View Full Version : Police not knowing the law...
IMO the guy shooting the video is a bit of an ass, however, i assume at least some of that is coming from the 'heat of the moment' (and the 'you're not a naturalised citizen' bit i don't get) but some of the questions he asks leave the police as shy as sheep, thoughts?
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/FCZB-k4jKBc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
logroller
07-01-2012, 10:22 PM
His concern, as I understand, is the police are taking his child into custody under an order which is improvised. This is why he demands a writ of affirmation (a fancy word for a warrant which stems from writs of assistance, a british practice similar to a carte blanc for searches)... Anyways a warrant provides the judicial authority, necessary to justify the probable cause for arrest. Fwiw, they don't need provide one if they were witness to the offense or have realiable information to the fact. However, if the search or arrest is found to be unwarranted, lacking probable cause, whatever information gathered is inadmissible in court.
His concern, as I understand, is the police are taking his child into custody under an order which is improvised. This is why he demands a writ of affirmation (a fancy word for a warrant which stems from writs of assistance, a british practice similar to a carte blanc for searches)... Anyways a warrant provides the judicial authority, necessary to justify the probable cause for arrest. Fwiw, they don't need provide one if they were witness to the offense or have realiable information to the fact. However, if the search or arrest is found to be unwarranted, lacking probable cause, whatever information gathered is inadmissible in court.
One bit i don't get near the start is when the police woman says "we are bringing your child back to you" erm, so then why not give him the child? Its also pretty clear that they don't want the father to hear the convo going on between the policeman and the child, they're allowed to do that to kids? (i.e. question them without legal representation or parental guidance, regardless of if they witnessed an offence or not?)
DragonStryk72
07-01-2012, 11:19 PM
One bit i don't get near the start is when the police woman says "we are bringing your child back to you" erm, so then why not give him the child? Its also pretty clear that they don't want the father to hear the convo going on between the policeman and the child, they're allowed to do that to kids? (i.e. question them without legal representation or parental guidance, regardless of if they witnessed an offence or not?)
Cops here standardly separate witnesses, to get their individual version of events, so that they can weigh them against each other. The father, if left in the room with his kid would have affected what the kid said, whether by intent or not. There are several reasons that cops may not have a warrant, and among them are cases where they have information that the child may be in immediate danger that they would not have time to obtain a warrant for.
They were doing informal questioning in this instance, meaning that they were not preparing to file charges, or even take the child, just ask after things, but the guy was too busy being a hooting dickhole to listen to that.
Cops here standardly separate witnesses, to get their individual version of events, so that they can weigh them against each other. The father, if left in the room with his kid would have affected what the kid said, whether by intent or not. There are several reasons that cops may not have a warrant, and among them are cases where they have information that the child may be in immediate danger that they would not have time to obtain a warrant for.
They were doing informal questioning in this instance, meaning that they were not preparing to file charges, or even take the child, just ask after things, but the guy was too busy being a hooting dickhole to listen to that.
Informal questioning? So they let the kid know that he had the right to a) say nothing and b) leave at any time of his own free will? I doubt both (though obviously we can't know that.)
DragonStryk72
07-01-2012, 11:29 PM
Informal questioning? So they let the kid know that he had the right to a) say nothing and b) leave at any time of his own free will? I doubt both (though obviously we can't know that.)
Basically, they ask a couple quick questions, and that's it. It's not litigation, Noir, any more than me asking you if you're alright is. It's quick and painless 99.9% of the time, unless some jackass starts fucking with the cops and being an asshole about it. They're not formal questions, it's general crap like "What's your name?" "Are you doing okay?", stuff like that.
SassyLady
07-01-2012, 11:37 PM
Bottom line, this guy was an asshole.
Basically, they ask a couple quick questions, and that's it. It's not litigation, Noir, any more than me asking you if you're alright is. It's quick and painless 99.9% of the time, unless some jackass starts fucking with the cops and being an asshole about it. They're not formal questions, it's general crap like "What's your name?" "Are you doing okay?", stuff like that.
So if you walked outside to find that your (i'm guessing) 10 year old kid was in some strangers car, because they wanted to ask him some informal questions, you think it grand? Or is it only okay if they're in a uniform?
Personally i think the father should have called then child out of the car, and told him to go in the house, rather than all that 'do you have a green card' crap, that would then of forced the officers to (if they wanted to continue asking questions) to tell the kid/father that he/his son was being detained, and could not exercise freedom of movement.
DragonStryk72
07-01-2012, 11:56 PM
So if you walked outside to find that your (i'm guessing) 10 year old kid was in some strangers car, because they wanted to ask him some informal questions, you think it grand? Or is it only okay if they're in a uniform?
Personally i think the father should have called then child out of the car, and told him to go in the house, rather than all that 'do you have a green card' crap, that would then of forced the officers to (if they wanted to continue asking questions) to tell the kid/father that he/his son was being detained, and could not exercise freedom of movement.
I might not be happy about it, but I'm certainly not going to go ahead and make the situation worse, and take even longer. What I'm going to do is talk to the cops, and find out what the problem is, instead of just prejudicially assuming that the cops are the bad guys here.
ConHog
07-01-2012, 11:59 PM
So if you walked outside to find that your (i'm guessing) 10 year old kid was in some strangers car, because they wanted to ask him some informal questions, you think it grand? Or is it only okay if they're in a uniform?
Personally i think the father should have called then child out of the car, and told him to go in the house, rather than all that 'do you have a green card' crap, that would then of forced the officers to (if they wanted to continue asking questions) to tell the kid/father that he/his son was being detained, and could not exercise freedom of movement.
