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.

 

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

page: 4
26
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 03:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000


It the guy had handed over his ID (something I've been asked for with and without any reason given, across all 4 decades of my life) then I'll bet this would have ended on the spot and nothing more to see or film.



There in lies the problem. Where does the act of complying stop? When do you say enough is enough or do you just keep taking everything they ask of you to the point that they put the chains around yoru neck?



I want my freedom back!




posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 09:42 AM
link   
reply to post by PsykoOps
 


I don't know if the effort is specific to expand the debate or get nasty, but yeah, I do read what I link. You know better by far and I'm surprised you even say that unless starting an outright fight with me was the only intent you had in doing it. You've absolutely seen the same thing by others DO that very thing. :shk:

Since I cannot seem to just link a resource and expect everyone to comprehend the material being presented...I suppose I'll quote feed the important parts. Though..wow...this shouldn't have been necessary. Really. Our legal system isn't grade school simple but it's FAR from complex at THIS level of it.. Now then.... Onto the point you absolutely, totally missed. (By the way..... Your 1 - 2 line zingers are cute ....in a school yard taunt sort of way ...but I had expected more from you? Pity, that)

- - - - - - -

In 2004, as a result of an encounter with police where ID was demanded, refused and the idiot was arrested and jailed for it, a case made it's way through the courts to see about the right that existed for that. This happened in the State of Nevada but ended in Washington D.C. at the Super Court building. The important points of this case:

THE CASE SUMMARY


Petitioner Hiibel was arrested and convicted in a Nevada court for refusing to identify himself to a police officer during an investigative stop involving a reported assault. Nevada’s “stop and identify” statute requires a person detained by an officer under suspicious circumstances to identify himself. The state intermediate appellate court affirmed, rejecting Hiibel’s argument that the state law’s application to his case violated the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed.


FINDING SUMMARY


Held: Petitioner’s conviction does not violate his Fourth Amendment rights or the Fifth Amendment’s prohibition on self-incrimination. Pp. 3—13.


SUPPORTING POINTS

A).

State stop and identify statutes often combine elements of traditional vagrancy laws with provisions intended to regulate police behavior in the course of investigatory stops. They vary from State to State, but all permit an officer to ask or require a suspect to disclose his identity.


B).

The officer’s conduct did not violate Hiibel’s Fourth Amendment rights. Ordinarily, an investigating officer is free to ask a person for identification without implicating the Amendment.

. . . . .

The request in this case was a commonsense inquiry, not an effort to obtain an arrest for failure to identify after a Terry stop yielded insufficient evidence. The stop, the request, and the State’s requirement of a response did not contravene the Fourth Amendment. Pp. 6—10.


C).

Hiibel’s contention that his conviction violates the Fifth Amendment’s prohibition on self-incrimination fails because disclosure of his name and identity presented no reasonable danger of incrimination.

.....

Hiibel’s refusal to disclose was not based on any articulated real and appreciable fear that his name would be used to incriminate him, or that it would furnish evidence needed to prosecute him.


Now, short of pulling the original case file for the mind numbing quoting from the court transcript itself, Cornell Law runs one of the better Constitutional Law reference resources on the Internet, which is where all that comes from on this case.

This is but ONE case of multiple that have established the right, based on State laws supporting it (Which this state DOES have in the case of the thread) to ask for ID and establish the basic identity of a man in public.

- - - - - - -

Now, if you'd like to discuss this and not just throw zinger attacks with cheap shots from the sidelines, I'd love to. Obviously, it's an area I have some passion about. Freedom and all..It's a major point to me on an intensely personal level.

However, it's real important, I believe, to appreciate the difference between intrusion of freedom and paranoia/sensitivity bordering on clinical mental illness. I think a few around here are borderline or OVER that line into the land of Psychiatrists and quiet places to contemplate some perspective in life. Really...... Perspective is VERY important in all things and VERY VERY lacking in so many replies across this thread.


