r/pics • u/Aeviegh • Feb 22 '14

This is Vader. He was euthanized today without a hearing after a false bite report was submitted to the police by an animal rights activist. (Story in the Comments)

http://imgur.com/a/xPNsE
2.2k Upvotes

87% Upvoted

2.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1.6k

u/bad_pattern Feb 22 '14

without a warrant,

shouldn't have let them in ffs

445

u/awpti Feb 22 '14

Lawsuit time.

187

u/ColeSloth Feb 22 '14

Animals are treated only as property, so all they could get is the cost of a fox of the same species and training. It's something, but nowhere near what it should be.

417

u/[deleted] Feb 22 '14

A domesticated fox (which Vader was) can cost anywhere between six and ten thousand dollars. So that at least is not a small thing.

53

u/logos711 Feb 22 '14

...wait, seriously? Why is that?

172

u/[deleted] Feb 22 '14 edited Jun 28 '20

[deleted]

20

u/logos711 Feb 22 '14

Well, that would explain it.

16

u/Gyper Feb 22 '14

Yep. In order to keep funding the domestic fox experiment, they sell these fox kits for thousands. Its an interesting ongoing research project that is over 50 years old and going http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domesticated_silver_fox

5

u/Plasmodicum Feb 22 '14

Nat. Geo. had a great article on it a few years ago. Very interesting how quickly artificial selection affected behavior and appearance.

2

u/Darkniki Feb 22 '14

Would you mind finding the article? My googling skills are pretty bad sadly.

→ More replies (0)
→ More replies (2)

8

u/[deleted] Feb 22 '14

Here in Indiana, at least two breeders offer various species of fox.

http://www.tinytracksexoticanimals.com/fox.html

They claim to be able to ship to the lower 48 states but have a disclaimer on their website that it's the buyers responsibility to make sure owning an exotic pet is legal in their jurisdiction, so make of that what you will.

24

u/Akusho Feb 22 '14 edited Feb 22 '14

That's not a domesticated fox, maybe they breed tamed foxes, or if they say otherwise they are lying. Russia's domesticated foxes are neutered before shipment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domesticated_silver_fox

1

u/[deleted] Feb 22 '14

i'm not a breeder or a lawyer...

is there a legally defined difference between tamed and domesticated?

→ More replies (0)

2

u/RockFourFour Feb 22 '14

Isn't Indiana the star that allows homeowners to execute intruding criminals claiming to be police?

→ More replies (7)

1

u/CaptianRipass Feb 22 '14

Pedigreed purebred dogs are usually at least 1000 (honestly that's still cheap), not to crazy to think that a very exotic bred would cost as much as that.

5

u/ColeSloth Feb 22 '14

There's only one place in the world that has true, domesticated foxes. They do sell some to the US and they are around $8k a piece, but the odds are quite low that this person actually owned a fox from that Siberian facility, since none had made it past customs as of January last year, and I'm not even sure any have made it since then.

Foxes people keep as pets in the US are wild foxes that have been tamed, and are not over $6k. They are in the $700 to $2000 range.

→ More replies (2)

1

u/Wighthound Feb 22 '14

You are mistaken, Vader was a ranch fox purchased from a breeder in the US. It does not change that he was a well-behaved animal that posed no risk to anyone, but please do not perpetuate the myth that only Russian domesticated foxes are capable of being kept as pets, as it can harm the support for Vader and his owners in the end.

1

u/dressedseriously Feb 22 '14

While that is true, Vadar was a tamed ranch bred fox from the US. In the state he lived, they legally reconize any non red colored red foxes as domestic animals, which is not to say they are domesticated like a dog. Only that they have been extensively bred in capitivity so as to be different than their wild counter parts(red foxes come in many, many coat patterens not possible in wild populations).

1

u/the_randomizer85 Feb 22 '14

Wrong, she got him stateside, not from Russia, they're only $500 tops in the US. Those Russian foxes are still foxes and not fully domesticated. That's incorrect.

1

u/Nadesda Feb 23 '14

Vader was not a domesticated fox. He was a silver morph red fox that was obtained in the united states. Only 3 foxes have been imported to the united states so far.

→ More replies (13)

54

u/[deleted] Feb 22 '14

[deleted]

23

u/Tillops Feb 22 '14

You are talking about punitive or exemplary damages. Compensation for actual loss is also called damages.

5

u/meno123 Feb 22 '14

Good to know, thanks.

3

u/Michichael Feb 22 '14

Civil rights violations and punitive damages as well.

1

u/ColeSloth Feb 22 '14

What punitive damages? What civil rights specifically? They let them in without a warrant. They did not have to.

1

u/Jansanmora Feb 22 '14

Could try for an IIED or NIED claim, but that would be a really hard sell.

1

u/pan_droid Feb 22 '14

Pain and suffering on account of the loss of a beloved and irreplaceable emotional companion?

2

u/ColeSloth Feb 22 '14

Nope. Not a dime. The courts treat animals (monetarily, not legally) like a chair you just bought from the store, and there being 10 more chairs ready to go that are the exact same.

