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

I perhaps should've been more clear. If you can come up with even one valid reason why they would do it. Sure I can say "they were fearing the man had a nuke up his butt". That's a reason, but not a valid reason. Like what you posted.

Originally posted by PsykoOps
I perhaps should've been more clear. If you can come up with even one valid reason why they would do it. Sure I can say "they were fearing the man had a nuke up his butt". That's a reason, but not a valid reason. Like what you posted.

So again, I must ask you before you move the goalposts yet again.

What in your mind is valid? What answer would you like to hear? You are obviously looking for only one answer and comparing a simple question to see a person's ID to "having a nuke up their butt", or " a camera that steals souls"....hmmm...nm, perhaps the fault lays with me for thinking that you actually wanted to have an intelligent conversation about this.

Take care, I will no longer be feeding you, your required level of troll food.

Originally posted by superman2012
So again, I must ask you before you move the goalposts yet again.

Repeating that mantra wont make it true. The whole thread is about wheter or not the cops have a valid reason requesting ID's from random people. That's blatantly obvious and repeated point. How much more clear could that be? Perhaps I wasn't articulate enough to point it out in one post.

What in your mind is valid? What answer would you like to hear?

It doesn't matter what in my mind is valid. It's the law that matters. A valid reason is a reasonable suspicion that a crime is being committed. That is a valid reason. That's what I want to hear. What crime was there?

reply to post by PsykoOps

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.

(facepalm)

You really...really..just did that, didn't you? You REALLY just took the precise, word for word literal circumstances of this ... TOTALLY IGNORED what else I have posted in this thread from sourcing on this case and Super Court Decision, and basically restarted the debate from the 'have standing' position in how the case decided compares to the Thread case to say they have no relation.

I suppose Miranda has no relation then, either...outside the VERY specific and PRECISE circumstances of the details that case had. Same with Heller... Same with Brown vs. Board of Education. Same with Madison vs....and so on. To that shallow way of thinking, NO CASE ever decided by the Super Court EVER has application beyond the narrow lines of specific detail decided in that one case. That thinking is beyond confusing. It's flat out impossible to debate on an intelligent level.

This is like debating the legal system with my kid. :shk:

I think our debating is about at an end here ..since picking apart other people's posts is basically the extent of your ability to contribute...and in little childish zingers at that. (sigh) I've damn sure wasted as much time as I'm going to here, to research and backstop points ...just to be "zinged" with 30 seconds of reply.

You may see trolling people as entertainment. I don't. We're done.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000

How long can a police officer keep you pulled over "detained" during a traffic stop? The Supreme Court has made mention that no more than 15-20 minutes is a reasonable amount of time for a police officer to conduct his investigation and allow you to go FREE on your way. But you have to keep asking the police officer "AM I FREE TO GO?"

During a traffic stop a good time to ask "AM I FREE TO GO," is after the police officer has given you a "warning or a ticket" and you have signed it. Once you have signed the ticket the traffic stop is legally over says the U.S. Supreme Court. There's no law that requires you to stay and talk to the police officer or answer any questions. After you have signed the ticket and got your license back you may roll up your window, start your car and leave. If you're outside the car ask the police officer, "AM I FREE TO GO?" If he says yes then get in your car and leave.

PoliceCrimes

This falls under the brevity requirement/clause, see SCOTUS : Terry V. Ohio.

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

 

This falls under the brevity requirement/clause, see SCOTUS : Terry V. Ohio.

Hey, thank you for the reply and specifics on that. I found a reference and set of examples which seem to be cited by a number of legal web sites and materials on this.

A Terry search need not be limited to a stop and frisk of the person, but may extend as well to a protective search of the passenger compartment of a car if an officer possesses ''a reasonable belief, based on specific and articulable facts . . . that the suspect is dangerous and . . . may gain immediate control of weapons.'' 28 How lengthy a Terry detention may be varies with the circumstances. In approving a 20-minute detention of a driver made necessary by the driver's own evasion of drug agents and a state police decision to hold the driver until the agents could arrive on the scene, the Court indicated that it is ''appropriate to examine whether the police diligently pursued a means of investigation that was likely to confirm or dispel their suspicions quickly, during which time it was necessary to detain the defendant.'' 29

Source

It looks a bit flexible on that as a guide in general terms, but further down on the page they cite a 90 minute example in searching luggage which was clearly deemed to be over the reasonable limits of time for a basic inquiry/search for general purposes.

