ZOMG!!! got stopped by a cop just now, anomalous behavior on officers part

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
While I get your point, it complacency like this that is leading to the elimination of our rights.

I would have politely declined his requests until he had a better reason to search me. A cop does not have the right to put his hands on you, just because you 'fit a description'.

And again people do not understand how the laws work. You are matching the description of a person who committed armed robbery. Failure to comply could result in being pistol pointed and treated in a hostile manner until they determine you are not a threat.

We will answer your questions, but when dealing with a potentially armed suspect, niceties will go out the window.

reply to post by joyride0187


wouldn't have surprised me at all worse things have happened in PR

Cerro_Maravilla_incident

OK let me get this straight.....

Your walking down the street minding your own business and you have done nothing wrong....

A man with a badge comes up to you with his hand on his deadly firearm and tells you to put your hands on the wall....

Then he invades your space and your person by giving you a pat down search...

The he makes you turn out your pockets...

And after all this you are HAPPY with the whole encounter?

Seriously, George Orwell must be tossing and turning in his grave right now

reply to post by Xcathdra


welcome

We will answer your questions, but when dealing with a potentially armed suspect, niceties will go out the window.

he looked fresh out of the academy to me and was probably relieved to find no guns [don't believe in them or need them, though i do believe in the right to bear arms they just aren't my style] or any money bags on me


also he didn't put any hands on me till i gave consent

just thought i'd clear that up

sweet thread!
a bit confusing but nontheless
cracked me up how you put the radio sound effects in
i wonder how many people really do look like this suspect
S+F for sharing

reply to post by Xcathdra


It goes both ways you know. Because of cops that go around beating, tazing and shooting people, there will be people that look at police as a threat, until they are proven otherwise. They have a uniform and a badge, they fit the description of out of control power freaks, and will be treated as such until proven otherwise. Does this make police or anyone safer? Of course not.

Kind of offtopic, but can anyone see my avatar? It looks way darker than yesterday to me....

reply to post by lifttheveil




you need to either lift that veil,
or get a new prescription

[ a polite way IMO of asking you to go back and reread. you might learn a couple of useful tricks]

it was just patting the sides of my body from armpits to pockets [non tsa-style]

and no did not and never have turned out my pockets here in PR

he felt a bulge in my left pocket

[and no i was not happy to see him] a leather pouch with 4 flash drives in it

Xcathedra will probably know more about this than me

SOP here in PR is to ask/order you to empty your pockets
the cops will not put their hands in your pockets here or in NYC
[my theory is that they're afraid you might have a hypodermic syringe in there]

most people who went to jail in NYC [and most other places] for pot is because they stupidly complied and showed them their baggie

i 'm always careful to have stuff to take out and show
and when they ask me if that's all i just say:

yes officer that's all

and walked

yes, it's that easy folks.

what are they going to do stick their hands in my pocket?

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
While I get your point, it complacency like this that is leading to the elimination of our rights.

I would have politely declined his requests until he had a better reason to search me. A cop does not have the right to put his hands on you, just because you 'fit a description'.

Actually, a cop does have the right, it's part of their job, has been for decades on both sides of the pond. If they're taking an aggressive attitude with you then by all means do what you said but if they're being polite as most are then there's no issue.

Why make their jobs a lot harder than they have to be? Most police officers are just normal everyday men and women who wanna get on with it and feed themselves and their families with no hassle. Why create hassle for them just because you read a few bits and pieces about the overly aggressive douchebags that ruin the profession for everybody else?

Complacency isn't a bad thing at all. Co-operate and comply, if they get rough or aggressive refuse to take part in anything else until they show respect and restraint.

Plus, what if the only description they had was something vague? If it was armed robbery I'm sure the victim wouldn't be able to tell them everything down to the last freckle in the initial report would they? Again, why make it harder for the officers on patrol by acting like an ass when you could do as they politely ask and have it all over within minutes?

Originally posted by DerepentLEstranger
reply to post by iamsupermanv2

 

all this took 2 minutes

exactly

any arguments about my rights would have prolonged the whole thing unnecessarily and from long experience i know they aren't interested and only do so as a psychological tactic

That's just it though. At what point do we stop giving up our rights for convenience?

Originally posted by curious7

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
While I get your point, it complacency like this that is leading to the elimination of our rights.

I would have politely declined his requests until he had a better reason to search me. A cop does not have the right to put his hands on you, just because you 'fit a description'.

