Police Officer Preparation & Law Enforcement Resource - Archive

Hey I know that almost none of you guys live in Flint but iam pretty sure that you have heard of the no sagging rule. This restricts the residents of flint from wearing their pants to low, which reveals what color boxers the person walking down the street is wearing.:D This would fall under indecent exposure.I honestly think that this is a good idea, a little pointless at first glance but if you think about it, sagging pants and other things of this nature set off and/or flares up violence in some twisted sort of way. Now Flint does have more problems than this but this could be a great technique, by slowly enforcing small things gradually to achieve results that you want to see.(slowly raising the temperature analogy) Now this question is open to anyone, do you think that this is a good idea, will it last, and would you enforce it?

(sorry for the speech):p

I think it is a waste of time to have police officers enforcing such a stupid rule. They have much better things to be doing than citing someone for having their pants to low from their waist line.

If I was an officer, I would not enforce this because I would much rather be catching the speeders, drug dealers, criminals...etc.

Hey I know that almost none of you guys live in Flint but iam pretty sure that you have heard of the no sagging rule. This restricts the residents of flint from wearing their pants to low, which reveals what color boxers the person walking down the street is wearing.:D This would fall under indecent exposure.I honestly think that this is a good idea, a little pointless at first glance but if you think about it, sagging pants and other things of this nature set off and/or flares up violence in some twisted sort of way. Now Flint does have more problems than this but this could be a great technique, by slowly enforcing small things gradually to achieve results that you want to see.(slowly raising the temperature analogy) Now this question is open to anyone, do you think that this is a good idea, will it last, and would you enforce it?

(sorry for the speech):p

"indecent exposure"


"Revealing one's genitals under circumstances likely to offend others. Exposure is indecent under the law whenever a reasonable person would or should know that his act may be seen by others--for example, in a public place or through an open window--and that it is likely to cause affront or alarm"

http://www.nolo.com/definition.cfm/Term/D352DA6C-79E3-46F8-9D875DE95AB87144/alpha/I/





although I never sag, "showing the color of ones underwear" has nothing to do with "showing ones genitalia".






So ya, techniclly its not even IE at all and they need to rephrase the name of the obvious MISDEMEANOR.

sorry for typo's :p

I hope that the courts understand the fact that sagging pants can be very useful in the overall cleanliness of the public city sidewalks, if you catch my meaning :rolleyes:

I hope that the courts understand the fact that sagging pants can be very useful in the overall cleanliness of the public city sidewalks, if you catch my meaning :rolleyes:

It is also good for officers trying to catch the idiots who try to run with baggy pants and end up falling on themselves.

It is also good for officers trying to catch the idiots who try to run with baggy pants and end up falling on themselves.

That never crossed my mind, but I love it ;)

Isn't that, like, a rap/gang thing? :confused:

Isn't that, like, a rap/gang thing? :confused:

Not nececarilly a written rule, but every gang member I see does it.......

I'm not sure how busy Flint is, but I could picture myself having a LOT of fun with this. The way I see it, it gives you PC to stop those mouthy bangers. If I was an LEO, I would LOVE to issue an ordinance ticket for sagging pants. Do you know how much the fine is?

Uh wrong section???
:p


Theres a video floating around with the chief doing something in regards to sagging pants on the street.



Flint is headed in the wrong direction. They think they are making a difference but are only making themselves look foolish.

They have some very good officers, but their senior leadership is a joke.

Sagging pants? Why don't they do something about the drugs, crack houses, murders, shootings, and abandon houses. Then you can worry about someones asscrack showing.

Find me one street officer that has enforced this. Its going to be a very short list...

Is it illegal for bikinis and speedos to be worn?

I am not a fan of saggy pants, but c'mon.... Stupid law. VA has something similar now too.

Not nececarilly a written rule, but every gang member I see does it.......Like fat laces in the 80s, every other kid wears them that way.... Its a Fad.