We're talking about showing an ID to a Uniformed officer in public ...and people want to create a standoff or major confrontation over it? Damn... Get a life is what I say to those folks. Take a deeeeeep breath and get a life. That's not personal but general as the "Screw the cops! I don't gotta show nothin'! attitude is So strong here as to really set me back in surprise. Do people really LIVE in as much a state of constant confrontation as they type behind safe monitors?


edit on 22-7-2013 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 09:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by agentscoly

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000


It the guy had handed over his ID (something I've been asked for with and without any reason given, across all 4 decades of my life) then I'll bet this would have ended on the spot and nothing more to see or film.



There in lies the problem. Where does the act of complying stop? When do you say enough is enough or do you just keep taking everything they ask of you to the point that they put the chains around yoru neck?



I want my freedom back!


Well, someone else had asked this too..and I'll reply to you what I did them. Cooperation with a Law Enforcement Officer in the normal course of his duties ENDS when two things are true.

#1. The Cop is clearly not within legal framework or boundaries in what is being asked or done any longer. (Not the case here on any level)

and/or

#2. The cop(s) are now far enough out of line or the situation has gotten so serious, that holding the complaint for their watch commander or internal affairs department isn't viable any longer and handling it in the worst possible way (resistance in the street, directly to the cops) is necessary.

Until then? Well.. Non-Compliance is failure to follow a lawful order in most places ...and you'll be 'right' from a jail cell. No one will be reimbursing those expenses either. Worse? Non-Compliance is "Contempt of Cop". An unwritten but FAR more serious offense to some cops than any contempt of court can be. A Judge can only jail you. Whoopee. A cop can beat you, cripple you or kill you, where you stand and then, likely, go on with his career after the headaches.

Among those I'd be looking to prove a point in the face of? That's the last man, perhaps anywhere in life, I'd choose to be doing with ...especially while in the 'world' they hold 100% ALL of the power. Save it for Court and be as FORGETTABLE in the stop itself as possible ....so the cop doesn't have detailed notes later in court and tripping him up is possible..even likely.



posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 09:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
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 bent over backwards to source, support and backstop everything I've said on every point I've made here. It's not asking too much to see a source or outside support for your "15 minute" rule, is it? Is this a local. state or Federal guideline for law enforcement in casual field investigations? It's not a law or firm regulation I've personally heard of.

Please direct us where we can read about that? Thanks.



posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 09:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by schadenfreude
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


I don't think most people mind the whole "who are you, what are you doing?" thing from the police. (Seriously) I believe most people despise what happens when you tell the cops "none of your business" and what happens AFTER that. (I don't feel the need to provide proof of what I'm suggesting here, it's all over YT.)

If you're in public, doing nothing wrong, doing a legitimate hobby/recreation/whatever, that clearly isn't illegal, then you should be free to not be molested by the po-po. Most reasonable people know this, which is why they get (rightly) indignant in the first place when cops ask them something that is frankly none of their business. And cops don't like this display of "freedom/independence" so they take it to the next level.

They beat the crap at you while yelling "stop resisting".

You say that you don't see the problem people have with complying, whereas I don't see the problem of the police minding their own dang business & just obeying the law they're supposed to know & enforce. (And that includes not stopping people & arresting them "just because".


Doing due diligence and checking up on people that seem to be out of place when there have been problems before, and/or possibly crimes committed by someone who was dressed/acting/looked the same as a person is not uncalled for in my opinion.

It almost seems like people in the US are baiting the police into "denying them their rights" just by acting like jerks to the police.

Are there some LEO's that are jerks and "get off" on having the power they never had their whole life? Sure. You'll find those same people in every aspect of your life as well. These ones just carry guns. Are there some that abuse the power? There sure are, and quite a few of them get caught as well.

Instead of people acting like a jerk/asshat to the police, when being respectfully asked, why not show that same respect back?

