Almost got arrested, grrrr

reply to post by GhostR1der


There are several things wrong with your post. I will clarify some things...

First:

'Officer, just before you question me I wish to ascertain a few things first, have you witnessed me causing harm, loss, injury, breach of the peace or defraudment in contract?' (most likely no unless you're a silly billy and in which case you're screwed, tbh usually rightly so)

This is not relevant. The officer doesn't need to personally witness anything. All the officer needs is probable cause (in the US) or Reasonable grounds (in Canada and the rest of the Commonwealth)... Otherwise it would be impossible to arrest the guy who fled down the street after someone flagged an officer for assaulting him...

Second:

'Are you here on your oath today?' (Yes - if not they are commiting fraud, impersonating peace officer etc) Your oath is to uphold the common law without ill will frivolity or vexation, everyone is equal under the law. You have sworn to uphold the queens peace. You have sworn an oath to the office of constabulary, which is a common law jurisdiction. As you have not witnessed me commiting a common law offense I am a free man on the land with all inaelienable rights intact. I claim common law jurisdiction, I do not consent to contract and the benefit is waived (this means any trustee/beneficiary relationship is not applicable e.g. living in the country assumes you to be a citizen..). I do not consent to contract with any statutory law as all require consent by law. I have no rights unless I claim them as I have just done. You have no lawful authority over me and you are now hindering my right to freedom of movement, do you understand?

This is also irrelevant and I would not even consider listening to this statement made from a person... This entire statement is moot because they are a matter of law already and are to be ascertained in court before a judge, not in the streets by a citizen.

Third Part:

If they ask you for a date of birth - it's hearsay - do you remember being born? And the time? Only a doctor has written it down however what proof of claim do they have? You must state that the law deals with facts, not hearsay and therefore you are unable to supply a date of birth as it is hearsay.

This is absolutely dumb. Here's what your statement means... The next time someone gives you a birthday present, you can't accept as it could be perceived as property obtained by crime. Yes! You committed fraud when you accepted it because you can't prove that it's really your birthday!

You are right, however, that you may ask for proof that the police officer really is a police officer. Just don't push it too far. I can see how if you make it humorous, you could get a good response from the officer(s), but remember, we have a job to do and we must do it regardless of what the person says or does. If you get a professional officer, he might just tell you the following statement (something I would say):

"Sir (madam), I advise you to speak with legal council as your concept of law and common law is flawed and may land you in trouble. I will prove to you that I am, in fact a police officer as required by law. Any actions that you may decide to take based on your flawed legal perspective may lead to further serious legal proceedings that you may not wish to face. You are being questioned for ... (or detained for ...) and I strongly suggest that you comply with the following demand : State and prove your name and date of birth to me. Failure to do so will compel me to arrest you and lay an information to the court concerning obstruction of justice, and possibly other charges relating to the information you will provide to me or any act that is contrary to law or common law. I once again urge you to speak to legal council so that you can be better informed of your rights, responsibilities and obligations as a citizen. Will you comply?"

Fair, straight to the point and professional. Just like me

Magnum

I have been curious about this subject for a couple of months. I also am in Canada and live next door to the police station (I know that we annoy them because we are outside smokers and we witness a lot of their comings and goings).

There is also a police woman and her boyfriend who live in the basement of where we live and apparently the boyfriend applied for a job with the RCMP.

Then one day a cop shows up at the door explaining that he is checking with neighbors of this guy downstairs and wants to ask a few questions as a formality.
Simple questions were asked like if they were noisy and if I noticed any drug or alcohol use and asked me for my name. I hesitated and he said it wont be used for any other purpose so I gave it to him.

This bothered me because he never went to the next door neighbor to ask his questions but the officer did ask some questions about the next door neighbor which I found odd as well like have I talked with them lately and did I notice anything strange there.
I always wondered if the officer wanted my name for a different reason and also if this actually was standard procedure when one applies for a job with them.

Originally posted by CosmicEgg
That doesn't look correct to me, so I wiki'd it.

"“Stop and identify” statutes are laws in the United States that allow police to detain persons reasonably suspected of involvement in a crime and require persons so detained to identify themselves to the police." full link

You now live in a police state. Martial law is next. Be warned.

Ha. We've got one over you down here in Aus. Now they want to make it (I think they already have now, unsure if it passed but I know it's in effect) legal for them to stop and search any person without any reasonable suspicion.

The Stop and Search laws.

And I know from experience, you lose when you take on the wallopers here.