Now I dont know what the fine is on the rule but the thing about it is that, it would give an officer a reason to conduct a stop and search some one. This could also help the crack down on drugs and guns if the officer searching the person comes across them. This could stop potential violence before it even has a chance to happen. We all know that the majority leaning into all gang members have guns or some type of weapon on their person at all times and as mentioned above sagging panty is sort of a gang thing which would make it all the easier for them to hide the weapons in their pants. Honestly check this video out, you'll be surprised about how many things can fit into someones baggy pants

(if video dont work go to google and search weapons in baggy pants.)

www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ge8aZqgxV7Q)

You can fit a lot of things in a winter coat also. ;)

ILCadet401 this is classified as a misdemeanor punishable by a $500 fine and up to three months in jail. source( http://blog.mlive.com/flintjournal/feedback/2008/07/flint_police_chief_david_dicks_crackdown_on_saggy_ pants_has_the_world_talking_whats_your_view.html)

I think it is a waste of time to have police officers enforcing such a stupid rule. They have much better things to be doing than citing someone for having their pants to low from their waist line.

If I was an officer, I would not enforce this because I would much rather be catching the speeders, drug dealers, criminals...etc.

It is not a "rule" it is a law. So you would refuse to enforce laws with which you disagree?

I wonder if these areas with this law enforce plumber's crack exposure? I see it all of the time with bike riders, cable installers, phone techs, etc etc... that is more offensive than one's underwear exposed. :D

And again, for the proponents of the Law, is it illegal to wear a swimsuit (Bikini or Speedo) wear these laws are in effect?

Seems rather unfair, as it merely seems to target juveniles for a Fad. I am sure the laws are worded as "may" rather than "shall", so discretion is allowed.

Only time you'll see a speedo or a bikini being worn in Flint is either on a dead body or a lost tourist...which turns into a dead body...


;)

Flint don't have time to deal with that type of crap!

The mayor is a joke, the chief is a joke, and the idea of a super chief is just plain stupid! :rolleyes:

Flint don't have time to deal with that type of crap!

The mayor is a joke, the chief is a joke, and the idea of a super chief is just plain stupid! :rolleyes:

Whats wrong with the Super Chief idea?


I mean after all, Williamson did keep it in the family...

And here you all go...the video
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080710/VIDEO01/80710067



Chief on "Patrol".....:rolleyes:

Yup.... a waste of Law Enforcement time. Not to mention the Chief's apparent lack of Search and Seizure Law knowledge.

(In Reply to the video)

I laughed out loud when he pulled out the long gun. Sure he can fit all that stuff in there, but try walking around with all of it. Part of me thinks a long gun down your leg would get a bit uncomfortable, along with the many other guns in your waistband.

ILCadet401 this is classified as a misdemeanor punishable by a $500 fine and up to three months in jail. source( http://blog.mlive.com/flintjournal/feedback/2008/07/flint_police_chief_david_dicks_crackdown_on_saggy_ pants_has_the_world_talking_whats_your_view.html)

:eek: Three months in jail?!? What if he just forgot to wear a belt that day? Haha, my opinion has changed. Thats more than a little bit crazy. The $500 fine, whatever. I just feel bad for the guy that goes to jail over it.

"What you guys in for?"
"I stole a car." "I robbed a bank." "....My pants were too low."
Save him the embarrassment.

Part of me thinks a long gun down your leg would get a bit uncomfortable, along with the many other guns in your waistband.

I was thinking the same thing but to be honest people will do just about anything these days:D.


"What you guys in for?"
"I stole a car." "I robbed a bank." "....My pants were too low."
Save him the embarrassment.

lol, that guy better hope that those three months go pretty quick;).

It is not a "rule" it is a law. So you would refuse to enforce laws with which you disagree?

