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: 6
26
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 23 2013 @ 01:00 PM
link   
reply to post by FreeMason0508
 



I just don't see why you would want to make their job harder than it is.
because no part of their job description involves random inquiry of innocent citizens.
via the 4th Amendment, it is specifically prohibited.

just had an encounter myself a few weeks back.
i was asked if i had ID on me and responded, yes i do ... surely you don't expect me to stop what i'm doing and retrieve it for you ??
i simply refused without further conflict ... it happens.




posted on Jul, 23 2013 @ 02:39 PM
link   
reply to post by VeritasAequitas
 





This records all identifying information about you; which I do NOT wish for this tyrannical government to have so easily on file.


then I assume you don't pay state or local taxes, don't have health insurance, don't have home owners insurance, don't have car insurance, and don't own or operate a motorvehicle.

Right?

Because if you've done any of those things, "they" already have more information on you than providing your ID to a beat cop would.

I've read far too many pages of this thread, but I've come to a conclusion:

A person videotaping a police station, jail, or other government / official building is suspicious. They are, in this day and age with the terrorist boogeyman hiding behind every corner, those actions DO create a reasonable amount of suspicions.

People equate this to you walking down the street and being stopped, it's not the same scenario... at all.

Immediately becoming confrontational and defensive with a cop is about the dumbest thing you could do other than whipping out your wallet or cellphone really really fast while shouting "bang bang".

Cops abuse their power all the time, kinda goes with the territory, power corrupts. But plenty of people act like asshats towards the cops to specifically get in confrontations to post to youtube. Youtube is full of bad cops. It's also full of heavily edited "encounters" where the person filming is basically baiting the cops into having to react with force.

You can't always trust your eyes and ears, and ignorance of the law, or feeling that it isn't "right" isn't going to hold up in court. Cops have the authority to kill you. Think about that the next time you encounter one and debate on if you should give him a hard time.

And going from some of the things people have said in here, it's no surprise some of you have had negative encounters with local police.



posted on Jul, 23 2013 @ 02:56 PM
link   
1. Have I done anything wrong or illegal?
2. Am I being detained?
3. Am I free to go?

Without a yes to #1 and #2 the must be a yes to #3.



posted on Jul, 23 2013 @ 03:11 PM
link   
reply to post by phishyblankwaters
 





then I assume you don't pay state or local taxes, don't have health insurance, don't have home owners insurance, don't have car insurance, and don't own or operate a motorvehicle.


No, I don't have any of that. Never will.



posted on Jul, 23 2013 @ 04:23 PM
link   
reply to post by phishyblankwaters
 


then I assume you don't pay state or local taxes, don't have health insurance, don't have home owners insurance, don't have car insurance, and don't own or operate a motorvehicle.
regardless of whether or not a citizen has VOLUNTARILY given said info to the taxman, insurance agent or any other ... a cop demanding it is still prohibited and that's the point.



posted on Jul, 24 2013 @ 07:35 AM
link   
I guess I look at it like this....if a cop politely asks for my ID, I will probably comply with it. I know I dont have to do it, but if he/she is being polite about everything ill go along with it that far. Now if a cop "demands" my ID, I am not going to go along with it.



posted on Jul, 24 2013 @ 10:01 AM
link   
I'm surprised how this thread has become so "Legal 101"

I'm really surprised hardly anyone is addressing how brazen these videos are.

Have we truly become a society where this is considered "normal", therefore passe' in terms of discussing it?

Just asking.



posted on Jul, 25 2013 @ 04:02 AM
link   
If you must, on request, without any explanation as to why, produce papers which identify you, you are not living in a free country. If you can be arrested for simple failiure to comply with the demands of an officer, no matter how abusive of your rights, freedom, and liberty, then you are not living in a free country. If your police are so obsessed with the prevention of bombings and shootings, that they would dare to remotely inconvienience an innocent, then you arent living in a free country, AND you are letting the terrorists, the bombers, the shooters, the nutters and religious fundamentalists win.

THAT IS BLOODY SHAMEFUL! Its like this internet and phone monitoring PRISM BS.

FACT: If the government cannot protect the nation without a system like PRISM, then there will just have to be a little more risk, because when systems like PRISM exist, any freedom or liberties protected by that system become irrelevant because of its existence.



posted on Jul, 27 2013 @ 09:04 AM
link   



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.