Miranda doesnt come into play unless a person has been arrested and charged. Being detained is not the same thing as being arrested. For example a leo doesnt have to read yoy your rights before issuing you a speeding ticket
Miranda doesnt come into play unless a person has been arrested and charged. Being detained is not the same thing as being arrested. For example a leo doesnt have to read yoy your rights before issuing you a speeding ticket
Okay, here in the UK you have to be made aware of your rights if the police want to ask you questions. At the very least i would expect that anyone who is being asked questions is made aware of the 5th amendment, whether being charged, detained, or informally chatted with.
ConHog
07-02-2012, 12:18 AM
Okay, here in the UK you have to be made aware of your rights if the police want to ask you questions. At the very least i would expect that anyone who is being asked questions is made aware of the 5th amendment, whether being charged, detained, or informally chatted with.
In the us those rights dont even come i to play unless youe arrested. For example if a police officer is working a case and has reason to ask you your name you can be arrested for not answering. You havr no fifth amendmnt right to not answer.
In the us those rights dont even come i to play unless youe arrested. For example if a police officer is working a case and has reason to ask you your name you can be arrested for not answering. You havr no fifth amendmnt right to not answer.
What? You always have the 5th amendment. Arrested or not, if a policeman walks up to you in the street and starts asking questions you have the right to say nothing.
ConHog
07-02-2012, 12:28 AM
What? You always have the 5th amendment. Arrested or not, if a policeman walks up to you in the street and starts asking questions you have the right to say nothing.
Incorrect. Every state has stop and identify laws. If the police have a reason to ask you to stop and idntify yourself and you refuse you can be detained until they can determine who you are
Also if you get pulled over the first thing a leo usually does is ask if you know wby he pulled you over. Now its not a crime not to answer that but of course the cop doesnt have to mirandize you eithe.
Then the next thing he asks for bis license registration and proof of insurance. Still no miranda and if you refuse to respond your ass is going to jail
Incorrect. Every state has stop and identify laws. If the police have a reason to ask you to stop and idntify yourself and you refuse you can be detained until they can determine who you are
Also if you get pulled over the first thing a leo usually does is ask if you know why he pulled you over. Now its not a crime not to answer that but of course the cop doesnt have to mirandize you either.
Then the next thing he asks for is license registration and proof of insurance. Still no miranda and if you refuse to respond your ass is going to jail
Well first they need probable cause, or as you say 'have a reason', that would mean its not an 'informal' chat.
If they ask you if you know why they pulled you over you have every right to not answer, because answering something like 'because I was speeding' asserts your guilt, the 5th amendment allows for you to not to incriminate yourself.
And again, you can only be sent to jail with probable cause.
ConHog
07-02-2012, 12:52 AM
Well first they need probable cause, or as you say 'have a reason', that would mean its not an 'informal' chat.
If they ask you if you know why they pulled you over you have every right to not answer, because answering something like 'because I was speeding' asserts your guilt, the 5th amendment allows for you to not to incriminate yourself.
And again, you can only be sent to jail with probable cause.
No they dont need probable cause to ask you questions.
It is perfectly legal for a leo to approach someone and initiate a conversation with them hoping the will incriminate themselves. IE undercover cops psoing as hookers. If you offer to pay dor sex then get arrested you dont get to go back later and claim the offer doesnt count because you werent mirandized before the cops sarted talking to you.
No they dont need probable cause to ask you questions.
It is perfectly legal for a leo to approach someone and initiate a conversation with them hoping the will incriminate themselves. IE undercover cops psoing as hookers. If you offer to pay dor sex then get arrested you dont get to go back later and claim the offer doesnt count because you werent mirandized before the cops sarted talking to you.
No, though you may have a case for entrapment.
In any case, a policeman can not walk up to you on the street, ask you for details, and then arrest you because you will not answer the questions that they are asking without probable cause. At least i hope not, if that can happen in America then you've got problems way beyond what i thought.
logroller
07-02-2012, 01:17 AM
In the us those rights dont even come i to play unless youe arrested. For example if a police officer is working a case and has reason to ask you your name you can be arrested for not answering. You havr no fifth amendmnt right to not answer.
Name, yes. But you still have your rights; giving your name was ruled not to be a constitutional violation of privacy in Hiibel v.
Incorrect. Every state has stop and identify laws. If the police have a reason to ask you to stop and idntify yourself and you refuse you can be detained until they can determine who you are
Also if you get pulled over the first thing a leo usually does is ask if you know wby he pulled you over. Now its not a crime not to answer that but of course the cop doesnt have to mirandize you eithe.
Then the next thing he asks for bis license registration and proof of insurance. Still no miranda and if you refuse to respond your ass is going to jail
When Driving a car your rights are limited; but this has been agreed to when you get a license. Just walking down the street they cannot require you to produce ID, just provide a name. Other than that, your rights are intact until you choose to give up those rights, rather purposefully or not. For example, they ask, "what are you doing?" you don't need to answer; but if you say, drinking, they then have a reason to suspect you of being intoxicated and could then ask you to perform a sobriety test...under the auspices of protecting you and others. It's best to say nothing-- cops aren't there to help you. You always have the right to remain silent. I just give my name and tell them my rights are intact.(ie not on parole or probation) Then say, 'I prefer not to talk with you. Am I free to go?" polite and to the point. They usually give some line about checking for warrants..."how long does it take to find out I have none?" oh yeah, they can frisk too, checking for weapons. Thx to Terry v.
SassyLady
07-02-2012, 03:15 AM
What would happen if I answered the cop with "Why do you ask?" Are they required to tell me?
logroller
07-02-2012, 03:26 AM
What would happen if I answered the cop with "Why do you ask?" Are they required to tell me?
Why not; it's just a casual conversation, right?
Why not; it's just a casual conversation, right?
Speaking personally if strangers in uniform start asking me personal questions, its not a casual conversation.
taft2012
07-02-2012, 06:19 AM
Miranda doesnt come into play unless a person has been arrested and charged.
