Jwando bill- no more motor consent police searches

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nobody should ever consent to a voluntary search. No lawyer would ever advise you to waive your rights in this way. The only people "voluntarily" giving up their rights are people who are uneducated and are being manipulated to act against their own self interest in some way. This is not how police departments should operate. Cops shouldn't be dishonest and tricking ordinary citizens into waiving essential right that protect them from the state.

Zero sympathy if the “ordinary citizen” has an illegal weapon in the car.

I fail to see how a “weapon” (however you interpret the term) is of any danger to anyone simply being transported in a car.

I’m not speaking of a weapon being brandished or held or about to be used/being used - I just mean the stereotypical example of a gun or knife or baseball bat or golf club in the car. Those items don’t present a danger to anyone simply being in the car and transported around. There is no criminal intent there.

Police shouldn’t be able to search cars thinking they’ll turn up something that wasn’t being used nefariously to begin with.

Cops don't take legally transported weapons. They take the illegal ones. And those are absolutely on their way to hurt someone. https://www.fox5dc.com/news/3-suspects-commit-armed-robbery-at-ethiopian-restaurant-in-silver-spring

How is a cop supposed to know which gun is “legal” and which is “illegal”?

State law. For example:

Nobody under 21 can have one at all. They are a prohibited person.

No one convicted of a crime of violence.

No one convicted of certain felonies.

No one who has a protective order lodged against them.

No one who is a fugitive from justice.

No one who is under 30 and who had a juvenile delinquency for a qualifying crime.

So let's say cops in Silver Spring pull over a 20 year old for rolling through a red light, and that 20 year old is on probation for armed robbery. There is a good chance the police may ask to search his car.

If they want to search, they have to ask, because it's not related to the traffic infraction. But it's also not random. In this example, the request to search is prompted by the driver's criminal history. Which police have almost as soon as they pull you over.

Most of those disqualifiers seem like they deliberately target POC to make it difficult or impossible for them to have a gun. Doesn’t that seem a tad…..oh, I dunno…….RACIST, to you?

Because it screams it to me.

DP. No, the racism is in your post, equating crimes of violence and felonies with race.

Or were you trying to troll?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nobody should ever consent to a voluntary search. No lawyer would ever advise you to waive your rights in this way. The only people "voluntarily" giving up their rights are people who are uneducated and are being manipulated to act against their own self interest in some way. This is not how police departments should operate. Cops shouldn't be dishonest and tricking ordinary citizens into waiving essential right that protect them from the state.

Zero sympathy if the “ordinary citizen” has an illegal weapon in the car.

I fail to see how a “weapon” (however you interpret the term) is of any danger to anyone simply being transported in a car.

I’m not speaking of a weapon being brandished or held or about to be used/being used - I just mean the stereotypical example of a gun or knife or baseball bat or golf club in the car. Those items don’t present a danger to anyone simply being in the car and transported around. There is no criminal intent there.

Police shouldn’t be able to search cars thinking they’ll turn up something that wasn’t being used nefariously to begin with.

Cops don't take legally transported weapons. They take the illegal ones. And those are absolutely on their way to hurt someone. https://www.fox5dc.com/news/3-suspects-commit-armed-robbery-at-ethiopian-restaurant-in-silver-spring

How is a cop supposed to know which gun is “legal” and which is “illegal”?

State law. For example:

Nobody under 21 can have one at all. They are a prohibited person.

No one convicted of a crime of violence.

No one convicted of certain felonies.

No one who has a protective order lodged against them.

No one who is a fugitive from justice.

No one who is under 30 and who had a juvenile delinquency for a qualifying crime.

So let's say cops in Silver Spring pull over a 20 year old for rolling through a red light, and that 20 year old is on probation for armed robbery. There is a good chance the police may ask to search his car.

If they want to search, they have to ask, because it's not related to the traffic infraction. But it's also not random. In this example, the request to search is prompted by the driver's criminal history. Which police have almost as soon as they pull you over.

Most of those disqualifiers seem like they deliberately target POC to make it difficult or impossible for them to have a gun. Doesn’t that seem a tad…..oh, I dunno…….RACIST, to you?

Because it screams it to me.

Your comment seems racist to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nobody should ever consent to a voluntary search. No lawyer would ever advise you to waive your rights in this way. The only people "voluntarily" giving up their rights are people who are uneducated and are being manipulated to act against their own self interest in some way. This is not how police departments should operate. Cops shouldn't be dishonest and tricking ordinary citizens into waiving essential right that protect them from the state.

Zero sympathy if the “ordinary citizen” has an illegal weapon in the car.

I fail to see how a “weapon” (however you interpret the term) is of any danger to anyone simply being transported in a car.