Actually, a cop does have the right, it's part of their job, has been for decades on both sides of the pond. If they're taking an aggressive attitude with you then by all means do what you said but if they're being polite as most are then there's no issue.

Why make their jobs a lot harder than they have to be? Most police officers are just normal everyday men and women who wanna get on with it and feed themselves and their families with no hassle. Why create hassle for them just because you read a few bits and pieces about the overly aggressive douchebags that ruin the profession for everybody else?

Complacency isn't a bad thing at all. Co-operate and comply, if they get rough or aggressive refuse to take part in anything else until they show respect and restraint.

Plus, what if the only description they had was something vague? If it was armed robbery I'm sure the victim wouldn't be able to tell them everything down to the last freckle in the initial report would they? Again, why make it harder for the officers on patrol by acting like an ass when you could do as they politely ask and have it all over within minutes?

Sure it's the police's job to survey and attempt to apprehend the suspect. But there is a reason the cop ASKED (not told, but ASKED) this person to do the things he did. It's because the officer did not have the RIGHT to TELL him to do it. I have the right to decline.

My stance has nothing to do with creating a hassle. I am not looking to make their job harder, but I am also not looking to hand over my rights as a free citizen to help them. I'm reminded of a quote by the great Benjamin Franklin:

"He who gives up freedom for safety deserves neither."

It is our DUTY as americans to stand up for our rights. It is a duty that we were charged with by those who created this great nation.

Complacency is an EXTREMELY bad thing, and I cant believe someone would argue otherwise. Apathy and complacency are the two biggest factors in the squashing of our freedoms in this country. Our forefathers would retch at the idea that complacency isnt a bad thing.

And finally, if the description is that vague, it means it is an even greater violation of my rights to hold me, even for two minutes.

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
While I get your point, it complacency like this that is leading to the elimination of our rights.

I would have politely declined his requests until he had a better reason to search me. A cop does not have the right to put his hands on you, just because you 'fit a description'.

And again people do not understand how the laws work. You are matching the description of a person who committed armed robbery. Failure to comply could result in being pistol pointed and treated in a hostile manner until they determine you are not a threat.

We will answer your questions, but when dealing with a potentially armed suspect, niceties will go out the window.

Sorry, but you are wrong. I have every right to refuse an officer's request. The fear of having a gun pointed at you is the reason that most people dont get this. If you are not under arrest, you have no obligation to interact with that officer. You cannot just walk away, but you certainly dont have to oblige his requests. As I have already said, there is a reason this officer ASKED him to do these things, and did not TELL him to.

Originally posted by OnceReturned

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
I disagree, and I would challenge it as far as I could. He can ask me to cooperate, but unless he has read me my rights, I dont have to oblige. I am innocent until proven guilty. Just because I look like someone that has been described in a crime is not probable cause, and does not supersede my rights.

He couldn't arrest you without probable cause - and I agree he didn't have that - but, he could briefly detain you and frisk you for weapons based on reasonable suspicion, which he did have.

Courts have ruled (Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968)) that a stop on reasonable suspicion may be appropriate in the following cases: when a person possesses many unusual items which would be useful in a crime like a wire hanger and is looking into car windows at 2am, when a person matches a description of a suspect given by another police officer over department radio, or when a person runs away at the sight of police officers who are at common law right of inquiry (founded suspicion). However, reasonable suspicion may not apply merely because a person refuses to answer questions, declines to allow a voluntary search, or is of a suspected race or ethnicity. At reasonable suspicion, you may be detained by a police officer (court officer on court grounds) for a short period of time and police can use force to detain you. If it is a violent crime (robbery, rape, gun run), the courts have recognized that an officer's safety is paramount and have allowed for a "frisk" of the outermost garment from head to toe and for an officer to stop an individual at gun point if necessary. For a non-violent crime (shoplifting for example) an officer may frisk while at reasonable suspicion if he noticed a bulge in the waistband area, for example, but can frisk in that area only.

Considering that the OP was not under arrest, he could not have resisted. But he had every right to decline the officer's requests. To do so politely is not resisting, and does not give the cop any more rights than they had to begin with.

I don't mean resist in the criminal sense, I mean resist the cops attempts to investigate.