... and not even then. Miranda only applies if the arrested person is questioned.
taft2012
07-02-2012, 06:33 AM
Speaking personally if strangers in uniform start asking me personal questions, its not a casual conversation.
Translation: "I'm a criminal."
jimnyc
07-02-2012, 06:49 AM
... and not even then. Miranda only applies if the arrested person is questioned.
Sorry, and contrary to the other gent in this thread, miranda is required with some detainment and questioning, not just with arrests. The person must be in "custody", which is a muddy line at times, depending on whether or not an officer allows someone to leave and how long they keep them in a location.
jimnyc
07-02-2012, 06:53 AM
Additionally, police do have the right to stop and ask anyone questions and for ID - and the person is free to refuse and go about their way. In order to compel the ID or search or anything else, the police officer must have "reasonable and articulable suspicion" that the person has committed a crime.
Terry v. Ohio, 392U.S. 1, 88 S. Ct. 1868, 21 L. Ed. 889 (1968)
taft2012
07-02-2012, 06:55 AM
Sorry, and contrary to the other gent in this thread, miranda is required with some detainment and questioning, not just with arrests. The person must be in "custody", which is a muddy line at times, depending on whether or not an officer allows someone to leave and how long they keep them in a location.
No quite, but television shows can make it muddy.
When the police arrive at the scene of an incident they're allowed to detain and question people to determine who has happened. For instance, they can pull up and say, "Hey you! Come here. Did you just throw a rock through that store window?"
They don't have to say "Hey you! Come here. You have the right to remain silent, etc. Did you just throw a rock through that store window?"
jimnyc
07-02-2012, 07:10 AM
No quite, but television shows can make it muddy.
When the police arrive at the scene of an incident they're allowed to detain and question people to determine who has happened. For instance, they can pull up and say, "Hey you! Come here. Did you just throw a rock through that store window?"
They don't have to say "Hey you! Come here. You have the right to remain silent, etc. Did you just throw a rock through that store window?"
My knowledge is not from TV but from actual study. Yes, you are correct, they have a lot of leeway in detaining for questioning. But for example, if they detained someone for like an hour on a typical stop, that could be considered a 'detainment' where it exceeded into 'custody'. When the switchover occurs, and they overstep their boundaries, they now have someone in custody and rightfully should read them their rights.
A decent lawyer need only articulate to the courts that their client was in custody, even if not arrested. And if proven, and no miranda was read, anything recovered via interrogation would likely be tossed.
Translation: "I'm a criminal."
Oh ofcourse, because its not 'Innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt, in a court of the land by twelve of your peers.' It's 'innocent until you use a right guaranteed to you by the bill of rights', right?
If you can't get beyond the notion of 'nothing to hide, nothing to fear' you'd find yourself in a remarkably Orwellian state before long.
jimnyc
07-02-2012, 08:29 AM
Sorry, and contrary to the other gent in this thread, miranda is required with some detainment and questioning, not just with arrests. The person must be in "custody", which is a muddy line at times, depending on whether or not an officer allows someone to leave and how long they keep them in a location.
Here's a brief description explaining formal arrest and custody. As they explain, even if just an extended traffic stop, if a person is not free to leave, they are considered to be in custody.
Custodial Interrogation
Miranda v. Arizona dealt specifically with the issue of formal arrest and custody and led to the Miranda rights which notify you of your right to remain silent and your right to an attorney. Miranda applies only if you are in custody and interrogated by government agents. You are in custody if your freedom of action is curtailed, and you believe you are not free to leave.
http://www.ehow.com/about_6137055_difference-between-formal-arrest-custody_.html
ConHog
07-02-2012, 10:22 AM
Name, yes. But you still have your rights; giving your name was ruled not to be a constitutional violation of privacy in Hiibel v.
When Driving a car your rights are limited; but this has been agreed to when you get a license. Just walking down the street they cannot require you to produce ID, just provide a name. Other than that, your rights are intact until you choose to give up those rights, rather purposefully or not. For example, they ask, "what are you doing?" you don't need to answer; but if you say, drinking, they then have a reason to suspect you of being intoxicated and could then ask you to perform a sobriety test...under the auspices of protecting you and others. It's best to say nothing-- cops aren't there to help you. You always have the right to remain silent. I just give my name and tell them my rights are intact.(ie not on parole or probation) Then say, 'I prefer not to talk with you. Am I free to go?" polite and to the point. They usually give some line about checking for warrants..."how long does it take to find out I have none?" oh yeah, they can frisk too, checking for weapons. Thx to Terry v.
Correct, and I thought I had clarified. Stop and Identify laws do NOT allow a LEO to demand ID. A simple "I'm Aaron ____" is all the further it goes.
ConHog
07-02-2012, 10:24 AM
... and not even then. Miranda only applies if the arrested person is questioned.
That's not true. Even if the police catch you red handed and a decison is made that they don't even need a statement from you, they must still advise you of your rights in case you go to trial and then claim "no one told me I had a right to an attorney?"
Granted those circumstances are rare, but they DO happen. Every arrest includes mirandizing the subject whether questioning is involved or not.
ConHog
07-02-2012, 10:31 AM
Name, yes. But you still have your rights; giving your name was ruled not to be a constitutional violation of privacy in Hiibel v.
When Driving a car your rights are limited; but this has been agreed to when you get a license. Just walking down the street they cannot require you to produce ID, just provide a name. Other than that, your rights are intact until you choose to give up those rights, rather purposefully or not. For example, they ask, "what are you doing?" you don't need to answer; but if you say, drinking, they then have a reason to suspect you of being intoxicated and could then ask you to perform a sobriety test...under the auspices of protecting you and others. It's best to say nothing-- cops aren't there to help you. You always have the right to remain silent. I just give my name and tell them my rights are intact.(ie not on parole or probation) Then say, 'I prefer not to talk with you. Am I free to go?" polite and to the point. They usually give some line about checking for warrants..."how long does it take to find out I have none?" oh yeah, they can frisk too, checking for weapons. Thx to Terry v.