[edit on 7/23/2010 by defcon5]

reply to post by DirtyGirl


The RCMP have very strict hiring procedures and this is because every officer has Top Secret status (access to all government information). They interview everyone and anyone they can in order to get a better picture of character and lifestyle. They don't only meet with the people that the applicant suggests, but also look for people around them to make sure that the references are not hiding anything (as friends do!!!)...

It's possible that they didn't meet with anyone else because the other neighbors were not available, because they already met with them, they refused to help, or they just needed 1. Your name is only for the report to make it official that they spoke to someone, for transparency.

Don't think that you annoy officers because you are "outside smokers". Don't be shy to talk to them, you'd be surprised what they are really like!!! I'd like people to come up to me just to talk sometimes!!!

Magnum

Originally posted by mellisamouse
I almost got arrested for not wanting to give my name to the police.

Don't I have a right to remain silent?

Of course not! Bloody hell! You have a hell of a lot of rights for dealing with the police in America but one thing you don't have the right to do is withold your name. That could get you in lots of trouble! As you now know.

Think about it. What if you are wanted for a previous crime or if you have skipped bail, or something. You always need to give the coppers your name.

reply to post by Magnum007


So because I gave my name it gave them the right to look into who I am? Whether I like it or not? Just because the wiener lives below me? I am not trying to be rude, but ....it sounds like that anyone who try's to get a cop job can get their neighbors investigated.

[edit on 24-7-2010 by DirtyGirl]

[edit on 24-7-2010 by DirtyGirl]

The guy so far has not gotten the job but there has been a lot of work done in the jail cells. Stronger and more exercise equipment for all, even spouses get to use them.

Sorry...you only have to be dating to use the exercise equipment.

[edit on 24-7-2010 by DirtyGirl]

reply to post by defcon5


Thank you. I am sure that ...many will get arrested regardless, but smart heads will prevail. Or not.

[edit on 24-7-2010 by DirtyGirl]

reply to post by DirtyGirl


No! They don't look into who you are because that is not their concern! They look into who they are investigating by asking people who are around them about the person.

Ok, imagine I ask you to give me 3 references. You give me 3 friends right? How am I supposed to make sure that these 3 friends don't hide anything? So I go meet your neighbors, your current boss, your co-workers, etc... I want to meet people who are around you and who are not biased as to who you really are... I don't give a damn if your neighbor 2 doors down has a record of assaults, if he tells me you're quiet, cut your grass every week and have a bar b q every week-end with friends, then that's what I want to know... The recruiting guys let the other guys do the policing...

However! If you are a friend or family of a person who is applying, I can assure you that the RCMP CAN AND WILL check your name out. They need to make sure that known associates are not criminals, part of criminal gangs/organizations, etc... The close entourage of applicants are very carefully examined...

Can you imagine hiring the brother of a Mafia boss into the RCMP? When I was in Police Technology in college, we had a girl who's father who was known to be in a criminal organization. The Montreal police needed PROOF that she had no contact with him for the last 5 years to make sure that it was safe for them to hire her.

I hope this clears any misconceptions up...

Magnum

As a Law Enforcement Officer here in the states I can say that Law Enforcement does NOT have an absolute right to detain you for refusing to give identification. A few things to keep in mind though:

A - Voluntary contact - LEO's can walk up to anyone on the street, knock on the front door, etc (except for traffic stops) and speak with you for no ther reason than.... to speak to you. Unless we are ivnestigating a crime, you have every right to not comply with the Officers (apply some common sense please). If we are ivnestigating a crime, we would normally state as much.

EX: You witness a crime, and Law Enforcement wants to talk with you. You have an obligation (in most states) to come forward as a witness, and can actually be charged with a crime for failing to do so (Civic Duty).

B - Investigative Detention - This contact by Law Enforcement is for investigation purposes. During one of these, you do not have a right to just walk away / leave. Usually the person detained is matching the description of a possible suspect. If its the wrong person, you get to go on your way. Contrary to TV though we cant just take you "downtown" and make you talk.

EX: An Officer is responding to a robbery, and while enroute he gets suspect description and direction of travel. As he continues, he sees someone walking down the street matching the description. He can stop you and identify until its determined you are the wrong person.

C - Arrest - Officer pretty much has enough information to state you broke the law, at which point you are placed under arrest and taken to jail, or released with a citation.