I’m not speaking of a weapon being brandished or held or about to be used/being used - I just mean the stereotypical example of a gun or knife or baseball bat or golf club in the car. Those items don’t present a danger to anyone simply being in the car and transported around. There is no criminal intent there.

Police shouldn’t be able to search cars thinking they’ll turn up something that wasn’t being used nefariously to begin with.

Cops don't take legally transported weapons. They take the illegal ones. And those are absolutely on their way to hurt someone. https://www.fox5dc.com/news/3-suspects-commit-armed-robbery-at-ethiopian-restaurant-in-silver-spring

How is a cop supposed to know which gun is “legal” and which is “illegal”?

State law. For example:

Nobody under 21 can have one at all. They are a prohibited person.

No one convicted of a crime of violence.

No one convicted of certain felonies.

No one who has a protective order lodged against them.

No one who is a fugitive from justice.

No one who is under 30 and who had a juvenile delinquency for a qualifying crime.

So let's say cops in Silver Spring pull over a 20 year old for rolling through a red light, and that 20 year old is on probation for armed robbery. There is a good chance the police may ask to search his car.

If they want to search, they have to ask, because it's not related to the traffic infraction. But it's also not random. In this example, the request to search is prompted by the driver's criminal history. Which police have almost as soon as they pull you over.

Most of those disqualifiers seem like they deliberately target POC to make it difficult or impossible for them to have a gun. Doesn’t that seem a tad…..oh, I dunno…….RACIST, to you?

Because it screams it to me.

Because black people are more likely to be criminals? If you want to find the racist, look in a mirror.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nobody should ever consent to a voluntary search. No lawyer would ever advise you to waive your rights in this way. The only people "voluntarily" giving up their rights are people who are uneducated and are being manipulated to act against their own self interest in some way. This is not how police departments should operate. Cops shouldn't be dishonest and tricking ordinary citizens into waiving essential right that protect them from the state.

You could teach a civics course in high school to explain the rights of individuals living in America.

This is yet another crazy pro-criminal bill. It’s true that no one should ever voluntarily consent to a search; I’ve told all my friends and family this. But, many criminals are, let’s be frank, kind of dumb. If a criminal makes a bad decision, such as consenting to a search, that allows them to be caught, this is a good thing. The only conceivable reason for this bill is to protect criminals who are too dumb to protect themselves. I guess we see what constituency the government is really concerned with.

Logic fail. Hardened criminals are more likely to know how to play the game so are far less likely to consent to a search. The people that we need to lock away are not dumbass 20 year olds with a small amount of drugs but rather violent professional criminals that are running crime rings and are not likely to be busted in a traffic stop. You are just making up scenarios that fit your own biases.

[Anonymous]

Jawandon't care

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nobody should ever consent to a voluntary search. No lawyer would ever advise you to waive your rights in this way. The only people "voluntarily" giving up their rights are people who are uneducated and are being manipulated to act against their own self interest in some way. This is not how police departments should operate. Cops shouldn't be dishonest and tricking ordinary citizens into waiving essential right that protect them from the state.

I have no issue with someone searching my car. I have nothing to hide.

Cool. Post your address. I’d like to come over and search your car. Just to make sure you’re not a danger to me in some way.

If you’re unwilling to allow that - why?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nobody should ever consent to a voluntary search. No lawyer would ever advise you to waive your rights in this way. The only people "voluntarily" giving up their rights are people who are uneducated and are being manipulated to act against their own self interest in some way. This is not how police departments should operate. Cops shouldn't be dishonest and tricking ordinary citizens into waiving essential right that protect them from the state.

Zero sympathy if the “ordinary citizen” has an illegal weapon in the car.

I fail to see how a “weapon” (however you interpret the term) is of any danger to anyone simply being transported in a car.

I’m not speaking of a weapon being brandished or held or about to be used/being used - I just mean the stereotypical example of a gun or knife or baseball bat or golf club in the car. Those items don’t present a danger to anyone simply being in the car and transported around. There is no criminal intent there.

Police shouldn’t be able to search cars thinking they’ll turn up something that wasn’t being used nefariously to begin with.

Cops don't take legally transported weapons. They take the illegal ones. And those are absolutely on their way to hurt someone. https://www.fox5dc.com/news/3-suspects-commit-armed-robbery-at-ethiopian-restaurant-in-silver-spring

How is a cop supposed to know which gun is “legal” and which is “illegal”?

State law. For example:

Nobody under 21 can have one at all. They are a prohibited person.

No one convicted of a crime of violence.

No one convicted of certain felonies.

No one who has a protective order lodged against them.

No one who is a fugitive from justice.