Another point. They can only frisk if they have reason to detain you in cuffs. Certainly they can't just pull you out of your vehicle and frisk you. Now that doesn't mean arrest, because there are situations where people are put in cuffs but not under arrest.
ConHog
07-02-2012, 10:37 AM
My knowledge is not from TV but from actual study. Yes, you are correct, they have a lot of leeway in detaining for questioning. But for example, if they detained someone for like an hour on a typical stop, that could be considered a 'detainment' where it exceeded into 'custody'. When the switchover occurs, and they overstep their boundaries, they now have someone in custody and rightfully should read them their rights.
A decent lawyer need only articulate to the courts that their client was in custody, even if not arrested. And if proven, and no miranda was read, anything recovered via interrogation would likely be tossed.
I'm not sure what you're referring to here. Even if kept for hours a witness won't be, and doesn't have to be mirandized. Unless of course they are actually arrested as a material witness. Then Miranda would attach, but that is pretty rare.
If on the other hand you are saying something along the lines of someone is detained for an hour while cops investigate, no miranda warning, then they arrested and given their miranda warning, you're right anything that they said prior to arrest but while detained COULD possibly be ruled inadmissible depending on the judge's interpretation of whether the detainment was a de facto arrest or not. There really is not hard fast line there.
jimnyc
07-02-2012, 10:45 AM
I'm not sure what you're referring to here. Even if kept for hours a witness won't be, and doesn't have to be mirandized. Unless of course they are actually arrested as a material witness. Then Miranda would attach, but that is pretty rare.
If on the other hand you are saying something along the lines of someone is detained for an hour while cops investigate, no miranda warning, then they arrested and given their miranda warning, you're right anything that they said prior to arrest but while detained COULD possibly be ruled inadmissible depending on the judge's interpretation of whether the detainment was a de facto arrest or not. There really is not hard fast line there.
If someone is kept for hours at a time, they are either free to leave whenever they feel like it, or the MUST be mirandized. As soon as someone is considered to be in custody, arrest or not, miranda should be read. What it boils down to is "free to leave" or not. Same applies even with a traffic stop. Police should only detain someone for what the courts consider a reasonable amount of time. Anything prolonged, they would be considered to be in a custodial interrogation, and miranda then applies. And reverse to the very beginning, my point was that miranda is not "only" when someone is arrested and questioned, that it's not an absolute, that regular custody without an arrest would still require miranda.
ConHog
07-02-2012, 10:49 AM
If someone is kept for hours at a time, they are either free to leave whenever they feel like it, or the MUST be mirandized. As soon as someone is considered to be in custody, arrest or not, miranda should be read. What it boils down to is "free to leave" or not. Same applies even with a traffic stop. Police should only detain someone for what the courts consider a reasonable amount of time. Anything prolonged, they would be considered to be in a custodial interrogation, and miranda then applies. And reverse to the very beginning, my point was that miranda is not "only" when someone is arrested and questioned, that it's not an absolute, that regular custody without an arrest would still require miranda.
As I said, we agree, the line is floating though, and ultimately up to a guy in a robe; smart money does say to read someone their rights, just in case. But to call it a MUST is going too far. For instance the police can hold you for up to 24 hours without charging you or even questioning you about anything. If your dumb ass is sitting in a cell and you start blabbering and the police use that against you, it is unlikely to be thrown out for lack of Miranda warning. Just as an example
On the other hand, as you are saying if they are questioning you for 24 hours and then arrest you and Mirandize you, yes in that case, they fucked up.
jimnyc
07-02-2012, 10:56 AM
As I said, we agree, the line is floating though, and ultimately up to a guy in a robe; smart money does say to read someone their rights, just in case. But to call it a MUST is going too far. For instance the police can hold you for up to 24 hours without charging you or even questioning you about anything. If your dumb ass is sitting in a cell and you start blabbering and the police use that against you, it is unlikely to be thrown out for lack of Miranda warning. Just as an example
On the other hand, as you are saying if they are questioning you for 24 hours and then arrest you and Mirandize you, yes in that case, they fucked up.
I say must, as in that's how courts generally see it, and that's general police policy. Of course they can hold someone legally up to a certain point, but other than to physically hold them, it's more or less useless if not mirandized. Same as traffic stops. Police can detain for an inordinate amount of time, without miranda, but a capable lawyer can have certain evidence tossed if it was an unreasonable amount of time and evidence was obtained from the perp without the warning. So yes, we agree on that part. We disagree on your earlier notion that an officer can demand ID or question someone walking down the road for no reason. Well, they can, and the individual is free to say "no thanks" and keep walking on his merry way, unless the officer can articulate some sort of crime or valid reason for a search/stop/questioning.
Correct, and I thought I had clarified. Stop and Identify laws do NOT allow a LEO to demand ID. A simple "I'm Aaron ____" is all the further it goes.
In the States do policemen often walk up to members of the public, ask them their names and then (satisfied with that information) walk off?
ConHog
07-02-2012, 01:12 PM
I say must, as in that's how courts generally see it, and that's general police policy. Of course they can hold someone legally up to a certain point, but other than to physically hold them, it's more or less useless if not mirandized. Same as traffic stops. Police can detain for an inordinate amount of time, without miranda, but a capable lawyer can have certain evidence tossed if it was an unreasonable amount of time and evidence was obtained from the perp without the warning. So yes, we agree on that part. We disagree on your earlier notion that an officer can demand ID or question someone walking down the road for no reason. Well, they can, and the individual is free to say "no thanks" and keep walking on his merry way, unless the officer can articulate some sort of crime or valid reason for a search/stop/questioning.
That isn't what I said at all Jim.