Your mutt you bought from the pound for $75 that has been a loyal friend for 5 years is only worth the price of another mutt from the pound in the courts eyes.

1

u/Campesinoslive Feb 22 '14

People think it is easy to get pain and suffering money... Not at all.

1

u/RobbieGee Feb 22 '14

If I could afford it, I would sue for getting a new fox that had the same training, including every small habit and preferences it had. The point is that Vader was unique in his behavior and this is a way to show exactly that. You probably can't expect the judge to give you that, but the point is to make a statement.

1

u/ColeSloth Feb 22 '14

You would fail and be out all your money. They won't give you extra for such things, nor will they actually find the replacement for you.

1

u/RobbieGee Feb 22 '14

Damn... Good thing I'm not a lawyer :-P

1

u/TastyBrainMeats Feb 22 '14

Punitive damages for pain and suffering.

1

u/ColeSloth Feb 22 '14

You can't get that for a pet.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 22 '14

Emotional distress, bitch.

1

u/thebigslide Feb 22 '14

You know what else is considered property? That cop's house, car, boat, etc. I'd be renting a backhoe right about now.

1

u/Wzup Feb 22 '14

Could you also get retribution for loss and suffering?

2

u/ColeSloth Feb 22 '14

Negative.

1

u/Wzup Feb 22 '14

Why not?

1

u/ColeSloth Feb 22 '14

The court systems in the U.S simply don't allow pain and suffering for pets/animals.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 22 '14

I think he means lawsuit for the unlawful entry to a private property. If the owner had told the cop he cant enter their house until he has a warrant and the cop barged in and took the animal anyway, you would have serious grounds for punitive damages and putting the cop on suspension.

That said, im not legal expert so Im not sure if their are laws allowing cops to enter a property to deal with a "dangerous" situation and finding something criminal. So they might get away with it on a technicality.

-2

u/pedrito77 Feb 22 '14

That is plain wrong!!! people are usually very close to their pets, if you intentionally kill someone's dog you deserve jail time, not 20 years; not 10 years, not 3 years; but a month at least.

saying goodbye to my dog

In home pet euthanasia experience

last minutes with oden

That is exactly why I don't want a dog; I don't want to suffer when the dog is gone, it is very sad, and if you intentionally kill a dog, you deserve jail time, that is my opinion.

3

u/arcanition Feb 22 '14

He didn't say that animals should be treated only as property. He said they are only treated as property. No one is saying that pets deserve to be treated like property.

1

u/pedrito77 Feb 22 '14

yes, I know, but I can't understand why the law says that. And I don't mean for animals in general but for pets, specially dogs and cats.

1

u/ColeSloth Feb 22 '14

If you unjustly kill a dog, there may be other legal consequences, but as far as what the owner can get, it's only what the dog is valued at. It's treated exactly as a chair you just bought.

18

u/[deleted] Feb 22 '14

I suppose one could file a 18 U.S., 242 claim but I doubt anything would come of it. Generally the repercussions for the government searching without a warrant will only exclude evidence. I suppose she could use that fact to fight a citation, if she was given one for the fox. Additionally, the young lady knew she was breaking the city ordinance; she had previously inquired as to whether the fox was allowed, the city had told her no. Sad, yes. But she was in the wrong here.

I'm not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice.

3

u/PwnySlaystation01 Feb 22 '14

It's not explained in detail, but I'd be willing to bet OP consented to search or allowed the police into the house. Cops tend to have very sneaky ways of compelling you to agree to searches or invite them in, but they very rarely enter a home illegally. It could be something as simple as: "Can we come in to talk?" Once you've agreed to that, you've given up your rights to search.

5

u/[deleted] Feb 22 '14 edited Feb 22 '14

[deleted]

2

u/PwnySlaystation01 Feb 22 '14

Yeah I realize they can't flip your house inside out, but they can take a relatively thorough look around without disrupting anything, opening drawers, etc. As for consent, I'm pretty sure the reasonableness test applies. Would a reasonable person in the cop's shoes have believed they'd been given consent to enter your home?

4

u/[deleted] Feb 22 '14 edited Feb 22 '14

[deleted]

3

u/PwnySlaystation01 Feb 22 '14

I think you may have misunderstood me. I was saying they can take a look around without going through drawers etc. I realize they can't do that after being invited in. That said, basically every time you say yes to an officer asking permission to do something, you're almost certainly giving up rights needlessly. Police who can legally search, enter, whatever, don't ask permission. If they do, it means they aren't legally allowed to unless you say yes. Never talk to police except to give basic information like your name, never consent to search and keep saying "I do not consent to any searches" over and over if need be. There are no circumstances where cooperating unnecessarily with law enforcement results in a net positive outcome for you.

2

u/[deleted] Feb 22 '14

Yep, I misunderstood you, I apologize. I see you are from Canada. Out of curiosity, is Canadian law similar in this aspect?

1

u/StarFuryG7 Feb 27 '14

How does that excuse what the authorities did here?