I think I'll make a small note of this on the card I've kept in my wallet since Occupy, detailing just where I do stand for rights in public and/or in demonstrations.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


No problem Wrabbit. While the whole medicine and nutrition bit is my real forte, I do enjoy learning about the law as well. In today's police state, you have to be able to know what the cops can do, what they can't do, but also what you are allowed to do...

Typically, if I know the cop has a reason to be talking to me: I'm trespassing or I've jaywalked, etc. I won't hassle the cop. However, if I know he is just fishing when he stops me for walking down the street, on the public access-way/sidewalk, and I haven't done anything at all?

Dude is in for a show....Several officers don't even stop me in my town anymore, because they know that for the past 3 years, I walk where I want to and when I want to...They've discovered it's folly to attempt to stop me unless they actually have something on me.. Used to serve a few of them at our local Waffle House as well.

Overall, glad I could be of help Wrabbit. Just understand I have a very big problem with "gestapo-like" authority, and if I sense it at anytime, I will be the biggest pain in the ass they've ever had...

Harassment goes both ways, and in the end, they still look dumb.

Example: One night I was walking home at 4:30 in the morning from work. I was a night-time closer at Taco Bell, and we closed at 3. It took us about an hour and a half to clean up and leave. Well, I'm still dressed in my Taco Bell uniform. I do not co-own a car that is really the states, nor do I have to ask permission for my right to travel. I am well aware I am free to walk anywhere I want on foot unmolested, unless I stray onto private property. Anyways, I was still on the same street as my store, about maybe 300 ft away, walking down a sidewalk, minding my own business, jamming out to some Tool.

This cop just pulls up next to me, on the wrong side of the road, and just starts slow creeping next to me. I asked him if I could help him with something. He immediately throws the car in park, jumps out and starts demanding my ID. I told the officer I did not consent to a search of my papers or persons, on the standing that he had not identified any reasonable suspicion of a crime. He says, "Well, it's 4:30 in the morning, and you are walking around, what are you up to?"

I replied to him, that walking around at ANY time of the day or night, was NOT illegal unless I was under the age of 18. I asked him, what his reasonable suspicion was that I wasn't 18, notwithstanding a very obvious fact, that no business can employ minors after curfew....I notified him that I was at least that old, and that the reason for me being out was, and I quote..."Sir, I work as a full-time closer at Taco Bell, and I don't own a car. I walk home every night."

To which he responded, rather mockingly, "Yeah, and I work for Gallatin PD."

I wanted to tell him right then and there what a moron he was...I told him that TN state laws did not require me to show or relinquish my "papers" or identification, unless I had been confronted with reasonable suspicion that I had committed some type of crime...He starts yelling at me, and trying to act forceful to intimidate me; typical gestapo tactics.

Then, he changed his gameplan, and said he needed to identify me because they'd had people breaking into houses....This is a common tactic by LEO's to bull# you into thinking they have a reason to stop you...I notified the LEO that while they may have had people breaking in, he had no kind of reasonable suspicion or articulated facts, that connected me to any of that. I told him, that it had absolutely nothing to do with me. I was walking on a sidewalk, not creeping through peoples backyards like a thief in the night...

When I still refused to tell him anything, he called in "back up". Two other marked cruisers pulled up behind him within 3 minutes, carrying two LEO's apiece.

I explained to his supervisor that I did not wish to identify myself, seeing as he had no reasonable suspicion I had committed any type of crime, and had no probable cause to demand a search of myself. I told the supervisor how his subordinate had stop me, less than a block from the store, I just told him I worked as a night-time closer at. Note, that the Taco Bell store was still in plain sight. His supervisor apologized to me while looking at the officer who stopped me like he was a total idiot.... Then, he just told me I was free to go on my way, and I wouldn't be stopped again.