I did point out that all states (and I may be wrong on that now that I think about it, some states may not have this) have stop and identify laws. If a police asks you to stop and identify yourself , you ARE required to comply and no reason for such a request need be given. Now the key thing is as I noted, stop and identify laws in themselves do NOT require you to produce ID, and that is what the hub bub in AZ was about, they wanted to require ID from certain people, and were told no, stop and identify essentially means unless given reason to not believe you the LEO is supposed to take a person's word for who they are. Obviously if you answer "Mickey Mouse" they are going to detain you to ascertain the validity of that statement; otherwise a simple "I'm Jim _____" and an equally simple "okay Jim, on your way" will be all that a stop and identify does.
But yes in those states which have stop and identify you most certainly are required to stop and identify yourself.
revelarts
07-02-2012, 01:13 PM
another depressing thread, but at least Jim is bringing a bit of what the law is suppose to do even at this late date.
but we have Con, again, arguing for the police state and what the cops really do and think they can do,
....For instance the police can hold you for up to 24 hours without charging you or even questioning you about anything. If your dumb ass is sitting in a cell and.... ....
How is it legal to hold anyone without charge for 24 hours and there be no repercussions to the arresting officers?
I've seen Noir's video before a while back , it's painful to watch on alot of levels but Yeah I'm with Noir here,
a "friendly conversation" with a cop is fine... if the cops off duty. But the assumed authority of a police just to ask innocent old you or your kids name and other info just becuase, is wrong. If there's no cuase to ask they shouldn't. but they do and if they don't like your answer they can make up crap and take you in.
smells like freedom... no.
DragonStryk72
07-02-2012, 01:17 PM
another depressing thread, but at least Jim is bringing a bit of what the law is suppose to do even at this late date.
but we have Con, again, arguing for the police state and what the cops really do and think they can do,
How is it legal to hold anyone without charge for 24 hours and there be no repercussions to the arresting officers?
I've seen Noir's video before a while back , it's painful to watch on alot of levels but Yeah I'm with Noir here,
a "friendly conversation" with a cop is fine... if the cops off duty. But the assumed authority of a police just to ask innocent old you or your kids name and other info just becuase, is wrong. If there's no cuase to ask they shouldn't. but they do and if they don't like your answer they can make up crap and take you in.
smells like freedom... no.
The problem in the video, rev, is the guy never stops to listen to the cops, or ask any real questions about what the problem is, just constantly screaming about warrants.
aboutime
07-02-2012, 01:19 PM
Instead of posting that OLD video.
You could have saved all of us the time we wasted, as I am doing now. If you had just stepped forward and admitted....YOU HATE COPS, or BOBBIES...whatever you call them.
In fact. Your demonstration of your resentment against anyone who represents the Law is very noticeable, and merely shows. How little you appreciate your life, as somewhat of an admitted law breaker, and just plain Miserable person.
ConHog
07-02-2012, 01:19 PM
In the States do policemen often walk up to members of the public, ask them their names and then (satisfied with that information) walk off?
In my experience , yes. Unless the name sounds fishy or it's someone known to them. Well, let me correct myself a little, because in my experience LEOs don't just walk up to people and ask them who they are out of the blue.
An example would be say in a high drug area. Someone who may not be known to the local police may be in the area and if a cop sees him he may ask him his name then the cop will tell him to move along and don't be in that area again or something like that. Then the guy's name goes on a list and if he's seen in the area again, well the next experience with police probably won't be just a stop and identify.
That's really all it is. LEOs can't stop you and hold you for hours if you refuse to show them papers or anything like that, UNLESS you give them probable cause to believe you're lying; and in my experience most cops aren't going to make up a reason to do more work.
ConHog
07-02-2012, 01:22 PM
another depressing thread, but at least Jim is bringing a bit of what the law is suppose to do even at this late date.
but we have Con, again, arguing for the police state and what the cops really do and think they can do,
How is it legal to hold anyone without charge for 24 hours and there be no repercussions to the arresting officers?
I've seen Noir's video before a while back , it's painful to watch on alot of levels but Yeah I'm with Noir here,
a "friendly conversation" with a cop is fine... if the cops off duty. But the assumed authority of a police just to ask innocent old you or your kids name and other info just becuase, is wrong. If there's no cuase to ask they shouldn't. but they do and if they don't like your answer they can make up crap and take you in.
smells like freedom... no.
Hold up Rev. What's this bullshit about me advocating for anything? Did I state that I think it's okay or good that the government can hold anyone for 24 hours without charging them, or did I just say "this is the way it is?" Is what I posted a lie?
I AM pro law enforcement , and you're welcome to chew my ass for disagreeing with me, but don't put words in my mouth.
Also, I see again that you are just assuming that all cops are liars and out to hassle innocent people and stomp all over people's rights. Untrue, of course.
As for holding people for 24 hours without charging them, I believe there ARE cases where that is okay but it should be used VERY judiciously.
revelarts
07-02-2012, 01:23 PM
just by way of personal experience
I been stopped 3 maybe 4 times for taking pictures around town for my job. If my boss had not been in her office , in one instance around 2003-4, i would have been sitting at the police station until they could "confirm" my ID.
My suspicious activity was standing on a low wall of a historic church next to a shopping center taking pictures of downtown buildings with an expensive camera. and being of a swarthy complexion had nothing to do with the suspicions i'm sure.
I was extremely pleasant and cooperative, gave my name, my license, (my city ID which had expired -I work for the same city as the cops-) , I allowed them to frisk me, becuase they were "uncomfortable". I was wearing a big coat. And they where not satisfied until they confirmed my current employment via telephone with my boss.
It was ridiculous. I can not say that I'm as pleasant or cooperative now.
Other times I've had cops swerve off the side of the road kicking up rocks and ask what i was taking pictures of, and who for? if i were a terrorist what would i say? "Alla Akbar you heathen infidel dog!!!! click click click..."