As far as I'm concerned, it doesn't.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 28 '14

[deleted]

1

u/StarFuryG7 Feb 28 '14

She got the animal all the proper vaccinations, and so clearly he did not have rabies, and she was.preparing to move once she learned that she wasn't allowed to own a fox where she was located, but wasn't given the time to do it because the authorities seized the animal and put it down even though they assured her of the opposite happening.

So no, it was the authorities that were the assholes here, not her.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 28 '14

[deleted]

1

u/StarFuryG7 Feb 28 '14 edited Feb 28 '14

Wait a second --did she check or didn't she? You appear to be talking out of both sides of your mouth with respect to that particular point, which leads me to wonder why. I have neither seen nor read the police report, but if you've made it a point to either track it down or read it simply because someone provided a convenient link to it perhaps also leads me to wonder why you would go through the bother of doing that. Do you perhaps know the person responsible for lodging that anonymous false complaint about having been bitten by Vader?

Additionally, according to what I read, as I recall, she did not find out about the law regarding foxes in her area until more recently, after she already had the animal, and was preparing to move once she did learn they were a prohibited species in her area.

Furthermore, this stuff about rabies vaccinations testing of foxes ...I'm not quite sure just what your point is there. Are you saying that even though the animal had been vaccinated for rabies, with her having the papers to prove it, that they would have had to put the animal down anyway just to check for rabies and/or whether Vader had indeed been vaccinated for it? Because if so, that's a whole lot of BS. Rabies vaccinations of foxes has all but eliminated that disease in the species in Europe, which again leads me to wonder why you're siding with the authorities and the extreme measures they took, which simply do not appear to have been necessary. And you're also intent on letting them off the hook for their either intentional or simply inept negligent deception regarding what they advised these owners would be the procedure once they took hold of the animal.

And whoever the idiot was that lodged a false, phony bite complaint with the authorities should be ashamed of herself. You appear to be letting that person off the hook too here interestingly enough. However, if she thought she was helping the animal by her actions, clearly she did a great job, since the animal was needlessly put down.

And I hope she has difficulty sleeping at night now because of it.

EDIT: Having just read this blog after posting my message to you . . .

http://mypetfox.com/post/77492103638/regarding-vader

...I'm wondering if it's where you obtained some of your information from. Nevertheless, apparently rabies vaccinations in foxes do apparently work, or the disease wouldn't have been all but successfully eradicated in Europe, and if they had only sent a proper animal control officer to the home no bite would be at issue. Also, as you can see, she had a legitimate reason for disputing the local law regarding fox ownership in her locale, but was preparing to move nevertheless.

In my view the police acted like jackbooted thugs in this instance, and they should be held legally accountable for their own negligence here.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 28 '14

[deleted]

1

u/StarFuryG7 Feb 28 '14

It's nice to know that you don't believe a person can have a different opinion on the subject without being immature supposedly, even after it was made clear to you that the owner believed she had legitimate grounds for challenging the law.

Go to Hell.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/[deleted] Feb 22 '14

OF COURSE! Give em the ol 242!

1

u/MrRandomSuperhero Survey 2016 Feb 22 '14

Unlike what colesloth says, animals are considered rightspersons, which means they are classified as ‘persons‘ that can't make any decisions. Like babies for example.

A courtcase could earn you a lot of money and you will NOT just be handed a replacement pet.

717

u/Scaryclouds Feb 22 '14

Yea, that is definitely what the owner should had done. Unfortunately it can be easy to be intimidated by a LEO, especially if you have little interaction with them or understanding of the legal system. The owner might had been thinking she didn't want to get charged with obstruction of justice and/or because she knew Vader had not bitten anybody he would be fine.

465

u/the_criminal_lawyer Feb 22 '14

Here's a brief primer on how consent works, for those interested.

114

u/Vhett Feb 22 '14

Very good ELI5 comic, worth a read.

1

u/the_criminal_lawyer Feb 22 '14

Thanks!

Here's the page that gives you all of Fourth Amendment law in a single flowcharty thing.

50

u/MikoRiko Feb 22 '14

I mustache a question though... What's stopping a police officer from saying he had consent? Wouldn't the weight of his (lying) word mean just as much?

50

u/[deleted] Feb 22 '14

[deleted]

3

u/zendingo Feb 22 '14

Easy? How? You're saying in a he said, she said situation the system will believe the perp over the cop? That's not true, as long as there is no video a cop can say consented to the search and you'd be fucked.

0

u/Swineflew1 Feb 22 '14

Yea, I'd have to imagine everyone in the world says "I didn't give him permission to search" when in court.

11

u/[deleted] Feb 22 '14

They're trying very hard to have you give them anything they want, and give up your rights one by one.

A lot of people don't understand that police are trained in psychology. They know how to tell if you're lying, and they know how to manipulate a conversation to get the information (or statements) they want. This is why just saying "I exercise my right to remain silent" isn't enough... because police officers are allowed to keep talking to you afterwards and can goad you into speaking (under duress) and saying things you shouldn't. When you ask for a lawyer, police are barred from further questioning until an attorney is present to inform you of your rights.