I won't just lay down and let them bully me. If they wanna do it, they're gonna have to play hardball

reply to post by VeritasAequitas




I couldn't help but laugh at the end of your story. That's a perfect ending. Something tells me that, out of earshot or eyesight of you of course, that cop got himself a 'talking to' about making issues at 4:30am that bring supervisors out to clean up pure stupid in-progress.

I hear ya about the Gestapo tactics. It rubs my fur hard too. I guess I'm just a bit more tolerant is what it comes down to. I'm not sure that can be called a good or bad thing. It just is. It's not simply the family LEO background, although that's formative in life, of course. It's also the years on the truck, living by 15 minute record of every movement I made for every day of my life since getting the first CDL job. Literally...even unemployed periods need the last few days logged for the new job, at least. I guess it gets to building a tolerance as a subject of Big Bro.

You know, Tennessee brings up an interesting point though. I saw something in two truck scale houses in TN which I never saw in other states. One at Manchester and one at the Virginia border. They had shotguns on wall racks, which didn't immediately spook me...after all, they are cops. It's the extended tubes and then side saddle shell holders, packed with Sabot slugs which got my attention. Cops in TN take themselves VERY VERY seriously sometimes, huh?

My solution to a lot of this is pretty simple. Form Citizen Review boards for Police misconduct and abuse cases in a similar way the Grand Jury system is selected and seated. Random U.S. Citizens called to serve a given period for ONLY the review of other citizen complaints about abuse of Police authority. See how much continues when they know they'll be facing a board of their own neighbors for every screw up?

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by PsykoOps

 

(facepalm)

You really...really..just did that, didn't you? You REALLY just took the precise, word for word literal circumstances of this ... TOTALLY IGNORED what else I have posted in this thread from sourcing on this case and Super Court Decision, and basically restarted the debate from the 'have standing' position in how the case decided compares to the Thread case to say they have no relation.

Sorry to hurt your feelings. Those are legal definitions. They apply literally. So yeah that case has 0 bearing on this issue. It's borderline offtopic.

I suppose Miranda has no relation then, either...outside the VERY specific and PRECISE circumstances of the details that case had. Same with Heller... Same with Brown vs. Board of Education. Same with Madison vs....and so on. To that shallow way of thinking, NO CASE ever decided by the Super Court EVER has application beyond the narrow lines of specific detail decided in that one case. That thinking is beyond confusing. It's flat out impossible to debate on an intelligent level.

Well you do realise that what applies and when is written in the law. No need for your own interpretation. You're trying to force the idea that this was a legit action by police by citing cases that have no bearing on the issue.

This is like debating the legal system with my kid. :shk:

I do hope you dont try to push lies to your child like you do here. That's child abuse.

I think our debating is about at an end here ..since picking apart other people's posts is basically the extent of your ability to contribute...and in little childish zingers at that. (sigh) I've damn sure wasted as much time as I'm going to here, to research and backstop points ...just to be "zinged" with 30 seconds of reply.

I wouldn't pick apart your posts if you wouldn't post stuff that is irrelevant. I wouldn't feel comfortable letting those kind of ideas persist on the board on the off change someone actually believes you without doing their own research.

You may see trolling people as entertainment. I don't. We're done.

It was a pleasure to "pick you apart". Feel free to try again later

reply to post by Wrabbit2000

You know, Tennessee brings up an interesting point though. I saw something in two truck scale houses in TN which I never saw in other states. One at Manchester and one at the Virginia border. They had shotguns on wall racks, which didn't immediately spook me...after all, they are cops. It's the extended tubes and then side saddle shell holders, packed with Sabot slugs which got my attention. Cops in TN take themselves VERY VERY seriously sometimes, huh?

My solution to a lot of this is pretty simple. Form Citizen Review boards for Police misconduct and abuse cases in a similar way the Grand Jury system is selected and seated. Random U.S. Citizens called to serve a given period for ONLY the review of other citizen complaints about abuse of Police authority. See how much continues when they know they'll be facing a board of their own neighbors for every screw up?

