Cops violate man's rights (again) while being interviewed by local news station!

reply to post by AfterInfinity


Did the cops have the right to question him?

Sure.

Did he have the right to tell the cops to sod off? Sure did. (And he did by "Am I committing a crime?)

He basically will get a 5 figure settlement out of this b/c the cops didn't respect his 1st amendment rights.

Maybe YOU have no problems with the cops trampling over other ppl's rights, but MOST ppl do.

Here's your sign.

The government and police are incrementally inching farther and farther past the established line in the sand defined by the constitution and the bill of rights. There is no doubt about this, all you have to do is a bit of research for cases like this to see it.

While some may be ok with being harassed by law enforcement while doing nothing in violation of any laws, it is wrong to expect anybody to allow it. Any person as an individual can make the decision to give up any or all of their rights at any given time in the name of making a confrontation go more smoothly, but there is no requirement to do so.

I personally applaud any person who knows their rights and utilizes them at every opportunity. People in law enforcement are not above the bill of rights and are required to follow the proper procedures laid out to work in the best interested of not only law enforcement, but also the rights of the people. When either side of the equation decides to over step their bounds, it will always lead to trouble.

Knowledge of these rights on both sides will lead to an understanding and will prevent situations like this. There was a time in the USA where there was a mutual understanding and this types of situations were rare. Ever since 9/11 one side of the situation decided that need to prevent potential "terrorist" activity was more important than the rights of the people. That is why we find ourselves in situations like this.

Who is wrong in this situation? Is it citizen who knows their rights and refuses to let law enforcement violation them or is the law enforcement officers who are violating the rights of the citizen in the name of "safety"?

To me, the answer is easy, but it will no be so easy for everyone.

Originally posted by JBA2848
Here is where the guy was standing.
goo.gl...

Yes he was in public space.

The video is misleading. This guy was standing in front of the jail the news crew decided not to show the jail behind him.

What difference does that make, he is still in public space. Doesn't matter if there's white house, pentagon and statue of liberty behind him. Still public space.

And how about the sign that says official business only?

How does parking sign even come into this? He wasn't operating a vehicle.

They do have a problem with signs there. They should have a sign saying no loitering. And I feel sorry for the kid that is going to get ran over with that school crossing sign being covered by the tree to the left. Now that is something to complain about.

goo.gl...

He wasn't even loitering. The definition is very clear even if it varies from state to state.
You can see that it doesn't fit here.

the local police have a tough job ,,there first priority is to protect us from al-CIA-da,,, they have no way of knowing who you are until you get your chip installed,,,,,you could of been an FBI patsy

Moral of the story:

Get the hell out of the cities, it's become a circus.


"The most dangerous people are the ones that live in fear."

City cops live in fear.
Add to that American city cops, and you've got a recipe for disaster.

Originally posted by PsykoOps
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

 

I'm not a cop. But I have exactly same right to see your ID than a cop without a cause. That's what I meant.

Unfortunately, the Supreme Court of the United States disagrees and you can and will be arrested, booked and jailed for failure to produce identification upon request of a Police Officer. (If the cop wants to push it, anyway)

So said SCOTUS in 2004, so it is the law of the land.

Really...this isn't specific to you, but it was the same thing in the Trayvon case after the verdict and this is bordering of delusional in some ways. The law is what the law is. We can't pretend it isn't, play like it doesn't exist or just talk around it as if it never happened.

SCOTUS set the law and in this case, ID upon request would, by that precedent setting '04 decision, appear to be a fully legitimate and enforceable one. (Unless something has happened since to directly contravene that decision, anyway)

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


My understanding of that precedence is that it only requires that you provide a name and address if you are being lawfully detained for criminal activity. It does not permit police to demand identification from anybody they want. It also does not allow for arrest if you refuse to provide identification, unless there is a requirement under state law.

The way i understand it is, barring a state law, if you are lawfully detained for criminal activity, you have to tell them your name and address. This is where the whole "am i being detained" question comes in to play. If you are not being detained, or arrested you are under no obligation to say a word including your name, let alone provide your ID.

While i agree with your previous posts about being cooperative with police leading to a more calm exchange, i think its important to realize this is up to the individual and the specific situation. There is a lot of misconception about the laws and rights of American citizens in this situation and the more people know and stand up for their rights, the sooner the police will respect those laws and rights. It scares me how willing people are to bend over backwards to pacify a LEO out of fear that they might get arrested and beaten. That is not what law enforcement is about.

If filming in a certain area could be considered to be suspicious, and could lead to negative results, then there should be a law against filming in those areas. If there is no law against it, then there is no reason for law enforcement to harass people for doing so, since there is no law to enforce.

DC

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


That's called being a submissive little bi....

OT: TPTB love that ^^

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


Exactly. It's nice to be important but it's more important to be nice.

Instead of walking around with a chip on your shoulder all day long. Just say hay. I'm just chilling or just walking?
Getting some fresh air.

Cops are people too. They're not perfect. If you act like a giant douche then don't expect them to treat you nice either.