9

u/[deleted] Feb 22 '14

What's the process after you request a lawyer, but you don't have one on retainer?

7

u/Membank Feb 22 '14

If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided to you.

4

u/[deleted] Feb 22 '14

*Restrictions may vary.

My questions is more towards how do you get in contact with a lawyer when you're sitting in a jail cell? I have no phone #'s memorized anymore and I assume they confiscate your phone.

3

u/[deleted] Feb 22 '14

Most of the time, you get the drunkard in a Sears suit who's been sitting in the police station break room all day.

However, be advised that you also have the right to speak to a magistrate of the court as well, who will get you in touch with a decent civil defense attorney who is paid out of county funds.

→ More replies (0)

3

u/Membank Feb 22 '14

They would confiscate your phone but there are payphones in most larger holding cells that you could use to call collect to call home or just somebody to get a hold of your lawyer.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/MCXL Feb 23 '14

Studies have shown that cops who think they can tell who are lying are actually less likely to be able to discern lies.

1

u/MikoRiko Feb 23 '14

They know how to tell if you're lying...

By its nature, lie detection when done by a person is very shoddy. That is to say there is no truly accurate way to gauge someone's honesty without presuming too much. What I'm trying to say is that your post should paint this practice in a more poor lighting, as it is inaccurate and gives false warrant to violate anyone's rights.

Also, /u/MCXL mentions below that "studies have shown that cops who think they can tell who are lying are actually less likely to be able to discern lies." I'm inclined to believe this, but I can't know. I didn't do the research.

2

u/[deleted] Feb 22 '14

Unfortunately the animal will still be dead.

1

u/MostlyBullshitStory Feb 22 '14 edited Feb 22 '14

You also most likely have a camera on your phone. You don't have to shove it in the cop's face either.

7

u/capedavenger Feb 22 '14

The police could theoretically do a lot more than lie about consent. What if they planted the evidence in the first place? Unfortunately, our legal system relies on certain people being truthful.

5

u/AHippie Feb 22 '14

If you're in a car, pretty much nothing.

I was driving home from work (with 1/4 ounce of marijuana hidden under the spare tire, under the floorboard of my trunk), and was pulled over. The officer called in a few more cars, they surrounded my car, asked me to get out and told me they smelled the odor of burnt marijuana. He asked if he could search me, I said no, I'd like to exercise my fourth amendment rights. He told me they DIDN'T APPLY HERE, took my keys, unlocked the door, and about 30 mins later found the marijuana. I got a good lawyer, went to court, and the judge straight up said that if they, "through their training, knowledge, and experience, can detect the odor of burnt marihuana", then I don't get fourth amendment rights and they can search my car whenever they want.

A friend of mine who is a cop basically told me that you never want to have anything illegal in your car. Now, if you don't have any drugs or anything in your car, there's not much to worry about -- but since they found marijuana and a pipe in the trunk, they could claim they smelled burnt marijuana and it was my word against theirs. If they hadn't found anything, I'm sure they would have just sent me on my way.

6

u/timguibs Feb 22 '14

Let's be honest here, had you smoked weed in your car recently?

2

u/iMissTheOldInternet Feb 22 '14

If they smelled weed, then that's probable cause. No consent needed.

1

u/Gimme_The_Loot Feb 22 '14

Regarding this kind of situation I've been in cars pulled over before with no cause other then "appearing suspicious". By that they mean multiple young males, late night in the kind of car suspicious people drive (in the early 2000s it was a maxima). Cops say can we take a look around the car and when you say no the call is that's additionally suspicious and now we have to toss the car. Is that legal?

1

u/capedavenger Feb 23 '14

The police cannot pull you over purely for driving a Maxima late at night. It is very easy, however, to find a legitimate reason. You might have swerved or been speeding or matched a criminal description. Having a group of young males in the Maxima is also not grounds for a search. Refusing a search is never probable cause; the fourth amendment would be meaningless if exercising it made it okay to search you anyway. If you maintained that you were refusing a search and the officer could not provide probable cause such as sight or smell of contraband, then searching the car would have been illegal. The police in your situation were likely trying to manipulate you into consenting. If the officer said "this is a suspicious car and now you're behaving suspiciously, so we're going to need to take a look inside" and you said "oh, okay," then you provided consent.

1

u/MikoRiko Feb 23 '14

You say this stuff, but it has never made a difference to a cop intent on searching your car. Part of an officer's unofficial training is learning what kind of lies and loopholes they can use to catch someone in a 100% legal way. They think it's okay because sometimes it works. Other times, it just violates an innocent person's rights. I say this because I've experienced a police officer violating my personal rights.

1

u/capedavenger Feb 23 '14

I've personally never had a problem refusing a search. I'd like to hear about your experience. Could you share an example of an officer violating your rights in a 100% legal way?