Cops in TN really do take things a bit too seriously. In 2006, when I was 14, I was involved in a charge of aggravated domestic assault with a deadly weapon, which stemmed from me defending myself against my step mother who had been attempting to abuse me. Note: This woman had a good 200+ lbs on me. Later that evening she went to the hospital for stitches, and the cops arrived. She told them what happened, from her biased P.O.V of course, and then they left to come to my house. 6 squad cars carrying 2 officers a piece, for a total of 12 officers came to my house, for what was originally supposed to be a questioning. This turned later turned into an arrest of myself.

The truly scary and almost "gestapo" like quality about this story is the fact it takes 12 officers to arrest one 14 year old male, 5'11, 155 pounds...I even mentioned it much to the chagrin of the officer's, "What do you think I am, a Navy Seal?"

Sadly, they weren't amused or impressed....

reply to post by PsykoOps

Sorry to hurt your feelings. Those are legal definitions. They apply literally. So yeah that case has 0 bearing on this issue. It's borderline offtopic.

You misunderstand frustration and exasperation with hurt feelings. It's not personal ... Although outright being called a liar IS personal. Quite Personal..as it so happens, and so I figured just a bit more clarification was warranted. BTW, it's also worth noting, I shouldn't have made the kid remark. My bad and apologies. I should have known better.

Well you do realise that what applies and when is written in the law. No need for your own interpretation. You're trying to force the idea that this was a legit action by police by citing cases that have no bearing on the issue.

What applies is written law, and it's taken to be the interpretation by which lower courts view and consider cases with similar issues. That is, of course, not how it works in your local criminal or municipal court for broad and far ranging impact of decisions. However, SCOTUS exists to settle and interpret Constitutional questions and set the standard taken by the nation. Not to settle individual disputes. The latter is the fortunate (or not) outcome to the parties bringing the issue the Super Court deemed worthy of consideration at their level. It's why they refuse far more than they ever take.

Now how does this play out in the real world? Well. this is a source I linked before but in a casual way, I found. Even I had to re-read the whole thread 3x's to find which one of my posts contained this one. It's really very important now where it hadn't so much been for the point then.

The Publication is "The Police Chief" and as described:

The Police Chief (ISSN 0032-2571) is published monthly by:

International Association of Chiefs of Police
515 N. Washington St., Alexandria, VA 22314-2357
USA

It's a widely read and distributed magazine among Law Enforcement professionals. The article is written by the Senior Legal Advisor for the Plano, Texas Police Department.

Suspects Who Refuse to Identify Themselves

In it, they cite or reference a variety of Supreme Court Cases which have formed to directly have bearing on this issue and the question of ID. Now, the Circuit Court cases they cite generally only relate to the Circuit they hold Jurisdiction in for states impacted by a decision. It's the US Supreme Court where the important things defined for the entire nation happen and it's where this has been defined. Not for just one case, but multiple.

The main point here though, is the article in the Police Chief Magazine. It's laying out legal guidance (not advice or official policy) on how the courts have ruled for how it applies, situation by situation. It's quite extensive for what it's covering and very well sourced for the material.

It also shows the Super Court decisions are what set the law, the law is what was apparently followed in this case and hey, if the guy thinks he really has a case? Be the next to push to the Super Court (If they take another on this issue any time soon) and see about changing precedent. Right now tho? Precedent seems to back the cops 100% in this specific instance ...and the guy could have been nice and made it go real quick, I'd imagine.

- On that personal note. The frustration comes from the effort I put into replies at times for serious and meaningful discussion. This one alone I've got over 20 minutes in. Another on this thread I spent 45 minutes on. That's no brag or anything of the sort, and maybe I'm just slow at what I do, not thorough. However, to have only shallow replies thrown back, of the insult or 1-2 line variety as the near exclusive reply? Well, that is frustrating and I'd hope most could understand that perspective.

reply to post by VeritasAequitas

The truly scary and almost "gestapo" like quality about this story is the fact it takes 12 officers to arrest one 14 year old male, 5'11, 155 pounds...I even mentioned it much to the chagrin of the officer's, "What do you think I am, a Navy Seal?"