A beautiful day a few months ago i had the office camera and began to take some shots near downtown. as I was snapping away in 1 direction a VA State policeman, out of nowhere and starts asking me what i'm taking pictures of and why. I'm on work time so i gritted my teeth and answered his stupid questions. He said "oh", he was concerned that the camera was pointed in the direction of "government buildings" . Then he walked off.
The only gov't bldg in that direction happened to be the local jail. Didn't know they were targets. But cupcakes, old ladies and veterans colostomy bags are potential threats to so why should i be surprised.
I, and everyone i my office, wondered what he would have done if i had not answered his questions?
jimnyc
07-02-2012, 01:24 PM
That isn't what I said at all Jim.
I did point out that all states (and I may be wrong on that now that I think about it, some states may not have this) have stop and identify laws. If a police asks you to stop and identify yourself , you ARE required to comply and no reason for such a request need be given. Now the key thing is as I noted, stop and identify laws in themselves do NOT require you to produce ID, and that is what the hub bub in AZ was about, they wanted to require ID from certain people, and were told no, stop and identify essentially means unless given reason to not believe you the LEO is supposed to take a person's word for who they are. Obviously if you answer "Mickey Mouse" they are going to detain you to ascertain the validity of that statement; otherwise a simple "I'm Jim _____" and an equally simple "okay Jim, on your way" will be all that a stop and identify does.
But yes in those states which have stop and identify you most certainly are required to stop and identify yourself.
Again, police can only 'require' a response to an identity question if they believe the person was involved in a crime:
As of February 2011, there is no U.S. federal law requiring that an individual identify himself during a Terry stop, but Hiibel held that states may enact such laws, provided the law requires the officer to have reasonable and articulable suspicion of criminal involvement,
So yes, they allow for an officer to stop and identify, but only under certain circumstances, otherwise one is free to walk away without answering.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_Identify_statutes
ConHog
07-02-2012, 01:27 PM
The problem in the video, rev, is the guy never stops to listen to the cops, or ask any real questions about what the problem is, just constantly screaming about warrants.
You know why? He was looking for a lawsuit. Plain and simple.
revelarts
07-02-2012, 01:43 PM
Hold up Rev. What's this bullshit about me advocating for anything? Did I state that I think it's okay or good that the government can hold anyone for 24 hours without charging them, or did I just say "this is the way it is?" Is what I posted a lie?
I AM pro law enforcement , and you're welcome to chew my ass for disagreeing with me, but don't put words in my mouth.
Also, I see again that you are just assuming that all cops are liars and out to hassle innocent people and stomp all over people's rights. Untrue, of course.
As for holding people for 24 hours without charging them, I believe there ARE cases where that is okay but it should be used VERY judiciously.
Con , sorry not trying to put words in your mouth.
as far as 24 hours in jail for the cops pleasure being "okay" is concerned, as long as it's used "very judiciously". Well you know as a pratical matter it might be a good idea, that, and 1000 other lil policing activities might be a good thing for quality law enforcement , it could help, cameras in some peoples homes 24 7, used VERY judiciously, would probably save some women's and children's lives. but we don't do it. (yet) It's aline we've drawn. we say we value freedom more than anything. and we've agreed to give up a portion of it an allow the police to do certain things under certain conditions.
the idea of using the tool of kidnapping and holding for 24 hours in a cell, crosses the line laid out in the constitution. Even IF some legal precedence has been set saying otherwise.
in another thread you pointed out that the courts ruled that checkpoints WERE indeed a violation of the constitution. But they on their own NON-authority decided that it was... just a little over the line so that's OK....
that's my whole point, a little here a little there and suddenly your in a police state, for your own good.
aboutime
07-02-2012, 01:45 PM
Why must everyone seem to be angry, or feel a need to object if a police officer asks a simple question like..."Do you have an ID?" or "What's your name?"
Look at how much simpler everything would be if you did the common, human thing and just answered the questions.
Why make a big deal out of something like that. UNLESS...you are determined to cause some trouble, or pretend HOW MUCH SMARTER you think you are, by being the slightest of disrespectful to another human who just happens to be a police officer?
Everyone seems to have a huge CHIP on their shoulders. Just daring someone to violate their LOUSY space around their EMPTY BRAIN AREA.
revelarts
07-02-2012, 01:49 PM
The problem in the video, rev, is the guy never stops to listen to the cops, or ask any real questions about what the problem is, just constantly screaming about warrants.
I wasn't trying to defend the guy or the cops in the vid .
Just the general point Noir was making about cops and questions.
the video, as i said, was kinda painful to watch as everyone seemed a fault at some level social, legal, etc..
not a text book example of anything
revelarts
07-02-2012, 02:05 PM
....
Also, I see again that you are just assuming that all cops are liars and out to hassle innocent people and stomp all over people's rights. Untrue, of course.....
Most cops in most places are great i'd assume but how many will stick up for you if you are arrested falsely by a bad "brother in arms" ?
Some cops are liars and a few do hassle innocent people.
And the rules you point to as regular and useful law enforcement techniques guarantee innocent people will be hassled.
check points ARE a hassle.
And BTW when your stopped by law enforcement how is anyone suppose to tell the few bad cops from the good cops, before you start answering questions or after?
ConHog
07-02-2012, 02:22 PM
Again, police can only 'require' a response to an identity question if they believe the person was involved in a crime:
So yes, they allow for an officer to stop and identify, but only under certain circumstances, otherwise one is free to walk away without answering.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_Identify_statutes
Again wrong. You are NOT free to walk away. You are free to sue their asses off if they have violated your civil rights, but that is for a jury to decide, not the average person on the street. You can't just say "fuck you pigs" and walk away if approached by a cop.