You are correct, it is a law. I am sorry I should have looked that over before posting that. I wouldn't enforce this law because if I was an officer in Flint, I believe that I would have a better way to spend my time then issuing some gangbanger a ordinance citation. Don't get me wrong, I would LOVE to write these people tickets, but, I believe there is a better way to spend a LEO's time then enforcing whether or not someone has their pants sagging.

Could be great PC. Remember this did start out as a prison/gang thing. Although I have a feeling when SCOTUS gets a hold of this; any drugs/guns confiscated will be fruit of the poisonous tree.

But seriously, do these city councilmen actually read the Bill of Rights and previous US Supreme Court cases, Tinker comes to mind. Like someone said before "What part of SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED do you have a hard time understanding."

Could be great PC. Remember this did start out as a prison/gang thing. Although I have a feeling when SCOTUS gets a hold of this; any drugs/guns confiscated will be fruit of the poisonous tree.

But seriously, do these city councilmen actually read the Bill of Rights and previous US Supreme Court cases, Tinker comes to mind. Like someone said before "What part of SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED do you have a hard time understanding."

Stole the words right outta my mouth. As an officer you're pretty much guaranteed a reason to stop suspected gang bangers and most likely a Terry frisk, then one thing leads to another and (BOOM!) an arrest. I'd never enforce it but it's awesome PC.

"What you guys in for?"
"I stole a car." "I robbed a bank." "....My pants were too low."
Save him the embarrassment.

"boys, I think we found our scape goat........................" :D

Great PC is correct, but if you ended up seizing something due to one of these stops, I think you have some questions about the search and seizure laws!

Great PC is correct, but if you ended up seizing something due to one of these stops, I think you have some questions about the search and seizure laws!If the law regarding the sag is found constitutional, then anything located would be golden.

Great PC is correct, but if you ended up seizing something due to one of these stops, I think you have some questions about the search and seizure laws!


I don't have any questions about the S&S laws. I know em well.

And here I thought this thread was gonna be about Bewbies. :(

I don't have any questions about the S&S laws. I know em well.

And here I thought this thread was gonna be about Bewbies. :(

Hahaha!

Isn't that, like, a rap/gang thing? :confused:

I heard that the more the pants drag on the sidewalk the tougher the gang is :D

Yup.... a waste of Law Enforcement time. Not to mention the Chief's apparent lack of Search and Seizure Law knowledge.

What was the chief doing that's against the search and seizure law? Sorry if that's a dumb question.


And here you all go...the video
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080710/VIDEO01/80710067



Chief on "Patrol".....:rolleyes:

Is it just me or was the chief also stopping people whose shirts were covering up their boxers? It looked like a few of the kids he stopped had their shirts covering up their boxers and he pulled their shirts up.

Its not a matter of if you want to cite someone for it, its your job to uphold the law even if its rediculous.

On the flip side, I dont think its the citys buisness how someone chooses to dress themselves. If body parts are not exposed then there is no problem. I dont like goth styles, why cant I cite someone for having holes all over a black outfit with red paint dabed on it?

See my point?

Isn't that, like, a rap/gang thing? :confused:

The bagging sagging clothes started out in prison and as the gang members got out they chose to keep the same type of loose clothing. They are also able to hide weapons of all sizes.
I am not to fond of some of the baggies but some people wear them were they stay up at a decent hight. The ones I don't like is of course when I have to look at your boxers, not just the rim, and also when I hope like heck your privates actually will hold them on. I really could care less what your pants are covering unless it is a weapon. I will admit, It sure is funny when you see someone trying to run while holding their pants on.

Well by God, theres always going to be someone out there that doesn't like the way you or somebody else dresses....everyone just needs to mind there own business. Whose to say which way is right or wrong?

Well by God, theres always going to be someone out there that doesn't like the way you or somebody else dresses....everyone just needs to mind there own business. Whose to say which way is right or wrong?

The government.

I believe it is a lack of dressing that people are concerned about. I don't really need (or care) to see some 'bangers *** crack hanging out when I'm out for a run, getting the mail, etc.

