appear.  

You are describing to me what happens according to policy during a ticket. It is a fact signing a ticket is a BINDING CONTRACT with a corporation, regardless of how many thousands of other ways you can also describe it.

What exactly are you claiming that the contract is binding you do? From what I can tell a ticket is a summons for you to appear in court and your signature is your acknowledgment of you being served such summons. Can you give a different explanation as to what your signature means on a ticket?

-snip-
The Police Officer is instructed to explain that your signature is merely an acknowledgment that you received a copy of the CITATION but in actuality, your signature is notification to the Court and Judge that you have accepted or CONSENTED to this offer to CONTRACT, which also grants the Judge CONSENT; PERSONAM and SUBJECT MATTER jurisdiction over you and the case!
-snip

So you are claiming that by signing a ticket you are acknowledging that the subject court has jurisdiction over the subject case? If this is the case then what is the downside to consenting to this? You should have the same rights if your case is heard in the 1st district or the 2nd district (for example), and in the event the court makes an incorrect ruling then you can appeal to a higher court which can correct any incorrect ruling.

The down side of this is you are not required to, and any contract that is forced and signed under duress is not legally enforceable. By signing the ticket you submit to jurisdiction as well as all of the terms written on the ticket.  You are entering into a binding agreement regardless of what you think your rights are.

Okay, so the ticket is not legally enforceable. I don't think the police make mistakes regarding jurisdiction very often, and when they do, any mistake the court makes can be reversed via the appeals process. However I would say in the vast majority of cases, even if you did not provide consent to the court having jurisdiction, the court would find that they do have jurisdiction based on the facts of the case.

Also per your own argument, any contract entered into in duress is not enforceable, therefore any disadvantage you receive from consenting to jurisdiction could be reversed in the event that the court in fact does not have jurisdiction.