Originally posted by xDeadcowx
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

 

My understanding of that precedence is that it only requires that you provide a name and address if you are being lawfully detained for criminal activity. It does not permit police to demand identification from anybody they want. It also does not allow for arrest if you refuse to provide identification, unless there is a requirement under state law.

As it happens, Georgia is among the 20+ states that have a variant to the Stop and Identify law which does require you to furnish name and address upon request. If the cop is suspicious, he can detain and hold at the station until identity can be established if a Photo ID isn't available or is refused. (A lot of headache to make a point to a cop who likely had no interest in a big paperwork producing issue anyway)

It's also covered under what is called a 'Terry Stop' after Terry vs. The State of Ohio, which established precendent for that one.

Failure to Identify and Pedestrians

Officer safety is just as strongly implicated where the individual being detained for a short period of time is on foot rather than in an automobile. An officer detaining a pedestrian has an equally strong interest in knowing whether that individual has a violent past or is currently wanted on outstanding warrants. The citizen’s interest, on the other hand, is no more robust merely because a short detention occurs while traversing on foot.

Moreover, permitting a warrants check during a Terry stop on the street also “promotes the strong government interest in solving crimes and bringing offenders to justice.”9 Indeed, an identity’s utility in “inform[ing] an officer that a suspect is wanted for another offense, or has a record of violence or mental disorder,”10 would be nonexistent without the ability to use the identity to run a criminal background check.

Source
(That source is particularly useful because they cite everything relevant to the case which established it at the bottom. )

It's actually been quite interesting to look up, as it's turned out.

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

 

That's called being a submissive little bi....

OT: TPTB love that ^^

That's a fascinating way to view being a law abiding citizen. What's truly scary to me and the vast majority of people who do follow the law, is how common and open that general approach is becoming.

Enough people feeling that way leads to Somalia, Yemen or the bad side of the Congo. Not where I ever want to see this nation go. You might even say it's a thing worth fighting for preventing.

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000

Originally posted by PsykoOps
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

 

I'm not a cop. But I have exactly same right to see your ID than a cop without a cause. That's what I meant.

Unfortunately, the Supreme Court of the United States disagrees and you can and will be arrested, booked and jailed for failure to produce identification upon request of a Police Officer. (If the cop wants to push it, anyway)

So said SCOTUS in 2004, so it is the law of the land.

Really...this isn't specific to you, but it was the same thing in the Trayvon case after the verdict and this is bordering of delusional in some ways. The law is what the law is. We can't pretend it isn't, play like it doesn't exist or just talk around it as if it never happened.

SCOTUS set the law and in this case, ID upon request would, by that precedent setting '04 decision, appear to be a fully legitimate and enforceable one. (Unless something has happened since to directly contravene that decision, anyway)

Just because something is the law of the land does not make it right.

You have the right not to talk to a cop when guilty, MORE so when innocent.

If guilty of a crime or suspected of, when questioned by police (as with your example their was a suspicion of wrong doing) than you are guilty of something by refusal to identify.

Filming a public location is not a crime, is not even enough for suspicion of a crime.

I have on atleast 3 occasions refused Identification from a police officer, each time, by simply asking "No thank you officer added with am I being detained"

Sure the cop could of escalated, I was doing nothing but walking in my own neigh boor hood all three times, at night (prefer walking at night when I can't sleep).

When exercising rights there is no need to be a dick about, and each of the three times I was stopped I was polite but firm in the fact that they had no cause to question me.

reply to post by benrl

Just because something is the law of the land does not make it right.

You're correct on that. There are definitely things that have been passed and affirmed through the courts to stand that I don't particularly care for and even hate rather strongly. The Imminent Domain decision, for instance. I keep hoping I don't get personally hit by that in a situation here locally, but long term? Who knows. It's the law though...and I also take great happiness in some of what they do. Such as the Heller and McDonald cases and the little present Roberts tossed into the Obamacare decision which let the states tell him to get stuffed if they chose.

You mention that you've had the experience but also that you were polite and respectful. I'm sure that made every bit of the difference. If you'd been confrontational or edgy, like your identity was something meaningful to hide, I'd guess it would have carried real differently.

Heck, as Grey said. Cops are people too. Generally, I think they like to avoid petty crap that generates paperwork. An ID check might generate a field investigation card, at most. Having to go through the whole 9 yards of B.S. because someone had to be a street version of Perry Mason probably is about the last thing they really want. lol...

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


You can deny them the right to see your ID and still be a law-abiding citizen. It's called exercising your 4th Amendment....

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Which means unless they have confronted you with reasonable suspicion of you committing a crime you don't have to tell or show them a god damned thing...

I've put this into practice on at least a dozen occasions...Sure, they get pissed off and try to intimidate and threaten me. However, that is the point that I stand my ground, keep my wits about me, and politely explain to them why I do not fall under their jurisdiction...I ask if I am being detained; which if the officer replies yes, I have the right to know what law I have broken, or what reasonable suspicion he has against me for breaking said law. If he has neither, then he must answer no. The last thing to really be asked at this point when you aren't detained is "Officer, since I haven't broken the law, and I'm not being detained, then that must mean I am free to go now, correct?"