But why should we have to even be bothered with it? Of course I don't want to go through all of the hooplah with being arrested, but, I don't even need to give him my 5 minutes. He has no right to threaten me with arrest to force me to submit in the first place. It's like offering someone two absurd choices as if there is no other option.

i.e. 'So, do you want to be sodomized or sodomized and beaten? Pick one. Those are your only options.'
The sheeple jump up and down saying "Are you crazy? That's a no-brainer. Sodomize me! DUH!" Whereas I prefer to turn the tables and give them an option. "Do you want to be beaten or beaten?"
If I have to give them 5 of my minutes, it'll be on my terms and we're all going to be bloddy.



posted on Jul, 27 2013 @ 10:19 AM
link   
reply to post by wirefly
 


Aren't we getting just a little silly in comparisons to use Sodomy or being beaten vs. showing an ID to a cop in a public space?

If we remove all law, all regulation and all court decisions which do allow this...and just look at this as pure right/wrong as two guys talking about it? I'd still have mixed feelings. Why? If the cop sees someone he's just got a feeling about...for whatever reason. Then, due to these concerns or something entirely unrelated, decides to pass on by and not follow up that hunch to at least make a couple minute "Whatcha up to?" check?

What happens and how would we be chatting here about it, to discover the cop gave a free pass to a major felony happening then or right after he left ...by the guy he'd had the hunch about? It's just not as simple and clean a question when we're JUST talking about a simple ID check. Even 'Stop and Frisk' go MUCH further, IMO, by laying hands on you for no good cause or reason. The ID check tho...is just a question? The least invasive way possible for a cop to run a hunch and see whats up?



posted on Jul, 27 2013 @ 10:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 

it doesn't appear that anyone really objects to be 'asked'.
it's the expectation of compliance by those asking that develops into a demand.

cops who make such inquiries should have -0- expectation of compliance.
that would be more appropriate given the rights of the ppl being searched.

they can ask all they want ... just don't expect law-abiding citizens to entertain the requests.



posted on Jul, 27 2013 @ 10:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Honor93
 


Indeed...and by Supreme Court case I've cited and specified, along with other supporting law? Expect to be arrested and detained until identification can be established ...if you are in a state where state law supports it. (Important to add that last part, as that is the specific circumstance the Super Court backed it, 100%).

So we can be 'right' in handcuffs and scream till we lose our voice about how they can't do this to us! .....as they ARE doing it. Or, we can be correct by whatever our local laws say stands for this matter. I suppose knowing what those are, if someone actually plans to make a major issue of being asked this some day, is critical to the difference of knowing arrest and never experiencing it.

Personally, I've never encountered a law abiding citizen outside those talking on the internet, who had any interest or ever planned to push or MAKE a confrontation with Police one step beyond where it had to be without their choosing.

Hey, to each their own tho and whatever floats your boat.



posted on Jul, 27 2013 @ 11:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 

well, there's casual inquiry and then there's confrontation so which are you alluding to this time ?

confrontation usually invovles some level of reasonable suspicion.
casual inquiry is what this story and this topic is about.

i wouldn't suggest anyone escalate a confrontation, would you ?
but at the same time, i also suggest everyone dismiss a casual inquiry.
quite frankly, it's none of their dang business.
i've done it before and i will most certainly do it again.



posted on Jul, 27 2013 @ 11:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Honor93
 



confrontation usually invovles some level of reasonable suspicion.
casual inquiry is what this story and this topic is about.


You're debating opinion. I'm debating established law as it's enforced and as we have to follow it as citizens. Our two sides are basically mutually exclusive and have no middle ground from what I can see.

I'd say you and I just aren't going to agree on much at all today after the other thread. Take care of yourself tho and thanks for the reply. It's always interesting to read. Another day...or week perhaps on a different thread. Enough for one morning though. More than enough.
edit on 27-7-2013 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 27 2013 @ 11:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by wirefly
 


If we remove all law, all regulation and all court decisions which do allow this...


Hate to rain on your parade again but there aren't any court cases or laws that do allow this. What you are mistaken in is that there is a difference between a suspect and Joe Everyman.



posted on Jul, 27 2013 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by wirefly
 


Aren't we getting just a little silly in comparisons to use Sodomy or being beaten vs. showing an ID to a cop in a public space?

If we remove all law, all regulation and all court decisions which do allow this...and just look at this as pure right/wrong as two guys talking about it? I'd still have mixed feelings. Why? If the cop sees someone he's just got a feeling about...for whatever reason. Then, due to these concerns or something entirely unrelated, decides to pass on by and not follow up that hunch to at least make a couple minute "Whatcha up to?" check?

