It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Video: Cops Tase Man For Refusing To ID

page: 6
23
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 10:31 PM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


Alright next time I'm fined I'll tell them to write the citation out to John Doe and 1002 Muzzleflash Lane, Ny NY 10027




posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 10:40 PM
link   
I did a little searching to try and find out what your official “status” is when you are receiving a ticket. From what I can find, at the time the officer is writing the ticket, until he releases you, you fall under being “arrested”. There are different types of “arrest” and not all include being incarcerated. If you look on a ticket, its signed by the “arresting or citing officer”, and may include “arrest type”. For example:
Jaywalking ticket



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 10:56 PM
link   
Unfortunately, this authoritative abuse is far more common than advertised. Several years ago (making a much longer story short as possible), I was handcuffed and locked in the back seat of a police patrol car for refusing to produce my driver's license when the police knocked on the door at my home!!! The reason they were there was that Domino's Pizza requested my driver's license number multiple times during the course of placing a phone order, and when the delivery guy showed up he asked for it again. We told him we had already given the number several times and we would not give it to him because of security reasons. We had chosen to pay by check because we did not feel comfortable providing credit card info over phone lines which necessitated the request for a DL number, so all was fine.

Until the police showed up demanding I take the check back and pay by cash. Since the pizza had already been eaten, I thought there was no real reason to be concerned, but I guess they showed me.

After the event, I made the rounds to the media and Domino's local and national offices, but no one cared. I have learned there is an art to picking and choosing your battles, and my wife and I determined this was one destined to be lost so we moved on. Still, the incident has left an indelible mark on our faith in any semblance of the legal "system" and I fear the lives our children will be living in this police state. What do I tell them?



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 11:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by stanguilles7

Originally posted by muzzleflash
Can someone please start recruiting cops that went to law school?

Or how about, since we waste all this $$$, send all prospective future police recruits to law school?

If we continue to allow the police "who are suppose to uphold the law", to not even know what the hell the actual law is, they won't be able to uphold it. In fact, just like in this video, they will trample the law.

Common sense states that cops should know the law if they ever hope to uphold it.


Again, what the cops did here was completely within the law.

It's too bad you keep skipping over that key point.

When you are detained for breaking the law, you have to supply ID.


He wasn't detained until AFTER refusing to show ID on a consensual encounter, and the officer threatened to detain him FOR that refusal.

You are just taking the cops side arbitrarily and ignoring the law itself.
That's not fair nor reasonable.

I provided links to the actual laws on the books. Please read them as opposed to making up your opinion and pretending the law should agree with you. Thanks.
edit on 13-7-2012 by muzzleflash because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 11:08 PM
link   
reply to post by samstone11
 

I would have asked the officer if the check had been reported to show insufficient funds from the bank, if not, its a civil matter and none of their business. The pizza place should not have stated they were willing to accept the check on delivery if they were going to complain about it later. As long as the check cleared okay, you have fulfilled your part of the verbal contract to pay for their services. I would have also complained to the police that the guys at Domino’s had made a false police report as the check had not been shown to be insufficient at the time they made the report.



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 11:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5

Originally posted by muzzleflash
The officers in the video did not reveal they had any intentions to Detain the individual. So in the court of law, this "incident" will go under Consensual, and therefore it is illegitimate to ask him for an ID, it's not a legal order.

Wrong, he was receiving a citation...
That is beyond “casual contact” or being “detained”, but is not quite the same as “being arrested”. The person being given a citation has been observed breaking the law, but the crime is not severe enough to justify arrest. So its beyond “probable cause” or “Reasonable suspicion”, and beyond being simply “detained”.


You are not talking sense.

The law defines three general types of police encounter, please read the links I posted to the actual court cases.

There are no in between zones which you are pretending exist. Either it's consensual, detainment, or arrest. No alternatives.

Being told that you "might be" cited for a commercial code offense/misdemeanor (of this nature in the OP video) is not grounds for detainment or the legal request of ID, in this particular individual case when put in the context of case law and legal precedent.