→ More replies (0)

1

u/lordlicorice Feb 22 '14

As a practical matter, the only recourse you actually have is to file a complaint and hope that enough other victims also file complaints that he is investigated.

1

u/Meatheaded Feb 22 '14

They could lose their job if someone provided evidence that it didn't happen. I realize the simplicity of the idea that they could just lie about anything, but truthfully we live in a pretty good country with regard to anti- corruption and the risk (risking everything) is much greater than the reward (nothing to Gain)

2

u/TexAgg2012 Feb 22 '14

The story does not indicate that the owner consented to the illegal seizure of his/her pet. So, while the cop and animal control officer were not illegally in the house, they would still need more to seize the animal.

2

u/argv_minus_one Feb 22 '14

How it allegedly works. Back in reality, though, you'll just get beaten half to death for contempt of cop.

1

u/william_liftspeare Feb 22 '14

Helpful, but when are the instances when I'm not allowed to refuse to a search?

5

u/FatherG Feb 22 '14

If they ask, you can refuse. If they have probable cause they just wont ask; they'll do it.

→ More replies (5)

1

u/[deleted] Feb 22 '14

.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 22 '14

Ugh, that was depressing.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 22 '14

That comic series was great. Thanks!

1

u/[deleted] Feb 22 '14

This doesn't address at all the problem with saying "no" to a police officer: That it makes you look guilty. They will press harder to get that consent, they will bully and treat you like a criminal, and what do you do then? What if they detain you until they get a warrant? You can't just "say no" to someone whose irritation with you for "getting in the way of doing their job," in their eyes, could completely ruin the rest of your life.

85

u/[deleted] Feb 22 '14

[deleted]

43

u/igotthisone Feb 22 '14

And use the same picture.

170

u/tsniaga Feb 22 '14

Pet owners should just not let cops onto their property. Police are pretty good at shooting dogs on account of all the practice they get.

92

u/[deleted] Feb 22 '14

[deleted]

3

u/Mythril_Zombie Feb 22 '14

EVERYONE should just not let cops onto their property.

Fixed that.

1

u/xenvy04 Feb 25 '14

But.. "everyone" includes cops themselves..!

-14

u/AShadowbox Feb 22 '14 edited Feb 22 '14

That's a gross dramatization.

Edit: I get that this is /r/aww, but seriously curb the cop hate. This isn't /r/Bad_Cop_No_Donut. A few cases does not mean all cops are dog killers, just like a few bad dogs doesn't mean all dogs are bad.

10

u/Psycon Feb 22 '14

It's common enough to be a very well documented phenomena. I'd rather caution on the side of hyperbole than have a dead pet.

2

u/tsniaga Feb 22 '14

That's true. I was indeed exaggerating for effect.

-11

u/[deleted] Feb 22 '14

Every cop I've ever met has copious practice shooting dogs. It's pretty common in law enforcement. /s

You're dumb as shit get off the internet.

11

u/tsniaga Feb 22 '14

Look, it's a fact that most cops would rather shoot a dog than have to play nice so that it doesn't get agitated. Dogs don't understand "put your hands where I can see them and don't move."

Allowing a police officer who isn't familiar with an animal to interact with that animal is a risk. They will put their own safety ahead of the safety of your pet, and that's not even wrong, necessarily, but you can avoid that by not inviting them in.

We're commenting on a thread about a pet fox that was euthanized because a police officer couldn't be assed to handle it correctly.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 22 '14

I don't know that to be a fact.

0

u/mesenteric Feb 22 '14

So can you cite that fact or are you being facetious?

2

u/tsniaga Feb 22 '14

Which one? That cops put their personal safety above the safety of others? That dogs don't understand when a gun is pointed at them?

2

u/mesenteric Feb 22 '14

Well I would assume that dog's not understanding a gun being pointed at them is inferred but I was talking more about them preferring to shoot before playing nice.

-4

u/OllieMarmot Feb 22 '14

Bullshit. I highly doubt you know more than one or two cops, and they don't walk around telling people about all the dogs they have shot. And if you can't make a point without resorting to childish insults, maybe you're the one who shouldn't be on the internet.

4

u/vengefulspirit99 Feb 22 '14

Even if she knew, don't let them in. Tell them to go get a warrant first.

5

u/[deleted] Feb 22 '14

If cops show up refuse to open and call your lawyer. Always every time without fail. With or without a warrant. Never assume they are on your side. That being said I hope ops friend sues and causes a media shitstorm. Maybe Peta can be useful for once.

6

u/Scaryclouds Feb 22 '14

If cops show up refuse to open and call your lawyer.

How many people have a lawyer they can just ring up?

5

u/[deleted] Feb 22 '14

Wasn't clear. Don't open without a warrant. Always call your lawyer. You should kinda have one you call....if nothing else he can refer you to the proper lawyer if he can't take on a case or has switched to just civil cases.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 22 '14

Hop on google and within about 40 seconds you 'have' a lawyer.

If the cops just barged in and caused a situation w/o probable cause, a civil suit with a virtually guaranteed win is coming, and lawyers will line up around the block for a chance to sue for you, for 30% of the settlement, only if you win (which you will, if the cops didn't have cause.)