What happens and how would we be chatting here about it, to discover the cop gave a free pass to a major felony happening then or right after he left ...by the guy he'd had the hunch about? It's just not as simple and clean a question when we're JUST talking about a simple ID check. Even 'Stop and Frisk' go MUCH further, IMO, by laying hands on you for no good cause or reason. The ID check tho...is just a question? The least invasive way possible for a cop to run a hunch and see whats up?


Of course I'm being absurd to make a point.
I'm not suggesting we remove law. I am saying we already HAVE law. And, it's on OUR side. (not shouting btw)
If he has a hunch, what business is it of his what my name is? Why can't he just walk up and have a friendly conversation? He has no need to see my ID unless he suspects me of a crime. If video taping in a public space is a crime, then he needs to cite the statute and inform me that what I'm doing is in fact illegal. If not, he can GTFO of my space.

I just don't get how people can just lay down and give up so easily. Like I said before, I'm a very intimidating person, yet, I am a genuinely sweet guy. I don't use my looks to force people to do things. I go out of my way to be respectful and warm. Ladies say that I'm handsome and powerful looking, (chicks must be blind) but also that I'm the sweetest guy they know.
Until... someone messes with me or my family or friends.
Why do cops think they have to force you to comply simply because they have a badge? I think we all know why. And it doesn't help when sheeple give in to their demands.



posted on Jul, 27 2013 @ 12:09 PM
link   
reply to post by PsykoOps
 


Now, come on. That's outright, clear and plain trolling. There IS no other way to put what you just posted.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

We've had this discussion. This PRECISE discussion. On THIS THREAD. Discussed it extensively in fact. Over multiple pages.

I get the fact you absolutely disagree... I got that in the many many messages you've written on past pages, saying that, in absolutely no uncertain terms. The above link shows the law that does say this and the support for it, though. This will be the second time I've replied it to you, personally. ...and the 4th time on this thread I've cited specific law related to this.

Please, stop deliberately going out of your way to pick an open fight by virtually copy/pasting your argument from previous pages to fire it all up again.

I respect your opinion enough to leave this with disagreement ... Why is that so difficult to return? :shk:



posted on Jul, 27 2013 @ 12:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by PsykoOps
 


Now, come on. That's outright, clear and plain trolling. There IS no other way to put what you just posted.


Not trolling. Pointing out the obvious flaw in your whole argument.



www.abovetopsecret.com...

We've had this discussion. This PRECISE discussion. On THIS THREAD. Discussed it extensively in fact. Over multiple pages.

I get the fact you absolutely disagree... I got that in the many many messages you've written on past pages, saying that, in absolutely no uncertain terms. The above link shows the law that does say this and the support for it, though. This will be the second time I've replied it to you, personally. ...and the 4th time on this thread I've cited specific law related to this.

Please, stop deliberately going out of your way to pick an open fight by virtually copy/pasting your argument from previous pages to fire it all up again.


Time and time again you post unrelated material to support your argument. There is no suspicion of a crime, there is no suspect. There is no authority to demand ID. That's as simple as I can say it. That's not up for interpretation or subject for argument. That is the law plain and simple.



I respect your opinion enough to leave this with disagreement ... Why is that so difficult to return? :shk:


It's not my opinion and even your own sources talk of suspects.


suspect legal definition

noun
A person believed to have committed a crime and who is, therefore, being investigated by the police.
Suspect


it must be based on "specific and articulable facts", "taken together with rational inferences from those facts"
Reasonable suspicion

Your claim is that every man is a suspect so cops can demand ID from anyone. That's just incorrect. There has to be a real reason that can be articulated for a suspect to excist. You can repeat all the posts you have but that doesn't change the facts of this case.



posted on Jul, 27 2013 @ 01:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


Tennessee is not a terry stop state. They are not allowed to stop and interrogate me without reasonable suspicion that I have committed a crime. Broad statements such as "We've had break-ins in the neighborhood." Don't even cut it...They've got to have reasonable suspicion that I am directly responsible for those acts...Was I sneaking through backyards at 3 in the morning? Did I have a thief's toolkit, complete with lock-pick's, pliers, etc?

This is akin to stopping someone driving just to check if they have their license....You can't do that...I am not required by any state laws to identify myself to anybody, let alone an LEO, unless they've given me a good reason to.



posted on Jul, 27 2013 @ 01:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 

i am not debating.
the law is what it is and without reasonable suspicion, there is no cause to ask, period.

if you disagree then you are suggesting that a 'confrontation' is what occurs with every LEO contact, is this really your stance ?

i would disagree.
i've had many interactions with many different officers on a fishing expedition ... guess they didn't use the right bait


sorry to hear you are backing away from such a stong opinion.
oh well, cya 'round.



new topics

top topics



 
26
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join