Notice that I linked to actual laws and cases where the courts actually determined what is up.
Notice that you posted a mere opinion with little relevance to the facts.
edit on 13-7-2012 by muzzleflash because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 11:09 PM
link   
reply to post by TKDRL
 


Actually, ive cited several laws that support my claims. You, on the other hand, are just engaging in juvenile insults, and have not proved your claims whatsoever.



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 11:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash


He wasn't detained until AFTER refusing to show ID on a consensual encounter, and the officer threatened to detain him FOR that refusal.


FALSE. As has been pointed out to you several times, he was already being cited for an infraction.

Maybe you should watch the video and read the article and thread before posting.


You are just taking the cops side arbitrarily and ignoring the law itself.


No, i'm not. But you are rather obviously taking the perps side and ignoring the law itself.

That's not fair nor reasonable.


edit on 13-7-2012 by stanguilles7 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 11:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5
I did a little searching to try and find out what your official “status” is when you are receiving a ticket. From what I can find, at the time the officer is writing the ticket, until he releases you, you fall under being “arrested”. There are different types of “arrest” and not all include being incarcerated. If you look on a ticket, its signed by the “arresting or citing officer”, and may include “arrest type”. For example:
Jaywalking ticket


Incorrect.

If the officer tells you "STOP" you are now detained. Not arrested. To be arrested you must be charged with a crime.

If you ask "Can I leave now officer", and he says "Yes", you are no longer "detained".

The officer has to tell you to stop prior to requesting ID, as that shifts the situation from consensual to detainment.



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 11:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash
He wasn't detained until AFTER refusing to show ID on a consensual encounter, and the officer threatened to detain him FOR that refusal.

Please read my above posts.
He was already being issued a citation for jaywalking, that is beyond detainment or casual contact, and actually constitutes an arrest. You are not being detained “under suspicion” of committing a crime when an officer has personally witnessed you committing a crime. So he was already under arrest, and required to show his ID for the officer to write the citation.



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 11:16 PM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


So, to clarify, do you understand this guy was already being cited for an infraction and the officer was writing him a ticket?

Because you seem to have missed that rather key point.



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 11:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by stanguilles7

FALSE. As has been pointed out to you several times, he was already being cited for an infraction.


Being cited does not automatically equal detention.
For example many counties will mail citations to homes over various issues.
Does that mean they are being detained at their house while they read the citation they got in the mail? No?

Or does the police officer have to state in some manner that you are being detained first in order to claim you were detained, like by refusing your request to go?

Also, one can be detained up to the statute of limitations, without being cited for anything at all. Not even one misdemeanor is required, they can by law detain you for as long as your state allows.



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 11:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash
Incorrect.
If the officer tells you "STOP" you are now detained. Not arrested. To be arrested you must be charged with a crime.
If you ask "Can I leave now officer", and he says "Yes", you are no longer "detained".
The officer has to tell you to stop prior to requesting ID, as that shifts the situation from consensual to detainment.

No, you sir, are incorrect....
If the officer has witnessed you having committed a crime, you are already beyond simply being detained, you are under some level of arrest. Detained means he “suspects” you have committed a crime, but in this instance he witnessed him commit a crime. You may not be in cuffs, or taken to jail, but you are still under arrest. You certainly are not simply being detained when an officer is writing you a speeding ticket.



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 11:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by stanguilles7
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


So, to clarify, do you understand this guy was already being cited for an infraction and the officer was writing him a ticket?

Because you seem to have missed that rather key point.


Do you understand that the only "persons" required to follow commercial code are those profiting?
The only way someone is under that jurisdiction is if they have signed prior contracts waiving their common law rights of arbitration.



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 11:28 PM
link   
Alright you can claim what you want, and I'll claim what I want.

The only way to know who is really the best at arguing is to have a court case where you stand there and argue your side, and I stand here and argue mine.

Then we see who convinced the supreme court judges or whoever would arbitrate our dispute in fantasy what if land.

We can just agree to disagree because I will never agree to this totalitarian "cops can do whatever they want" bs you guys speak without even providing any actual legal documentation to back it up.