Works every-time and puts the aggressive and rookie LEO's in their place..We are not subservient to them. We, The People, are who they derive their power from in the first place...It just doesn't make sense that we should have to comply with forceful demands that surrender our rights.

A right not exercised is a right surrendered.

In fact, once you DO start talking to them, anything you have said, can and will be used against you in a court of law...Remember the Miranda Rights? That starts the moment they stop you...Anything you tell them, even where you are going can be used against you in an unlawful detainment.

reply to post by VeritasAequitas

Which means unless they have confronted you with reasonable suspicion of you committing a crime you don't have to tell or show them a god damned thing...

. . . . .

A right not exercised is a right surrendered.

It's also very fair and accurate to say that just because we may have the right to do something, doesn't make it right to do.

For instance, if you were crossing the street while I casually watched and a metro bus ran you down like a bowling pin? In most, if not all states, as a normal citizen, I'd have the right to walk over, laugh at you and remind you how looking both directions was something learned as kids ....before walking away whistling, never calling for aid or ambulance, or caring either way. I could do that, as it would be my right.

However, in the end, it comes down to a simple question. Is principle worth making my life as well as someone else's life just a bit more difficult and a bit more miserable and stressful than it otherwise needed to be? Is it worth turning an 5 minute, casual and potentially civil exchange for an ID check into the better part of an afternoon where the cop is still out nothing but time while the one making the big "My ID, you no see" is the one likely out quite a bit more. Aggravation alone, if nothing else.

There is no question a Cop, CHP, or Sheriff can ask you any questions they want to, its the blantant force they use to get information from you. The constant threats from Cops and constant accusations are whats disturbing.

I can show you 10 videos of Cops being overbearing to the 1 video of a "cool" cop who knows what he is doing.

In my City, they have hired approx. 100 cops in a year period. With budget cuts of course that number has gone down. But, considering the new cars and motorcycles they are all driving I am quite sure since 911 the Police State funding has gone through the roof.

In this situation, I would not show ID and would not put my Camera down. This guy had every right (key word is RIGHT) to do what he was doing without being harrased by a Cop. The Cops usually dont like the answer that comes back at them but they have to live with it. They are supposed to know the LAW!!!!

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
I'm a bit confused by this and very confused by a growing attitude I'm seeing among a segment of the public. The guy was in front of a Sheriff's Office and Jail facility. Okay, he has every right to be there and film whatever he likes. (Never in dispute). Where the confusion comes in ...

Yeah, I see where you are coming from ... and yeah, 20 years ago I'd agree.

However, I urge you to consider this ...

In China, if you do something wrong ... I bet the cops come to you at night, arrest you with a Swat team. And I bet you'll even dissappear in the night. You'll get a trial, but if you're a westerner you'd probably be sent to jail ... because you're a gui lao, not because you really did anything wrong. Are you with me here? But in China, this happens in the night ... during day time, the cops don't even wear armament. And if they harrass someone, they'll get a riot on their hands ... literally.

But in the US, they'll attack you in the middle of the night with a Swat team ... and they'll tazer you, and murder you without having to answer for it. And during day time, they'll kick you around for no good reason, and laugh about it.

What? wait a minute ... isn't there something wrong with this picture?

We're talking about the good guys here AMERICA and the bad commies, the CHINESE Isn't this picture a bit skewed? Being a naive westerner, I'd imagine I'd get stopped by a cop in China in broad daylight, and asked for my ID, and I'd be pissing in my panties while I was searching for my ID, because I was facing the cops ... they might kill me, just because I was a gui lao.

And my naive western mind thinks, I'm in the freedom country ... the cops are my friends. They protect me against the Chinese bad guys, and when I see them on the streets, they'll pat me on the shoulder and give me a gentle chat, to discover what I was doing.

Gestapo tactics, that is something they do in Nazi Germany and China ... not here ... man.

OR ... did the population get so stupid, they gave up their freedom for security and ended up with neither?


I got a camera, and I'm on campus ... some cop comes around and asks me for an ID. Really? On what grounds, that I way jaywalking? Putting up a camera is suspicious? ok, i'll give him leverage ... it's campus, lots of bad stuff going around. But only as far as asking me what I'm up to, and watching what I'm doing ... asking me for an ID, you do that only at doorways into a protected area ... once I'm there, there is absolutely no law that states that I have to carry an ID and be able to identify myself at an moment around the clock, wherever I am.

It's an abuse .... not a checkup.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


LEO's are only allowed to detain you or hold you without cause, for 15 minutes. At that time, unless they have leveled a charge, or reasonable suspicion for a charge, you are free to walk away...

I've never been stopped for longer than 5 minutes...

It is not illegal for me to walk down the street on the sidewalk at any time of the day or night. Everybody in Gallatin, TN knows who I am. Police officers included...It's completely and absolutely none of their business where I am going or what I am doing unless they see me doing some suspicious criminal activity.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


Did you even read that?

the Court has recognized that an officer’s reasonable suspicion that a person may be involved in criminal activity permits the officer to stop the person for a brief time and take additional steps to investigate further.

Embhasised by me for you.

reply to post by PsykoOps


First post I ever agreed on, let alone starred you about...