That is one of the things that has gotten me the most. The absurd over use of force. It's like they just throw a butt kicking party and the invite is an unwritten rule for every cop interested to come to the call and join in or something. I don't know about you, but judging by how it's almost taking one's life into one's own hands to drive to the market in some place today? I think all those cops with nothing better to do need to be handed a ticket book, a radar gun and given a list of places to park and sit. Not move. Just work traffic.

The other thing about TN cops I wanted to mention was how TN was known among the very worst states in the nation until just around the time I got into things in 1995 for trucking. The State cops there were caught by Federal agents backing off brakes and literally causing other serious mechanical violations during inspections for the whopper size tickets/revenue. I guess they just find new ways to go be jerks when that's in the nature of some of them.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


From what I've heard about Gallatin PD, they are very corrupt...Most of the ones on the force in the higher ups are all related to each other and the Judge...Ever think about that in victimless, non-common law crimes? The Judge is paid by the State to sit in and settle court cases. Now, the plaintiff, is who in these cases? The same State paying the judge to decide the case.....

I mean Jesus, it's almost like Monsanto buying out a research company studying the bee colony collapse, and then suddenly saying it isn't caused by GMO's....

It's called a rigged game and it makes me sick...This is the number one reason, I use my intuition and guy over anything an "Official" ever tells me is true. This is why I fight so hard for sovereign movements. I think that if things really went so deep, there is no doubt in my mind that they would do anything to stop it getting out. Including, paying Judges an extra 30k bonus to go on top of their 180k salaries...

There are people that I KNOW Wrabbit, in personal life, that have beaten cases or had them thrown out, when according to most they never should be. These people usually pay some type of court cost, and somebody removes it from the public record. As twisted as their interpretation of this is, they could even say it was in the name of national security they covered it up.

I only refuse to identify myself when they have no reason to be stopping me in the first place which is usually always, lol. Unless they have reasonable suspicion that I have committed some kind of a crime, they do not have jurisdiction or authority, to strip me of my fourth amendment or any right for that matter. This is basic constitutional law.

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by PsykoOps

 

You misunderstand frustration and exasperation with hurt feelings. It's not personal ... Although outright being called a liar IS personal.

Yes I do hope you take this personally with hopes that you will remember this discussion. That's kinda what I do.

I shouldn't have made the kid remark. My bad and apologies. I should have known better.

No aplogies needed. I can take a verbal beating.

What applies is written law, and it's taken to be the interpretation by which lower courts view and consider cases with similar issues. That is, of course, not how it works in your local criminal or municipal court for broad and far ranging impact of decisions. However, SCOTUS exists to settle and interpret Constitutional questions and set the standard taken by the nation. Not to settle individual disputes. The latter is the fortunate (or not) outcome to the parties bringing the issue the Super Court deemed worthy of consideration at their level. It's why they refuse far more than they ever take.

Yes SCOTUS reads the law and then rules on how it applies. I didn't go into detail about that.

Suspects Who Refuse to Identify Themselves

Now this is where we go our different ways. In order for a suspect to excist in the first place there has to be a reasonable suspicion that a crime is being committed. As I have posted that reasonable suspicion has to be easily articulated real and a specific reason. Without that there is no suspect. No authority to demand ID. This is backed by your own sources that say "suspect".

It also shows the Super Court decisions are what set the law, the law is what was apparently followed in this case and hey, if the guy thinks he really has a case? Be the next to push to the Super Court (If they take another on this issue any time soon) and see about changing precedent. Right now tho? Precedent seems to back the cops 100% in this specific instance ...and the guy could have been nice and made it go real quick, I'd imagine.

Cops are not exactly known for following the letter of the law. They make stuff up and brake the law all the time. Like this guys first encounter.