Oh right, because by wasting their time with meaningless, petty little arguments over making sure that you are not a threat to the public (their job) then people will have nothing to complain about when the police are not around to stop a real crime.



posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 09:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by PsykoOps
 

Since I cannot seem to just link a resource and expect everyone to comprehend the material being presented...


I comprehend perfectly well thank you.



Onto the point you absolutely, totally missed. (By the way..... Your 1 - 2 line zingers are cute ....in a school yard taunt sort of way ...but I had expected more from you? Pity, that)


I like 1-liners.



In 2004, as a result of an encounter with police where ID was demanded, refused and the idiot was arrested and jailed for it...


This particular idiot happened to be a suspect. That's the whole point. Your own source makes this blatantly obvious.




Petitioner Hiibel was arrested and convicted in a Nevada court for refusing to identify himself to a police officer during an investigative stop involving a reported assault. Nevada’s “stop and identify” statute requires a person detained by an officer under suspicious circumstances to identify himself.


Points to note, "investigative stop involving a reported assault", "a person detained" and "suspicious circumstances".
None of those apply. Police was not investigating anything. They didn't detain a suspect. They had no suspicious circumstances.



This is but ONE case of multiple that have established the right, based on State laws supporting it (Which this state DOES have in the case of the thread) to ask for ID and establish the basic identity of a man in public.


Correction, establish the basic identity of a suspect.



Now, if you'd like to discuss this and not just throw zinger attacks with cheap shots from the sidelines, I'd love to. Obviously, it's an area I have some passion about. Freedom and all..It's a major point to me on an intensely personal level.


Bazinga!




We're talking about showing an ID to a Uniformed officer in public ...and people want to create a standoff or major confrontation over it? Damn... Get a life is what I say to those folks.


The party creating the conflict is the officers. It's not their job or their right to go around randomly checking people just for the fun of it.



posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 10:06 AM
link   
reply to post by PsykoOps
 




The party creating the conflict is the officers. It's not their job or their right to go around randomly checking people just for the fun of it.

I didn't know that ATS had a resident mind reader. Please humor me and tell me why you believe they are doing it "just for the fun of it". Also, if you have a link/source stating that fact I would appreciate it as well. No one would know what their motivation was for checking anyone besides the officer themselves. Anyone pretending to know otherwise, is trolling this thread without any facts to back it up.



posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 10:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by superman2012
reply to post by PsykoOps
 




The party creating the conflict is the officers. It's not their job or their right to go around randomly checking people just for the fun of it.

I didn't know that ATS had a resident mind reader. Please humor me and tell me why you believe they are doing it "just for the fun of it". Also, if you have a link/source stating that fact I would appreciate it as well. No one would know what their motivation was for checking anyone besides the officer themselves. Anyone pretending to know otherwise, is trolling this thread without any facts to back it up.


Well they are not doing it because they have oblication, right, suspicius activity or any other valid reason. They are not doing it because they hate doing it. Because that would be retarted. That leaves one option. So hows that for facts?



posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 10:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by PsykoOps

Originally posted by superman2012
reply to post by PsykoOps
 




The party creating the conflict is the officers. It's not their job or their right to go around randomly checking people just for the fun of it.

I didn't know that ATS had a resident mind reader. Please humor me and tell me why you believe they are doing it "just for the fun of it". Also, if you have a link/source stating that fact I would appreciate it as well. No one would know what their motivation was for checking anyone besides the officer themselves. Anyone pretending to know otherwise, is trolling this thread without any facts to back it up.


Well they are not doing it because they have oblication, right, suspicius activity or any other valid reason. They are not doing it because they hate doing it. Because that would be retarted. That leaves one option. So hows that for facts?

Still none. Just opinions.



posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 10:16 AM
link   
Well if you can even hypothetically come up with even one reason they'd go around asking people for their ID's then by all means do so. I'll take that back as soon as you do.



posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 10:22 AM
link   
reply to post by PsykoOps
 


I did.