So believe what you want, I'll consider myself more correct until further notice proves me wrong.
Your belief that cops are above the law isn't good enough for me.



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 11:29 PM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 

Thank you for your insight on our situation. Good points, all. We felt we had met all terms and conditions as well and that it was nothing more than civil. We did enough due diligence to find that no attorney would touch it, seemingly because the police were involved, but not because the pizza place had overextended their boundaries.

Again, part of learning how to choose which battles are worth the risk.



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 11:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash
Alright you can claim what you want, and I'll claim what I want.

The only way to know who is really the best at arguing is to have a court case where you stand there and argue your side, and I stand here and argue mine.

Then we see who convinced the supreme court judges or whoever would arbitrate our dispute in fantasy what if land.

We can just agree to disagree because I will never agree to this totalitarian "cops can do whatever they want" bs you guys speak without even providing any actual legal documentation to back it up.

So believe what you want, I'll consider myself more correct until further notice proves me wrong.
Your belief that cops are above the law isn't good enough for me.


So, when you get pulled over for speeding, or running a stop sign, do you tell the cops that you are not subject to 'commercial law' and that you want to argue your case in the supreme court?

lulz



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 11:32 PM
link   
reply to post by stanguilles7
 


You can LULZ, or you can grow some balls and stand up to the corrupt BS system we all take part in. Your choice I guess.



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 11:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash
Do you understand that the only "persons" required to follow commercial code are those profiting?
The only way someone is under that jurisdiction is if they have signed prior contracts waiving their common law rights of arbitration.

The UCC didn't even exist before the 1950's...
People have been being arrested since day one that this country was founded.
That “freeman”,“sovereignty” stuff is a load of internet bollix, and there's LOTS of case law to show its a hoax.



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 11:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by stanguilles7

Originally posted by muzzleflash
Alright you can claim what you want, and I'll claim what I want.

The only way to know who is really the best at arguing is to have a court case where you stand there and argue your side, and I stand here and argue mine.

Then we see who convinced the supreme court judges or whoever would arbitrate our dispute in fantasy what if land.

We can just agree to disagree because I will never agree to this totalitarian "cops can do whatever they want" bs you guys speak without even providing any actual legal documentation to back it up.

So believe what you want, I'll consider myself more correct until further notice proves me wrong.
Your belief that cops are above the law isn't good enough for me.


So, when you get pulled over for speeding, or running a stop sign, do you tell the cops that you are not subject to 'commercial law' and that you want to argue your case in the supreme court?

lulz


So you are inferring that it's 'just the way things are' that you have no rights?
You agree with this? I doubt you agree with it...
Cops can do anything they want right? You and I know they can't, at least not legitimately...

And no that's not how I respond to an officer in real life. I don't argue my case with them, I argue at the court.

The correct way to respond to an officer is to ask what they want, and see if you can help them in case they might actually need your assistance with something. If you do not have the capacity to aid them, inform them and apologize.

You don't have to be friendly and nice to people by law, but I do it because it's better overall for everyone's interests and I'm a cool guy. So I am nice and helpful.

But I do know the law a lot better than most people do, I know how to win in court.
The cop can do whatever he/she is gonna do, that's fine, and if I survive, I will do what I will do through the court system take advantage of their incompetence for my own personal benefit.

I don't ever start trouble with anyone, so that probably won't ever happen. But let's pretend I do get wrongly arrested one day, I will totally build the most awesome defense ever. It will be super easy too considering the fact I'm innocent and don't do anything wrong to anyone or their property.

I am just answering /responding to your statement as a peace offering, I could have ignored the comment and went along without justifying it. Hopefully you will realize I'm not the problem in society and that I'm more likely part of a solution to those problems, at least in theory.

I try to look at things with the "this isn't a problem, it's an opportunity" mindset. It proves very helpful in almost all situations.

The real truth of the "law" in our civilization is that whoever can argue best and convince the 'judge/arbitrator/jury" wins. The laws on the book take a backseat to the person/s you waive your rights to determine your fate, after all.
--- "It ain't over till the fat lady sings" is what they say.



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join