No one who is under 30 and who had a juvenile delinquency for a qualifying crime.

So let's say cops in Silver Spring pull over a 20 year old for rolling through a red light, and that 20 year old is on probation for armed robbery. There is a good chance the police may ask to search his car.

If they want to search, they have to ask, because it's not related to the traffic infraction. But it's also not random. In this example, the request to search is prompted by the driver's criminal history. Which police have almost as soon as they pull you over.

Most of those disqualifiers seem like they deliberately target POC to make it difficult or impossible for them to have a gun. Doesn’t that seem a tad…..oh, I dunno…….RACIST, to you?

Because it screams it to me.

DP. No, the racism is in your post, equating crimes of violence and felonies with race.

Or were you trying to troll?

Sure. The girl ADVOCATING on behalf of POC is the racist. Or the troll.

Dumbass

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nobody should ever consent to a voluntary search. No lawyer would ever advise you to waive your rights in this way. The only people "voluntarily" giving up their rights are people who are uneducated and are being manipulated to act against their own self interest in some way. This is not how police departments should operate. Cops shouldn't be dishonest and tricking ordinary citizens into waiving essential right that protect them from the state.

Zero sympathy if the “ordinary citizen” has an illegal weapon in the car.

I fail to see how a “weapon” (however you interpret the term) is of any danger to anyone simply being transported in a car.

I’m not speaking of a weapon being brandished or held or about to be used/being used - I just mean the stereotypical example of a gun or knife or baseball bat or golf club in the car. Those items don’t present a danger to anyone simply being in the car and transported around. There is no criminal intent there.

Police shouldn’t be able to search cars thinking they’ll turn up something that wasn’t being used nefariously to begin with.

Cops don't take legally transported weapons. They take the illegal ones. And those are absolutely on their way to hurt someone. https://www.fox5dc.com/news/3-suspects-commit-armed-robbery-at-ethiopian-restaurant-in-silver-spring

How is a cop supposed to know which gun is “legal” and which is “illegal”?

State law. For example:

Nobody under 21 can have one at all. They are a prohibited person.

No one convicted of a crime of violence.

No one convicted of certain felonies.

No one who has a protective order lodged against them.

No one who is a fugitive from justice.

No one who is under 30 and who had a juvenile delinquency for a qualifying crime.

So let's say cops in Silver Spring pull over a 20 year old for rolling through a red light, and that 20 year old is on probation for armed robbery. There is a good chance the police may ask to search his car.

If they want to search, they have to ask, because it's not related to the traffic infraction. But it's also not random. In this example, the request to search is prompted by the driver's criminal history. Which police have almost as soon as they pull you over.

Most of those disqualifiers seem like they deliberately target POC to make it difficult or impossible for them to have a gun. Doesn’t that seem a tad…..oh, I dunno…….RACIST, to you?

Because it screams it to me.

Because black people are more likely to be criminals? If you want to find the racist, look in a mirror.

Young Black males are far more likely to be involved in the CJS than males of other races for a whole host of reasons, many associated with systemic racism in our society, including search/consent laws like most people in this thread are advocating FOR.

Only a racist (that’s you, btw) would accuse someone (me, in case you can’t follow this) of racism because they read what I wrote and conclude it was racist because to them it sounded like “dUh aLL bLaCK peOpLe aRe CriMmiNulz”.

You have no reading comprehension ability. How did you possibly complete college?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nobody should ever consent to a voluntary search. No lawyer would ever advise you to waive your rights in this way. The only people "voluntarily" giving up their rights are people who are uneducated and are being manipulated to act against their own self interest in some way. This is not how police departments should operate. Cops shouldn't be dishonest and tricking ordinary citizens into waiving essential right that protect them from the state.

Zero sympathy if the “ordinary citizen” has an illegal weapon in the car.

I fail to see how a “weapon” (however you interpret the term) is of any danger to anyone simply being transported in a car.

I’m not speaking of a weapon being brandished or held or about to be used/being used - I just mean the stereotypical example of a gun or knife or baseball bat or golf club in the car. Those items don’t present a danger to anyone simply being in the car and transported around. There is no criminal intent there.

Police shouldn’t be able to search cars thinking they’ll turn up something that wasn’t being used nefariously to begin with.

Cops don't take legally transported weapons. They take the illegal ones. And those are absolutely on their way to hurt someone. https://www.fox5dc.com/news/3-suspects-commit-armed-robbery-at-ethiopian-restaurant-in-silver-spring

How is a cop supposed to know which gun is “legal” and which is “illegal”?

State law. For example:

Nobody under 21 can have one at all. They are a prohibited person.

No one convicted of a crime of violence.

No one convicted of certain felonies.

No one who has a protective order lodged against them.