- On that personal note. The frustration comes from the effort I put into replies at times for serious and meaningful discussion. This one alone I've got over 20 minutes in. Another on this thread I spent 45 minutes on.

You dont need to see that much efford to reply to me. I'm quite fine with short messages.

However, to have only shallow replies thrown back, of the insult or 1-2 line variety as the near exclusive reply? Well, that is frustrating and I'd hope most could understand that perspective.

It's quite simple. By being condesending and acting like a brat I get emotional investment in the replies. That tend to bring out the extremes of the conversation and also makes a good mark on memory. Dont take anything I typer personally, I'm a douche on purpose.

reply to post by PsykoOps

Now this is where we go our different ways. In order for a suspect to excist in the first place there has to be a reasonable suspicion that a crime is being committed. As I have posted that reasonable suspicion has to be easily articulated real and a specific reason. Without that there is no suspect. No authority to demand ID. This is backed by your own sources that say "suspect".

This probably puts it best, and is why I fully exercise my right to tell them piss off and go on my way... I know 90% of the time I've been stopped they had absolutely no reasonable suspicion I had done anything at all wrong. They just like phishing for information from you, that way they write down their report, and it goes to the department to "verify" they'd spoken with you. This records all identifying information about you; which I do NOT wish for this tyrannical government to have so easily on file.

Originally posted by superman2012

So again, I must ask you before you move the goalposts yet again.

Well, tell you what ... in another thread, someone talked about riots in France, because the cops stopped a muslim woman who had a veil over her face, and asked for her identity.

To be honest, even the "veil" thing is stretching it ... but in the "veil" situation, it is a "conceilment" of identity, a facial being a recognition of identity.

But even then, it is still stretching it ... although the government has "legally" given the go-ahead for it. And, I'll give it leverage ... but not much more than that. And the only reason I give it leverage, is because there are muslims who wear this veil and then walk around in public places, voicing and shouting hate statements against the general population. Using the veil as a conceilment of identity ... being a "coneilment" it does warrant (to a point) asking for an ID. But it does it warrant jailtime? If the woman denies to provide an ID card? The answer, is simply no ...

The problem is, you are not required to wear an ID card. Unless you are in a specific place, that requires it ... or driving.

That is why the "demand an ID" is not warranted ... it's like the government would put an ID tag on your forhead and scan you, wherever you go.

When the government becomes so afraid of the citizen, that it has to put such measures up ... it's government that is at fault, not the citizen.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000

That is one of the things that has gotten me the most. The absurd over use of force. It's like they just throw a butt kicking party and the invite is an unwritten rule for every cop interested to come to the call and join in or something. I don't know about you, but judging by how it's almost taking one's life into one's own hands to drive to the market in some place today? I think all those cops with nothing better to do need to be handed a ticket book, a radar gun and given a list of places to park and sit. Not move. Just work traffic.

I completely agree with you on this...I had noticed this a lot in my town, and my obvious conclusion was that Gallatin PD, really was just any old street gang, except they got paid, and suffered zero consequences for any laws they broke. It really makes me want to go outside and scream at the heavens, "WHAT THE FUUU... IS GOING ON HERE?!?!?!?"

The truly twisted part is, you are legally obligated to speak truth or nothing at all to a LEO. A LEO is not legally obligated or required by law to speak a word of truth to you. This is exactly why they rely on the common citizens ignorance of the law, to just make up their own and get away with it. Then, they have the audacity to say some BS like "Ignorance of the law is no excuse."

Gee....I guess we should all just be lawyers then, huh asshole? Sorry, Wrabbit. This is just a really touchy subject for me that rubs me all kinds of wrong ways..

Hmm the way I read into this is a lot more about sending messages rather than about specific events that may or may not have happened with or without scripts.
Haha

Look, I know we do not have to give an officer our ID. But why don't we just do it out of respect? I know there are some #ty, corrupt cops out there looking to abuse their power......but there are a lot of good ones too who deserve to be cut a little break. I just don't see why you would want to make their job harder than it is.

Their job isn't going around asking random people to ID themselves. Their job is to enforce the law.