But yes, they do have to justify their reason for stopping you. Provided of of course you ask them to justify it, which most people simply do not.
ConHog
07-02-2012, 02:25 PM
Con , sorry not trying to put words in your mouth.
as far as 24 hours in jail for the cops pleasure being "okay" is concerned, as long as it's used "very judiciously". Well you know as a pratical matter it might be a good idea, that, and 1000 other lil policing activities might be a good thing for quality law enforcement , it could help, cameras in some peoples homes 24 7, used VERY judiciously, would probably save some women's and children's lives. but we don't do it. (yet) It's aline we've drawn. we say we value freedom more than anything. and we've agreed to give up a portion of it an allow the police to do certain things under certain conditions.
the idea of using the tool of kidnapping and holding for 24 hours in a cell, crosses the line laid out in the constitution. Even IF some legal precedence has been set saying otherwise.
in another thread you pointed out that the courts ruled that checkpoints WERE indeed a violation of the constitution. But they on their own NON-authority decided that it was... just a little over the line so that's OK....
that's my whole point, a little here a little there and suddenly your in a police state, for your own good.
I would argue that the Court indeed had the authority. Be that as it may Rev surely you agree that rights must be balanced. You have a right to freedom of course , and I have a right to safety so if something concerns both those rights, why should YOUR right over ride MY right? Obviously I know you agree it shouldn't and therefor a compromise must be met. As is the case with most compromises NO ONE is going to be completely satisfied.
ConHog
07-02-2012, 02:27 PM
Most cops in most places are great i'd assume but how many will stick up for you if you are arrested falsely by a bad "brother in arms" ?
Some cops are liars and a few do hassle innocent people.
And the rules you point to as regular and useful law enforcement techniques guarantee innocent people will be hassled.
check points ARE a hassle.
And BTW when your stopped by law enforcement how is anyone suppose to tell the few bad cops from the good cops, before you start answering questions or after?
Rev ,it appears that you believe ALL cops are bad until they prove otherwise. Good thing they don't return the favor. :coffee:
Instead of posting that OLD video.
You could have saved all of us the time we wasted, as I am doing now. If you had just stepped forward and admitted....YOU HATE COPS, or BOBBIES...whatever you call them.
In fact. Your demonstration of your resentment against anyone who represents the Law is very noticeable, and merely shows. How little you appreciate your life, as somewhat of an admitted law breaker, and just plain Miserable person.
That's a lot to get wrong in one post. Firstly I do not HATE the police (or PEELERS as we call them) and it would be rather awkward if I did, given I have a dozen or more close family ties (aunts/uncles/cousins) to peelers, Not to mention that I've applied for civilian jobs within the PSNI.
Also I have a great appreciation of life and being, and nor am i miserable (quote the opposite, probably too sunny if only you but knew) and i fail to see where i have said i have broken any laws, but incase you're in any confusion, i haven't ^,^
You really must do much better with insults (assuming that is your purpose, rather than just making yourself look silly - which is amusing but unnecessary) though it would be preferable that you take that to PM, and not this thread, and in respect of that I won't be replying further to your posts in this thread If they do not deal with the OP or relevant thread topics but instead chose to chat about *miserable* old me. (:
ConHog
07-02-2012, 02:35 PM
That's a lot to get wrong in one post. Firstly I do not HATE the police (or PEELERS as we call them) and it would be rather awkward if I did, given I have a dozen or more close family ties (aunts/uncles/cousins) to peelers, Not to mention that I've applied for civilian jobs within the PSNI.
Also I have a great appreciation of life and being, and nor am i miserable (quote the opposite, probably too sunny if only you but knew) and i fail to see where i have said i have broken any laws, but incase you're in any confusion, i haven't ^,^
You really must do much better with insults (assuming that is your purpose, rather than just making yourself look silly - which is amusing but unnecessary) though it would be preferable that you take that to PM, and not this thread, and in respect of that I won't be replying further to your posts in this thread If they do not deal with the OP or relevant thread topics but instead chose to chat about *miserable* old me. (:
Noir, I'd have you out for a steak and beer any day. NO tofu though , sorry.
revelarts
07-02-2012, 02:48 PM
Rev ,it appears that you believe ALL cops are bad until they prove otherwise. Good thing they don't return the favor. :coffee:
whose putting words in peoples mouths now Con?
But aren't police taught to approach a car in a certain way, just in case. And weren't you defending hand cuffing suspect, just in case. And taking people cupcakes at the airport, just in case it's a bomb?
And if patting me down etc. is what "ALL" cops do when they think i'm innocent , I'd hate to think what they do if they think i'm guilty? :rolleyes:
revelarts
07-02-2012, 02:53 PM
I would argue that the Court indeed had the authority. Be that as it may Rev surely you agree that rights must be balanced. You have a right to freedom of course , and I have a right to safety so if something concerns both those rights, why should YOUR right over ride MY right? Obviously I know you agree it shouldn't and therefor a compromise must be met. As is the case with most compromises NO ONE is going to be completely satisfied.
IMO only in harsh and extreme cases should the lines established by the Constitution be crossed. you seem to assume that the courts rulings and the even looser police applications of the laws today that cross the line are necessary for everyday practical "safety" i do not.
Satisfaction is not the goal constitutionality is what the courts and cops oath was about.
Noir, I'd have you out for a steak and beer any day. NO tofu though , sorry.
I don't drink alcohol, but a glass of water and a hug would suit me just grand ^,^
ConHog
07-02-2012, 03:02 PM
whose putting words in peoples mouths now Con?
But aren't police taught to approach a car in a certain way, just in case. And weren't you defending hand cuffing suspect, just in case. And taking people cupcakes at the airport, just in case it's a bomb?