Well by God, theres always going to be someone out there that doesn't like the way you or somebody else dresses....everyone just needs to mind there own business. Whose to say which way is right or wrong?

You work in a department and still retain such a liberal attitude????

It's less of what someone "likes" than about offensiveness of appearance and actions... but somethings are just hard to explain when discussing it with someone all liberaled-up!

Hey, IlCadet, how bout this....when you see someone's back side, look the other way. Omg, what a simple solution. Like my grand-dad always said, "your making a mountain out of a mole hill".

There are people out there this very instant that don't care for you or your style of dress and may find it offensive. Would it be fair to you if they proposed laws that prohibited the way you dress? I'd like to think not.

This is ridiculous. Borderline insanity. I am dumbfounded and almost at a loss for words.

I can't believe that just because one group of people don't care for the style of dress of another group of people, they think they can propose, possibly even pass, laws that'll outlaw it.

The sad thing about it is, theres people out there that will support it.

I don't sag, never have, never will. Im very modest and was raised the old fashioned way. But thats beside the point, the fact of the matter is that nobody has the right to tell another person how they can and can't dress just because they "find it offensive".

Call it a "liberal attitude", call me "liberaled-up" call me what you will. I call it "keeping an open mind". Its all just a matter of opinion.

Agreed completely WilliamTomFrank.

If I was ever told my smart *** t-shirts or my GenderFuckt hoodie were illegal, man, I'd be screwed!

In all seriousness though, dress how you want - just don't emo whine when there's negative repercussions of your actions.

Hey, IlCadet, how bout this....when you see someone's back side, look the other way. Omg, what a simple solution. Like my grand-dad always said, "your making a mountain out of a mole hill".

There are people out there this very instant that don't care for you or your style of dress and may find it offensive. Would it be fair to you if they proposed laws that prohibited the way you dress? I'd like to think not.

This is ridiculous. Borderline insanity. I am dumbfounded and almost at a loss for words.

I can't believe that just because one group of people don't care for the style of dress of another group of people, they think they can propose, possibly even pass, laws that'll outlaw it.

The sad thing about it is, theres people out there that will support it.

I don't sag, never have, never will. Im very modest and was raised the old fashioned way. But thats beside the point, the fact of the matter is that nobody has the right to tell another person how they can and can't dress just because they "find it offensive".

Call it a "liberal attitude", call me "liberaled-up" call me what you will. I call it "keeping an open mind". Its all just a matter of opinion.

Yeah, I suppose your city has no code to cite for indecent exposure? :rolleyes:

Look it up sometime. No one wants to see your *** crack! Save running around with your buddies, checking out each others' asses for behind closed doors. Most of us do not care to see it. Failure to see that, and imposing others too stare at your *** is al ot more than an "open mind". I'd liken it more to some closet comments I could make, but hey...

i only let the ladies see my crack...

Hey, IlCadet, how bout this....when you see someone's back side, look the other way. Omg, what a simple solution. Like my grand-dad always said, "your making a mountain out of a mole hill".

There are people out there this very instant that don't care for you or your style of dress and may find it offensive. Would it be fair to you if they proposed laws that prohibited the way you dress? I'd like to think not.


Hey WTF, what about when I'm out for a walk with my 4 and 5 year old cousins? They aren't gonna look away, and they don't need to see somebody's exposed ***.

In terms of people finding my style of dress offensive...I find that pretty hard to believe. My *** is never hanging out, my family jewels are safely tucked away, and I don't wear any 'F*** your mom' T-shirts. Kinda hard to get offended by jeans and a hoodie.

If you dress so modestly, this law shouldn't bother you at all. Therefore, based on the information you gave us about your style of dress, I can logically come to the conclusion that you are a troll who simply came to stir the pot on the forums. Stop trying to find ways to be offended. If you don't like the laws in America, GTFO. The law is the law, you can't debate it just because you don't agree with it.