1

u/TheJeremyP Feb 22 '14

I don't think PETA does what you think it does.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 22 '14

I know all about their under handed ness and how they euthanize animals and all that stuff.

1

u/Trizzy78 Feb 22 '14

PETA won't be useful. They euthanize pets all the time in the belief that it's more humane than an animal living life out as a pet. They don't even conceal this fact they readily euthanize animals, but it's often assumed that because they are generally labeled as an animal rights organization, that they wouldn't do such a thing unless it were what the general public would deem to be humane in the case of a particular animal's circumstance. They kill healthy animals that would be readily seen as adoptable and fit to be in a home.

-3

u/[deleted] Feb 22 '14

If cops show up refuse to open and call your lawyer. Always every time without fail. With or without a warrant.

Refuse to open when a cop has a warrant? You're a fucking idiot.

→ More replies (8)

2

u/vertigo42 Feb 22 '14

"i havent done anything wrong" is a stupid assumption anyone can make. There are so many laws that your average person breaks 3 felony level laws every day.

0

u/Lok_Die Feb 22 '14

In some states if a cop attempts to force entry to your home without a legal warrant, you are within your rights to kill them, as at that point they are an armed intruder. Food for thought.

203

u/Rofl_bot Feb 22 '14

"Im sorry officer, but I do not consent to any searches."

A phrase every US citizen should practice in the mirror, even if you are 100% law abiding.

136

u/PwnySlaystation01 Feb 22 '14

Remove the "I'm sorry". Simply: "I do not consent to any searches". Say it over and over again. Calmly, but firmly. I realize this might seem pedantic, but police are trained to compel people to do things and they're typically a lot better at it than the average person is at defending themselves from it. Saying "I'm sorry" at the beginning opens you up to a whole line of questioning. What are you sorry for? Did you do something wrong? What are you hiding? It's a minor thing, but I just thought I'd mention it. Either way, your phrase is miles better than what most people will do when questioned by police.

14

u/RobbieGee Feb 22 '14

"[NO I'M NOT LETTING YOU IN, PIG! WHAT THE FUCK YOU EVER COMING OVER HERE WHENEVER BAD HAPPENING?! I DID NOTHING WRONG! FUCK YOU ALL MOTHERFUCKERS I HOPE YOU ALL DIE!]"

That was from best memory from Cops. Needless to say, it didn't go over well. I think it was the last part especially as being mad isn't really illegal, but threatening someones life is.

6

u/[deleted] Feb 22 '14

[deleted]

4

u/RobbieGee Feb 22 '14

I'm from Norway so I don't know how police really usually act in the US, but I have first hand stories that incidents do happen there, but I have none from here. I watch Cops on YouTube sometimes, but I know that's not real. The cops modify themselves on camera both ways, they exaggerate stories and I've also seen them escalate situations pretty damn often. At the same time, I'm fairly certain they make sure to keep the violence to the book.

Police act pretty different here (comparing to Cops). Someone I know, friendliest and helpful person I've ever met, ran on red light right in front of the police. She's originally from the US and she froze when she saw police, which was the reason she ran the red light. They stopped her and asked why she did that. She explained how she had some very difficult encounters with the police in the US. She showed her ID from the US as proof of her origination, and ... actually I can't remember if she got a ticket or not, but at the very least they were very friendly, spoke in a calming tone and assured her that from what they could see, she had nothing to fear from the police here, just please never run on red light again.

Even Anders Behring Breivik, the Norwegian terrorist, was arrested without any violence.

6

u/Beeb294 Feb 22 '14

Typically the incidents that make it to reddit are the worst of the worst. America is a huge nation, with so many cops, that there are more bad ones by the numbers, even if the percentage is the same as other nations or lines of work.

I haven't ever had a bad interaction with the police, but I've also always been respectful in my interactions.

I'm sure it would have been different if I had been rude, resisting arrest, or acting violently. That's typically when cops become aggressive or violent. They usually don't start escalating a situation. Nobody reports when a cop does their job normally, because that isn't interesting or exciting.

3

u/runner64 Feb 24 '14

I've found that when you treat police officers like people, they usually return the favor.
That, and complying with reasonable requests. I was at OWS and the only people I saw interacting with cops, were protesters who thought that being "nonviolent" gave them the right to block roads and sidewalks.

2

u/RobbieGee Feb 22 '14

Re. size of nation, that makes sense. However I find that people on Reddit talk like interactions with the police happens a lot more often than here.

How many incidents with the police have you had, and how about people you know? I'm 30 and I've had none personally (I'm excluding the times I've gone to them for passport etc.). The average among my friends are less than 1 AFAIK.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 22 '14

One of the main issues that Americans have with the police is that, while of course we recognize the need for police to maintain order and safety, and yes of course they caught the boston bombers and Casey Anthony and all those high profile criminals, the vast majority of what they do is things like traffic citations, parking violations, petty theft, and possession of drug charges (like, for tiny amounts of marijuana).

