Is Charles Co. Racist?
- Thread starter Katt
- Start date
Ghetto.dcooper said:
dcooper said:
I grew up in that county and lived near people who grew drugs and sold drugs. A good majority of my childhood friends are dead, mainly from car accidents. One was killed buying crack in D.C.
Life is about choices, it was a choice I didn't make. Sure, I have been to drug parties, but I didn't participate. It was as close to me as the house next door.
I didn't come from a warm and fuzzy home either. I have been out of my parent’s home since I was 18, worked 2 jobs for a long time and once I let go of my 2nd job, I worked any and all overtime I could get my grubby hands on.
I didn’t place “college” level English when I went to register at age 23 years old. I had to take developmental English classes in order to be up to par. I struggled and I had to cut serious corners in order to pay for college and maintain the household bills. There were times I wish I was the kid down the street who had it handed to me, but I didn’t and knew that the only person who I could depend on was myself.
I hate listening to that “pity me” I grew up without any advantages stuff. I really do, because (and before I say this no OFFENSE to the hens on the board) but you can be the hen in the coop, flapping your wings, never getting off the ground, stuck in your coop, hanging out or you can be the eagle that soars above it all. Choices and choices don’t come on a silver platter, and it isn’t always easy but life isn’t easy.
I now work with addicts and I know how difficult it is to overcome but it can be done. I also know that I cannot save the world, which was a hard to swallow concept for me, but Mr. Lyles had better choices and he didn’t make them.
It isn’t the cops fault, they did their job. The police wouldn’t have been on his ass had he been trying to live an honest life. He moved to Prince George’s County to absconded a strict probation (not the police) and failed to comply with those terms. Right?
He made the CHOICE, to hit the streets and do EXACTLY what landed him in jail in the 1st place.
willie
Well-Known Member
I have a hard time figuring out who the dingbats are talking to. When eclark was offended at being called scum, I hope she was addressing me. I have a special place in my heart for crack dealers regardless of race, sex or even age.......I wish them a painful demise.SAHRAB said:
oldman
Lobster Land
Yep, racism is still alive and active. But just look at this thread and take notice of who is professing it. My list of really ignorant people just keeps getting longer. Guess I will just have to load my gun and wait for these racist Charles County Cops to break down my door because I left my trash out by the road the evening before pickup day.
Wrong, it has been validated by the Supreme Court and lesser courts that a search incident to arrest is allowed. The premise is that the officers have a need to insure their safety and a person or area of close proximity may in fact be searched without a warrant or first placing the person under arrest.Shannie0308 said:
Shannie0308
New Member
Ken King said:
I never mentioned a warrant being needed. I said probable cause. Which is the case. A search incident to arrest is of course allowed without a warrant. That is not being doubted. Such searches now include protective sweeps for persons under the following two alternative grounds: 1) Searches of
immediately adjoining areas; and 2) searches of other areas based on reasonable suspicion of danger to the arresting officers.
My comment was directed to the statement that he should have been searched immediately upon finding him. A search cannot be conducted incident to arrest, without probable cause first being present, which was my original statement.
And yes, I know all about Supreme Court rulings. I believe you are referring to Chimel v. California (1969) which established that a search incident to a lawful arrest must be made simultaneously with the arrest and must be confined to the suspects immediate controlled area. Which has nothing to do with my comment.
I read the post, probable cause is certainly a valid reason just as insuring officer safety is another valid justification to conduct a search of a subject. In this case a person was found passed out in a running vehicle, no obvious crime here, but any search made prior to placing that person under arrest would have stood in a court of law and any evidence obtained would have been usable in court.MMDad said:
MMDad
Lem Putt
I think we're all saying the same thing. Until they have a reason to search, they can't. As soon as there is a valid reason, they can. It sounds like that is what happened here.Ken King said:
The only people who have an issue with this seem to believe that by initiating an unlawful search, they could have prevented the thug from shooting at a cop and getting himself dead.
Pete
Repete
What Ken is saying is that the police do NOT need probable cause nor a warrant to search a person for weapons. They are allowed to search a suspect for weapons for their safety if the suspect is in close proximity to them, or if they are detained, which is different than under arrest.MMDad said:
OkShannie0308
New Member
mrweb said:
If an officer can see a weapon, drugs, or a number of other offensive things in plain sight, and/or within reach of a suspect THAT is probable cause to search the person, and immediate area.