Edit: Don't get me wrong. I believe the officers that abuse their power are no better then the scum that they are paid to protect us from. The rest of the LEO's shouldn't have to pay for those idiots though. That's the same as saying everyone who wears a turban like hat on their head, should be thought of as a terrorist...that already happened in the US.
edit on 22-7-2013 by superman2012 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 10:24 AM
link   
That is not even close a valid reason to go around ID'ing people. Not by a milestone. Try again?
I can edit too
Here's a good summary. There is no crime of "filming" or "photography".
edit on 22/7/2013 by PsykoOps because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 10:29 AM
link   
reply to post by PsykoOps
 


So what exactly, besides due diligence, would be considered?

What answer do you want? Obviously, no answer but the one you are waiting for will be good enough.

Edit: I think we all can edit, what's your point?

From your link:

In Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada the Court further established that a state may require, by law, that a person identify himself or herself to an officer during a stop; some states (e.g., Colorado[4]) require that a person detained provide additional information, but as of November 2010, the validity of such additional obligations has not come before the Supreme Court.


Good enough yet? A traffic stop? An amber alert stop? Have I met your expectations now that I used your own link and some good old fashioned critical thinking?

edit on 22-7-2013 by superman2012 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 10:34 AM
link   
You conviniently left out


more than an "inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or 'hunch' ";[1] it must be based on "specific and articulable facts"


What facts would justify this? "His camera looks like he could steal souls" isn't real.



posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by PsykoOps
You conviniently left out


more than an "inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or 'hunch' ";[1] it must be based on "specific and articulable facts"


What facts would justify this? "His camera looks like he could steal souls" isn't real.


Of course not, only a fool would bring up something so asinine.

As stated earlier in the thread....(which is apparent people don't read)...

What if there was someone in protective custody? Witness relocation? An important politician? Someone that just went in there with complaints of death threats against them? Someone just went in there complaining that someone is following them? Someone that is mentally ill saying that the cameraman killed his mother? Etc.

Just off the top of my head.

Edit:

Again, we don't know what was going through the LEO's head. Only the officer does. It shouldn't be too hard to admit that...
edit on 22-7-2013 by superman2012 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 10:42 AM
link   
reply to post by PsykoOps
 



its called conditioning.
2nd



posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 10:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by superman2012
What if there was someone in protective custody? Witness relocation? An important politician? Someone that just went in there with complaints of death threats against them? Someone just went in there complaining that someone is following them? Someone that is mentally ill saying that the cameraman killed his mother? Etc.


What if. Not illegal to take pictures of people who are in protective custody if they are visible from public space. Doesn't apply to witnesses either or politicians. He was never detained as a suspect in murder, stalking or anything like that either.



posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 10:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by PsykoOps

Originally posted by superman2012
What if there was someone in protective custody? Witness relocation? An important politician? Someone that just went in there with complaints of death threats against them? Someone just went in there complaining that someone is following them? Someone that is mentally ill saying that the cameraman killed his mother? Etc.


What if. Not illegal to take pictures of people who are in protective custody if they are visible from public space. Doesn't apply to witnesses either or politicians. He was never detained as a suspect in murder, stalking or anything like that either.


So checking to make sure the person wasn't a threat or didn't carry the same name as the hypothetical criminal shouldn't be allowed?

You asked for the hypothetical situation, not me. I gave you many that you apparently, don't like. Time to stop moving the goalposts when you ask for something.



posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 10:53 AM
link   
I'm not moving the goal posts. It's still the same. A valid reason for going around asking for ID's. Making sure someone isn't a thread is not a valid reason if there is no articulable facts to suspect so.



posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 10:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by PsykoOps
I'm not moving the goal posts. It's still the same. A valid reason for going around asking for ID's. Making sure someone isn't a thread is not a valid reason if there is no articulable facts to suspect so.


You asked for a hypothetical situation.
I gave you many.
Now said hypothetical situations are not good enough.
=
Moving the goalposts.




top topics



 
26
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join