No one who is a fugitive from justice.

No one who is under 30 and who had a juvenile delinquency for a qualifying crime.

So let's say cops in Silver Spring pull over a 20 year old for rolling through a red light, and that 20 year old is on probation for armed robbery. There is a good chance the police may ask to search his car.

If they want to search, they have to ask, because it's not related to the traffic infraction. But it's also not random. In this example, the request to search is prompted by the driver's criminal history. Which police have almost as soon as they pull you over.

Most of those disqualifiers seem like they deliberately target POC to make it difficult or impossible for them to have a gun. Doesn’t that seem a tad…..oh, I dunno…….RACIST, to you?

Because it screams it to me.

Because black people are more likely to be criminals? If you want to find the racist, look in a mirror.

Young Black males are far more likely to be involved in the CJS than males of other races for a whole host of reasons, many associated with systemic racism in our society, including search/consent laws like most people in this thread are advocating FOR.

Only a racist (that’s you, btw) would accuse someone (me, in case you can’t follow this) of racism because they read what I wrote and conclude it was racist because to them it sounded like “dUh aLL bLaCK peOpLe aRe CriMmiNulz”.

You have no reading comprehension ability. How did you possibly complete college?

DP. You wrote that laws making those convicted of violent crimes unable to carry a gun are targeted at Black people. No, those laws are directed towards public safety. For everyone, including Black people.

You think you are being anti-racist but it's the opposite.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nobody should ever consent to a voluntary search. No lawyer would ever advise you to waive your rights in this way. The only people "voluntarily" giving up their rights are people who are uneducated and are being manipulated to act against their own self interest in some way. This is not how police departments should operate. Cops shouldn't be dishonest and tricking ordinary citizens into waiving essential right that protect them from the state.

You could teach a civics course in high school to explain the rights of individuals living in America.

This is yet another crazy pro-criminal bill. It’s true that no one should ever voluntarily consent to a search; I’ve told all my friends and family this. But, many criminals are, let’s be frank, kind of dumb. If a criminal makes a bad decision, such as consenting to a search, that allows them to be caught, this is a good thing. The only conceivable reason for this bill is to protect criminals who are too dumb to protect themselves. I guess we see what constituency the government is really concerned with.

Logic fail. Hardened criminals are more likely to know how to play the game so are far less likely to consent to a search. The people that we need to lock away are not dumbass 20 year olds with a small amount of drugs but rather violent professional criminals that are running crime rings and are not likely to be busted in a traffic stop. You are just making up scenarios that fit your own biases.

Not sure what city you're talking about but it's not DC. The dumnass 20 year olds are the hardened criminals - but why would they know how to play the game, or care, since they are rarely charged and never convicted?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Really poor and bad timing on Jawando's part. I hope he gets hammered for this. He's on the wrong side of the crime issue.

I agree. How much support will he actually have for this? I can’t imagine there will be much.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is good. If an officer has probable cause then this doesn't apply. The police should only search if there is evidence of a crime, not because they want to go fishing.

This bill doesn't do anything. cause is already required.

[Anonymous]

His bill doesn't change anything. This is already the law.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is good. If an officer has probable cause then this doesn't apply. The police should only search if there is evidence of a crime, not because they want to go fishing.

This bill doesn't do anything. cause is already required.

This is another pro-crime bill from radical Jawando.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nobody should ever consent to a voluntary search. No lawyer would ever advise you to waive your rights in this way. The only people "voluntarily" giving up their rights are people who are uneducated and are being manipulated to act against their own self interest in some way. This is not how police departments should operate. Cops shouldn't be dishonest and tricking ordinary citizens into waiving essential right that protect them from the state.

You could teach a civics course in high school to explain the rights of individuals living in America.

This is yet another crazy pro-criminal bill. It’s true that no one should ever voluntarily consent to a search; I’ve told all my friends and family this. But, many criminals are, let’s be frank, kind of dumb. If a criminal makes a bad decision, such as consenting to a search, that allows them to be caught, this is a good thing. The only conceivable reason for this bill is to protect criminals who are too dumb to protect themselves. I guess we see what constituency the government is really concerned with.

Logic fail. Hardened criminals are more likely to know how to play the game so are far less likely to consent to a search. The people that we need to lock away are not dumbass 20 year olds with a small amount of drugs but rather violent professional criminals that are running crime rings and are not likely to be busted in a traffic stop. You are just making up scenarios that fit your own biases.

My point in this post is that it’s better for criminals to be caught than not caught, and if consent searches allow more criminals to be caught, that’s a good thing. You seem to disagree, and think it’s better for at least some of them not to be caught. If so, we just disagree—I’m not sure where my “logic fail” was though.