</rant>

In my personal oppinion, i think they should sag as much as they want. Simply because they will be easier to catch in a foot chase. :)

In my personal oppinion, i think they should sag as much as they want. Simply because they will be easier to catch in a foot chase. :)

I prefer to work out and have the capability to catch them. :D

Im not even going to dignify your statement with a responce.......or maybe i will......

So your calling me a troll hmm? Hahahahaha. Tell me that to my face...

Snap snap! Stay focused here. We're talking about the no sagging rule, not indescent exposure, which is a whole different subject. The said rule adresses "exposing the color of your boxers", sagging in other words, which is a stlye of dress. For example, Cowboys wear boots and jeans and clothing affiliated with manual labor or their line of work....as do city people and everyone in between! Thats what this whooole thing is about.

Oh yeah...even if your charged with indescent exposure due to your back side being visible.....it will most likely be dismissed because the judge or prosecutor won't be willing to waste his/her time pursuing such a senseless case. And if not dismissed, it will be difficult to find a prosecutor and D.A. willing to take action.....just words and thoughts from several of my Verified LEO's.

Furthermore, you say i can't debate the law just because i don't agree with it??? The Hell i can't. If that were in fact the truth, nothing would ever be discussed and nobody would ever discuss anything! You have no idea what your talking about.

And another thing, I certainly don't want or need to see anyone's back side, but its something i have to deal with. Just like i have to put up with other people committing offensive actions, for example, scratching their butt, picking their nose, and so on and so on.

I'll leave you with this: Any one person is entitled to the same tolerence of dress and behavior afforded to anyone else.

Im not even going to dignify your statement with a responce.......or maybe i will......

So your calling me a troll hmm? Hahahahaha. Tell me that to my face...

Snap snap! Stay focused here. We're talking about the no sagging rule, not indescent exposure, which is a whole different subject. The said rule adresses "exposing the color of your boxers", sagging in other words, which is a stlye of dress. For example, Cowboys wear boots and jeans and clothing affiliated with manual labor or their line of work....as do city people and everyone in between! Thats what this whooole thing is about.

Oh yeah...even if your charged with indescent exposure due to your back side being visible.....it will most likely be dismissed because the judge or prosecutor won't be willing to waste his/her time pursuing such a senseless case. And if not dismissed, it will be difficult to find a prosecutor and D.A. willing to take action.....just words and thoughts from several of my Verified LEO's.

Furthermore, you say i can't debate the law just because i don't agree with it??? The Hell i can't. If that were in fact the truth, nothing would ever be discussed and nobody would ever discuss anything! You have no idea what your talking about.

And another thing, I certainly don't want or need to see anyone's back side, but its something i have to deal with. Just like i have to put up with other people committing offensive actions, for example, scratching their butt, picking their nose, and so on and so on.

I'll leave you with this: Any one person is entitled to the same tolerence of dress and behavior afforded to anyone else.


Real mature. I'm not even going to bother getting into a pissing contest with you. Guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

BIG is still trying to figure out why someone opened up a damn near 8 month death thread & didn't add anything substantial to the thread, to justify opening it up again.

Hey I know that almost none of you guys live Now this question is open to anyone, do you think that this is a good idea, will it last, and would you enforce it?

(sorry for the speech):p
I think it's a good idea. While I probably wouldn't enforce it, at least it would give me Probable Cause to search a person and find out if they are doing anything else illegal.

Is that right, Ilcadet? Im immature? I'd wish to challenge that thought. I may be, but don't think for one second that your are not as well. Who labeled who a troll simply because of our different opinions and views? T'was certainly was not I...

I thought i was expressing my thoughts quite professionally thank you.:)

Is that right, Ilcadet? Im immature? I'd wish to challenge that thought. I may be, but don't think for one second that your are not as well. Who labeled who a troll simply because of our different opinions and views? T'was certainly was not I...

I thought i was expressing my thoughts quite professionally thank you.:)

PM will soon be sent.