He could have refused to empty his pockets, but would that have really made anything better? It's not like that's the kind of thing we need be doing to really stick it to the man and embrace our rights as Americans. It's just trivial obstinance that introduces a difficulty where none would otherwise exist. Why not comply with an investigation? Can you really make the case that it is ethically or morally preferable to exercise your right to refuse to empty your pockets, rather than facilitate the process by just showing him that you're not the guy they're looking for?

It seems to me like "the right thing to do" would be to help out here. I agree with the objective - catching the armed robber - and going along with it would not involve a substantial negative consequence for me personally; I just have to show this cop what I have in my pockets. It's a trivial act that would aid in a process which I want to succeed (catch the bad guy). The idea that resistance for the sake of resistance is worth it because otherwise our rights will be slowly erroded doesn't seem reasonable. Do you think that the OPs compliance has really sped up our descent into an Orwellian police state? Do you really think that not showing the cop what was in your pockets would delay any larger process at work that is minimizing civil liberties?

It seems like the rights you're appealling to here ought to imply the responsibility to use them in an appropriate way. It's more virtuous to aid in a legitimate pursuit of justice than to interfere with that pursuit just to remind everyone that - technically - you don't have to play along if you really dont want to.

Sorry, missed this, wasn't trying to ignore your points.

I absolutely get what you are saying. And truthfully, if not for the pat-down, I probably would have answered any questions the officer had. But when it comes to searching me, invading my privacy and personal space, then yes, I do believe it is my DUTY to refuse.
Unless this officer could provide me with a more specific reason than "you fit the description", I will absolutely take the stance that it is a violation of my rights for him to search me. If he can give me that reason, I will gladly cooperate.

reply to post by Xcathdra

And again people do not understand how the laws work.

That's funny, most of the times it's cops who don't understand how laws work. That's why they became cops and not lawyers.

You are matching the description of a person who committed armed robbery. Failure to comply could result in being pistol pointed and treated in a hostile manner until they determine you are not a threat.

Out of the blue a person dressed as police rushes you with his hand on his weapon. Imagine the guy walking down the road to be listening to an mp3 player, and when the officer tries to stop him the guy reaches in his jacket to turn off the mp3 player. Cop of course, shoots the guy, because...he's a...

a potentially armed suspect

_potentially_ armed suspect. Like the guy that got shot in the London subway because cops thought he was a terrorist. He ran. He sure did. Because people_with_guns were chasing him.

I understand you can't be nice, because if you're nice you're not scary any more. Isn't that sad? That a cop needs to be scary? Think about it...

First things first.... The OP describes the event happening in Spain NOT the United States. The Police in Europe are more respectful of the citizen and their rights than their conterpart in the United States.

This situation would have taken a different path here in the US.

We have an Arab who roughly matches the description of an armed robbery suspect. Who really believes that this citizens stop would have been the same as he experience, if he had been stopped on an American street by an American Police Officer.

reply to post by niceguybob

Keep up the good work and you'll be as good as MIke Winslow from "The Police Academy" films in no tme.

Or Carl Winslow, the dad and cop from Family Matters

(Steve Urkel voice) "did I do thaaaaat?"

"cop:"does the suspect have long hair?" *** "
WTF. Long Hair!!!!
next it will be " is the suspect a human?"

reply to post by brokedown


um no Puerto_Rico is an american possession in the Caribbean sea the smallest of the Greater Antilles

and i'm not an arab LOL i'm american

my maternal grandparents were immigrants from sicily.

my paternal grandma was puertorican [w/ spanish sephardim ancestry] got her citizenship by congressional fiat along with the rest of the country when she was six

abuelo was from cuba [w/ spanish blackamoor ancestry]

i could "pass for white till my late teens but am now a nice reddish-brown [if i do say so myself]
in short i'm an american mongrel

as i inherited the family jewish nose, people here used to refer to it as "nariz judia"
but with the advent of islamofobia it is now refered to as an arab nose= [nariz arabe]
[though grandma insisted in referring to it as "my greek profile" and never used the term]

just thought i'd clear that up before you got troll-flamed

reply to post by DerepentLEstranger

i give him my legal/given by parents name [ the one with the squeaky clean record]

Not sure if this was a joke, but it implies you have "other" records. Something that might get you in trouble?

reply to post by DerepentLEstranger


Good story, glad you didnt get paranoid and run, it may have ended poorly. Thanks for sharing.

reply to post by tacho


nope i'm an invisibilist

as a teen i was a bit obsessed with the whole concept of Multiple Personality and the question of identity in general and learned some very valuable things about the mind as a result