As far as identifing yourself to Law Enforcement. That is going to depend on individual state laws. The state I work in is goofy in this area. Only Municipal Offcers (cities) have the ability to charge a person for refusing to identify themselves. For some unkown reason the County Sheriff's Departments cannot use this (my best guess is municipalities use city ordinace AND state law, where counties can only enforce state law).

I have had a few incidents where I have taken a person to jail for crimes, including refusal to identify. As it stands now, I can put you in jail until you either identify yourself, or until your fingerprints come back from the lab with who you are.

As far as your rights are concerned, a detention and an arrest fall under the 4th amendment (which by the way does not apply to the individual, but the government). You persons is technically being "seized" for an ivnestigation.

And I know this has come up before, so I will clarify this as well. I can respond to a murder, find the suspect, take him into custody, charge him, he can go to court, be found guilty, and be placed on death row without me ever having to read the suspect Miranda warnings.

The only time we are required to Mirandize (you have the right to remain silent etc) is if you are in "custody" and I am asking guilt seeking questions.

Contrary to popular belief we dont have the powers people think we have. We have to operate in a very narrow parameter estbalished by Law. We cant just arrest you for no reason at all.

Another weird example - in the state I work in I have to meet certain criteria for shooting a fleeing felon in the back while he is trying to run away (immidiate danger to the public) where a private citizen could shoot (crook is comitting a felony) him in the back and it be justified. (shooting to stop the threat is also a 4th amendement issue).

42 U.S.C. 1983 - federal civil rights violation. If we violate your civil rights, this is the Federal Code used to prosecute us.

Law Enforcement does not work in the Judicial system. We fall under the Executive Branch (enforce laws).

So please, before people spout off about what Law Enforcement can and cant do, do some research first. It might save you a trip to jail in the end.

If anyone has questions ask. Just keep in mind it varies from state to state.

Originally posted by Reign02
You have the right to remain silent when you are being arrested. And a if a cop wants to he can take you to jail for just about anything. When a cop asks you your name you are required to identify yourself. whether it be by ID or verbally. And yes they can take u in for abstruction of justice. IF you called the cops or told them you witnessed an event you are out of luck.

This is absolutely false.

You are under no legal obligation to indentify yourself ever to the police or any officer of the court.

The police do though have the right to detain you for 72 hours without charges and to use that time to run your fingerprints to attempt to indentify you.

You may legally identify your self as John Doe, or Jane Doe, or John of the Family Doe or Jane of the Family Doe, and the term itself originates from the Courts as a standard name to assign to anyone in a legal proceeding or encounter that does not wish to identify themselves.

At the end of 72 hours you must be taken before a Judge and a Court as John Doe where if the Police or State's Attorneys feel they can prove you are a specific person, they can present that evidence to a Judge.

You can still dispute you are that person, in which case the Judge will set a hearing to determine your identity in the eyes of the court.

However if the person they think you are, has no out standing warrants and is not accused of a crime in which sufficient evidence to charge John Doe with that crime is present you must be released at the end of that 72 hours.

You never, ever, ever, have an obligation to identify yourself, you have the right to maintain your privacy, and you have the right to evoke the 5th amendment and not say anything that might incriminate yourself, and that includes identifying yourself too.

People who really don't know the law, really should not advise others on it.

Thanks.

[edit on 25/7/10 by ProtoplasmicTraveler]

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler


Hey Proto, one thing that I have come across lately is if you are ever in court and they start any proceeding, ask about jurisdiction.

As JPZ brought up earlier. Close in regards to that, is the evidence that the prosecuting attorney represents the state.

Everything has to be proven to be true. Therefore object that the prosecutor actually represents the state and that the state actually exists.

I guess this really gets under there skin.

If something is not contested than it is considered to be true. Therefore object to everything. Jurisdiction first and their ability to represent the supposed "state".

Been loving listening to some of the videos lately and delving into the law.

Looking now into the different jurisdictional authorities of differing courts. I am thinking of going down to my county courthouse and asking some questions this week. Got lots of time on my hands working under.

edit to add-in regards to their representing the "state", I am attempting to ascertain if they are the supposed other in a contract or the supposed victim in criminal proceedings where there actually is no crime. You know, like traffic. That is why I was thinking of going to the traffic court and see if I can sit down with a judge.

[edit on 7/25/2010 by endisnighe]

reply to post by endisnighe


Actually no, they don’t have jurisdiction in most matters, but they trick people into giving it to them through the intimidating and threatening methods that they use, that cause most people to submit to and agree to the proceedings under what is genuinely duress.

However the law as far as the states and court goes and its officers allows for trickery.