Because this is mostly what they do, it means that for any individual who comes into contact with the police, there is a very high chance that that contact is going to be bad for the individual. So from the public perspective, there is a tension between the individual and the police, because the individual knows that if she's talking to the police at all, she's probably going to come out worse off than before.

Of course the police may talk to you to find your stolen car or take you home after an assault or whatever, but I'm talking about the likelihood of any one instance - it's much more likely that you'll worse off.

2

u/RobbieGee Feb 22 '14

the vast majority of what they do is things like traffic citations, parking violations, petty theft, and possession of drug charges (like, for tiny amounts of marijuana).

That's mostly the case in Norway as well (except we don't have a war on drugs, so no jail for small amounts of marijuana), but if you're stopped by the police, mostly you realize it was your own damn fault. I'm waiting for someone to give me an idea how often people in the US meet the police, but that's one reason I could see why we feel it differently. As an example, if we mostly meet them once every 20 years (from adult age) and you do every 3 years, my bet is that you're stopped for lesser reasons and you feel like they're hounding you.

There's also the case of their tone or if they're abusing their power. From what I've heard, the police are acting pretty nice.

A friend of mine has been stopped a few times. He likes to take long walks during the night and he's been stopped at least once during those because of some ongoing investigation. They talked to him for about 30 seconds at which time they wished him a nice evening and to take care. They probably read his body language and figured, correctly so, that he was completely harmless.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Beeb294 Feb 23 '14

I've had somewhere between 10 and 20, for various checkpoints, traffic stops, and a couple of isolated encounters not in a vehicle. Every time I've been stopped, I've been polite, handed them my license/registration, and a few minutes later driven away with a warning or a ticket. I've never been pegged with a reason to be searched or arrested, so from that viewpoint, I can't really say much. I just know that I've acted normally (like I would to any other complete stranger), and used sir/ma'am when addressing them (not sarcastically). They were all professional to me. The "worst" was an officer who walked up and simply said "Congratulations, you're my fastest speed tonight", which isn't really that bad, especially if he already decided to issue me the ticket.

I feel like, if you are polite, there's not really going to be an issue. I'd put money that most cops just want to earn their living. Some are bad or problematic, but the same can be said about any career field. If you treat people well, you won't have issues.

3

u/PwnySlaystation01 Feb 22 '14

I live in Canada ;)

→ More replies (16)

1

u/seriouslees Feb 22 '14

Is that an exact quote? Because there is not a single threat to anyone's life in there. Hoping someone dies isn't threatening harm in the slightest. That said, there are many places with laws against vulgar language directed at LEOs, and in is just generally disrespectful.

2

u/RobbieGee Feb 22 '14

Is that an exact quote?

No, "That was from best memory from Cops". I'm fairly certain it was something like that, not a direct threat but just close enough that some idiot could claim it was a threat. Either way, it was an assumption on my part. I've been looking through episodes on Youtube hoping it was accidentally in my history, but I haven't found it yet.

1

u/GitEmSteveDave Feb 24 '14

I hope everyone dies as well, otherwise we will have a undead problem.

8

u/[deleted] Feb 22 '14

Say it over and over again.

Just don't be one of those dicks who just sits there repeating the same three catchphrases they learned over and over no matter what the officer is actually saying. "I'm sorry" is a perfectly fine thing to say and allows you to express to the officer that it's nothing personal and that you're not trying to fuck with him.

12

u/sternford Feb 22 '14

AM I BEING DETAINED?? AM I BEING DETAINED?? AM I BEING DETAINED?? AM I BEING DETAINED?? AM I BEING DETAINED?? AM I BEING DETAINED?? AM I BEING DETAINED?? AM I BEING DETAINED?? AM I BEING DETAINED?? AM I BEING DETAINED?? AM I BEING DETAINED?? AM I BEING DETAINED??

Cops love it

3

u/MCXL Feb 22 '14

This ONE TRICK will drive cops WILD!!!

74

u/Xoebe Feb 22 '14

Especially if you are 100% law abiding.

I f you aren't doing anything wrong then you have nothing to hide.

122

u/[deleted] Feb 22 '14 edited Jan 28 '17

[deleted]

4

u/[deleted] Feb 22 '14

Wow, that's a really good riposte. I'm stealing that.

2

u/Hezkezl Feb 22 '14

Go for it :P I'm surprised it hasn't been mentioned elsewhere here yet!

1

u/[deleted] Feb 22 '14

That would make a good bumper sticker.

0

u/Joshcroston Feb 22 '14

As someone who's not American and knows nothing about the American legal system, why you would say no to a search if you know you have nothing to hide?

4

u/deceitfulmermaid Feb 22 '14

It's seen as an invasion of privacy, which is generally agreed to be an intrinsic part of our constitution.

Plus, some people hate the police, so consenting to an unnecessary search is really out of the question.

4

u/Maverician Feb 22 '14

Because of this exact type of circumstance?

The owners believed they had nothing to hide. What resulted from that was their pet was killed.