I wouldn’t expect a judge or a prosecutor to be forthcoming about this in a conversational way, but having said that…wait until you get your next code violation and show up to court with a couple of good dictionaries and start defining their own words for them as they are legally defined as opposed to what they assume, people assume they must mean and you are going to have a lot of fun.

Explain to them the real meaning of each and every word on the citation and how it’s all designed to deceive you into granting them contractual privileges to judge you, penalize you, and profit off of you, by displaying to them the actual rather sinister legal definitions of the words that they are employing.

Words have figurative and literal definitions and many people are tricked into the figurative definition and as such don’t know how incriminating the literal definition is regarding the manner that they are employed by the states and the courts.

Once you explain to them that you realize most English speakers don’t actually know the English Language, but you are not one of those people, and stick to your guns, you will find that they don’t want to pat you on the back for your brilliance, verve and wit, but they do want to make short shrift of things at that point and get you out of there before you start giving other people ideas.

That’s the time to ask for money. What ever they were attempting to fine you, demand to be compensated in that same amount as a penalty the state must pay for attempting to trick you and failing.

I explain that because they sought to deceive me and to profit off of that deception, that they themselves have invited a penalty, and they must pay a penalty to compensate me for my time after having used armed force and the color of authority to disturb and invade my well ordered and maintained world.

The whole code system is designed for the profit of the state and not to protect the citizens and it is very easy to display that once you actually take the time to sit down and learn the precise meaning of the words that they use to both present and enforce the codes.

It’s all just contract law, and they will resort to a lot of tricks to get you to sign to and agree with the premise of the contract and the contract itself. Once they realize you truly understand and aren’t going to be intimidated, they are usually happy to pay you and get you right the heck out of there.

Thanks.

He cannot ask you your name unless he suspects you and lets face it even if your just sitting on a bench your a suspect.

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler


I would be very careful using these tactics in court. Some of whats suggested will get you a contempt citation if your lucky.

You have the right to do anything you give yourself the right to do. No one grants you your freedom.

Don't tell COPS ANYTHING. PERIOD. Bow to NO ONE. Go to jail if you must, but hold your sovereignty true and precious.

[edit on 25-7-2010 by Visitor2012]

reply to post by Visitor2012


Basically, people, according to this fool you gain freedom by being incarcerated... Go out and exercise your "freedom" and choose to be incarcerated...

Some people have it all twisted and wrong...

Magnum

Ya know not everything and everyone is a conspiracy. Not cooperating with police in the most basic ways is just stupid. If you have nothing to hide, then you should have no problem identifying yourself and presenting identification. Refusing to do so makes you look like an a**hole, and it makes you appear shady to the cops.

Stop being belligerent because you read on a forum somewhere that you don't have to give the police your name or cooperate with them in any way. Many of them are still under the impression that they are in place as an authority to protect and serve. I work with law enforcement on a daily basis as a dispatcher and I can assure that the majority are there to help.

My local law enforcement is not currently being trained to kill citizens...and yours probably isn't either. Just FYI.

reply to post by glitchinthematrix


Choosing to exercise one’s own constitutional rights to privacy is not being belligerent.

In fact it is a dangerous attitude that considers doing so to be such. That is why many people are suspicious of law enforcement and the totality of its activities.

Notice how I say totality, as only a very small percentage of law enforcement activity involves protecting and serving. A good portion of it is code enforcement, designed to enrich the state using the police as hired muscle and henchmen to effectuate payment to the state.

Yet sadly it does not stop there, as many Departments are rife with corruption, from selling protection to select criminals to actually engaging in criminal activity for profit themselves.

So no, in reality, sitting behind a switchboard, does not make you privy to what happens out there on the street. It makes you privy to radio traffic and their own version of events out on the street when they feel compelled for some reason to share them with you.

Police excesses have become instrumental in destroying the notion that it is alright to adhere to ones constitutional rights, when in reality the constitution bestowed those for the very purpose of protecting the citizens from a state run amuck with corruption and a love of power.

Police excesses at the recent G-20 in Pittsburgh which included police officers from six states participating in using the latest riot control weapons and tactics in lock step unswerving ranks against mostly peaceful young demonstrators displays that the police display a mindless mob mentality of their own and have lost their ability to exercise any adherence to the constitution and to demonstrate any compassion for the citizenry.

Belligerent to exercise your Constitutional Rights, sadly I fear you actually believe that.

We are in big trouble.


[edit on 25/7/10 by ProtoplasmicTraveler]