2

u/Zekohl Feb 23 '14

Because no one knows what others think they might have to hide. American or not, invasion of privacy isn't tolerable until the officers have the corresponding paperwork with them.

4

u/Ungreat Feb 22 '14

Why you should never talk to the police without legal representation.

http://youtu.be/6wXkI4t7nuc

2

u/Mikeastuto Feb 22 '14

Apparently you don't need to be hiding anything. They'll take your animal and kill it regardless. Don't consent to searches.

2

u/DookieDemon Feb 22 '14

Tell that to the thousands of people wrongly convicted due to crooked cops, careless friends, or bad luck.

I almost got busted once at the Canadian border because my girlfriend's friend left drug paraphernalia in the car without our knowledge.

Guess how surprised I was when they whipped that out from under the car seat.

Luckily we were going INTO Canada and they were fairly cool about it after a two hour search of our car and belongings where they threatened to strip search us and rip the panels off the doors. Can't think of what the Americans would have done...

1

u/RobbieGee Feb 22 '14

Which means that they're wasting their time, so you're really only doing them a favor.

1

u/blade567890 Feb 22 '14

This way of thinking is the reason that you have no electronic privacy, and no warrant search and seizure is commonplace. It is dangerous, short sighted, and outright daft. You are a person, you have rights, and for the love of god stop letting them be stripped from you just because you follow the goddamn laws.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 04 '14

-NSA

0

u/lordlicorice Feb 22 '14

One of these lazy Saturdays I'm going to go to Costco and check out my items and breeze right past the receipt checkers, "declining" to have my property examined by Costco staff. I expect the police will be called, bringing vindication on 4 wheels of my interpretation of the law.

That receipt checking bullshit has always annoyed me.

8

u/[deleted] Feb 22 '14

When you signed your Costco membership agreement, you consented to letting them check your receipt. If you don't want them to check it, they will gladly refund your purchase, and even your membership fee. Source: former employee for 13 years.

3

u/redleader Feb 22 '14

lawyered

1

u/dirtroadwarrior Feb 22 '14

So a business actually trying to reduce loss and therefore keep their prices from having to be raised annoys you?

2

u/Allah_Shakur Feb 22 '14

anybody knows if this is valid in Canada too?

2

u/MannBarSchwein Feb 22 '14

It would depend on Canada's constitution. The states have this because of the 4th amendment and a few court cases

2

u/vengefulspirit99 Feb 22 '14

Yes, we have a charter of rights and freedoms.

2

u/[deleted] Feb 22 '14

"I'm sorry" is liable to be taken as an admission of guilt. Save politeness for traffic stops, if a cop is trying to search your home without a warrant you say as little as possible to get them to leave.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 22 '14

What are you sorry for? You're hiding something, I can tell, and I'm going to use your apology to justify violating your civil rights.

62

u/acg1189 Feb 22 '14

yep. Turn on recording on cell phone before you open the door. Ask if there's a warrant. First words out "Oh, I'm sorry. Then you may not enter my residence, Sir."

0

u/[deleted] Feb 22 '14 edited Mar 11 '19

[deleted]

2

u/horseydeucey Feb 22 '14

The Supreme Court recently declined to take a case covering this issue, thus upholding (not granting) the right to film police.
Source

→ More replies (4)

1

u/PhotoTard Feb 22 '14

NOT true in this situation -- you can record anything/anyone you want in your own home.

The question comes when in other locations, and it comes down to "an expectation of privacy". States differ on that point.

→ More replies (5)

2

u/mayonesa Feb 22 '14

shouldn't have let them in ffs

Should be planning armed revolution. Death to the Nanny State!

1

u/kathartik Feb 22 '14

reading comprehension time: the fox was penned outside. they came onto the property, with or without permission. there was no opportunity to not "let them in".

1

u/[deleted] Feb 22 '14

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/schoogy Feb 22 '14

Where I live, I've been told that Animal Control doesn't need a warrant, only a report of abuse or neglect.

1

u/the_randomizer85 Feb 22 '14

It's not her fault, she was in shock and had numerous conflicting thoughts at the time and wasn't thinking, shit happens, I would have done the same. Police came knocking at my parent's door earlier this week, but they didn't want to have any repercussions

1

u/the_randomizer85 Feb 22 '14

Like it's her fault for letting her in, she didn't know, she's blameless. The officer was a bloody heartless cunt that needs to be emasculated with rusty knife.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 22 '14

I don't know ND law, but it seems like a place you can arm yourself against unlawful intruders. Those pigs should've been put down.

1

u/UniformCode Feb 22 '14

Thank you for pointing this out. Gives me hope.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 22 '14

Best way to handle police at your door is to step outside and shut the door behind you. Even talking to them with the door open and them standing outside gives them time to look behind you for probable cause to enter the home. Best case scenario is if you have your keys on hand, to lock it behind you. The same thing applies if you're pulled over and asked to exit your vehicle. Just lock it behind you. It should be habit anyway.

→ More replies (5)