And if patting me down etc. is what "ALL" cops do when they think i'm innocent , I'd hate to think what they do if they think i'm guilty? :rolleyes:
I think you're referring to that traffic stop thread the other day where they were looking for bank robbers? In that case, everyone who was hand cuffed was not a suspect. Just to be clear. And like you I think such tactics should be used sparingly, in fact I don't think those people then should have all been hand cuffed. if it was that large of an ordeal they should have plenty of police around to keep an eye on people without hand cuffing everyone in sight.
Oh, and very doubtful that ALL cops pat you down if they think you are innocent. Sorry to say that walking around in a trench coat taking pictures of big buildings is a little suspect. It's like bitching that the police check you every time you drive your truck full of TNT off the farm. Well DUH!!
ConHog
07-02-2012, 03:04 PM
I don't drink alcohol, but a glass of water and a hug would suit me just grand ^,^
Holy shit Noir, what am I gonna do with you? So you want a O Douls (sp) and a tofu burger? Well, I do try to be a good host, so I would try to accommodate. But the hug ? Eh what the fuck long as we don't rub junk. lol
revelarts
07-02-2012, 03:18 PM
....
Oh, and very doubtful that ALL cops pat you down if they think you are innocent. Sorry to say that walking around in a trench coat taking pictures of big buildings is a little suspect. It's like bitching that the police check you every time you drive your truck full of TNT off the farm. Well DUH!!
LOL... umm It was a parka and if it was a trench coat how is that like driving off the farm with a truck full of TNT ?!! geez louiez
ConHog
07-02-2012, 03:21 PM
LOL... umm It was a parka and if it was a trench coat how is that like driving off the farm with a truck full of TNT ?!! geez louiez
It's called profiling Rev. Guy wandering around taking pictures in the middle of the day unfortunately fits a profile. What would you have LE do, NOTHING?
It's called profiling Rev. Guy wandering around taking pictures in the middle of the day unfortunately fits a profile. What would you have LE do, NOTHING?
Yeah...it fits the profile of a photographer.
revelarts
07-02-2012, 04:09 PM
It's called profiling Rev. Guy wandering around taking pictures in the middle of the day unfortunately fits a profile. What would you have LE do, NOTHING?
yes. Nothing.
Photography is not a crime.
ConHog
07-02-2012, 04:46 PM
yes. Nothing.
Photography is not a crime.
In some cases it is. But that isn't the point.
In some cases it is. But that isn't the point.
So anyone with a camera (presumably that covers smart phones too) is reasonable cause for suspicion?
As an aside, if I where a terrorist, planing on bombing, say, Detroit, i wouldn't be spending my time walking about town looking 'reasonably suspicious' taking pictures. I turn on my computer and download google earth.
Also I like the "some cases" because we all know in 'most' cases photographers are criminals plying their trade xD
ConHog
07-03-2012, 12:35 AM
So anyone with a camera (presumably that covers smart phones too) is reasonable cause for suspicion?
As an aside, if I where a terrorist, planing on bombing, say, Detroit, i wouldn't be spending my time walking about town looking 'reasonably suspicious' taking pictures. I turn on my computer and download google earth.
Also I like the "some cases" because we all know in 'most' cases photographers are criminals plying their trade xD
Noir, the guy lurking around public schools isn't always a pedo freak either, but the police are paid to make sure. I'm sorry you and Rev are having a hard time coming to grips with the fact that the police have to be proactive in these sorts of things, but facts are facts.
taft2012
07-03-2012, 04:59 AM
That's not true. Even if the police catch you red handed and a decison is made that they don't even need a statement from you, they must still advise you of your rights in case you go to trial and then claim "no one told me I had a right to an attorney?"
Granted those circumstances are rare, but they DO happen. Every arrest includes mirandizing the subject whether questioning is involved or not.
No, every arrest does not include Mirandizing the arrestee. Under the scenario you suggest, it goes to court. Defense attorney makes the objection you cite:
Defense: Objection. My client was not Mirandized during the arrest processing.
Judge: Was he questioned?
Defense: No.
Judge: Is anything he said being used against him here in court?
Defense: No
Judge: Was your client put in a lineup?
Defense: No
Judge: And obviously your client has an attorney with him here today. Overruled.
revelarts
07-03-2012, 05:54 AM
Noir, the guy lurking around public schools isn't always a pedo freak either, but the police are paid to make sure. I'm sorry you and Rev are having a hard time coming to grips with the fact that the police have to be proactive in these sorts of things, but facts are facts.
Schools grounds + an adult lurking, that is suspicious.
There wasn't a school for miles on any of the occasions i was stopped con, there was zero justification for stopping me. I was taking pics of a historic church and a city skyline, once of a train, and once of trees for pete sake and the cop pulled off the road as if i'd found the entrance to the bat cave.
You cant seem to come to grips with the fact that the police have no real authority to bother people if they are doing nothing wrong. Now if they suspect something they are free to watch in public but if there's no crime or reasonable suspicion of a crime that's as far as they need to go.
Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
07-03-2012, 07:28 AM
Schools grounds + an adult lurking, that is suspicious.
There wasn't a school for miles on any of the occasions i was stopped con, there was zero justification for stopping me. I was taking pics of a historic church and a city skyline, once of a train, and once of trees for pete sake and the cop pulled off the road as if i'd found the entrance to the bat cave.
You cant seem to come to grips with the fact that the police have no real authority to bother people if they are doing nothing wrong. Now if they suspect something they are free to watch in public but if there's no crime or reasonable suspicion of a crime that's as far as they need to go.
The police quite often overstep their authority and its been getting worse every year for a few decades now!
I've had several run- ins with them over the years and each time they were wrong as hell and abusing the law to boot. Each time another officer had to step in to correct the first idiot officer on his shat! I never went to jail or was ever even charged with anything in any of the incidents. A bad cop is like turd floating in a swimming pool, it only takes one to do the damage.-;)--Tyr
Noir, the guy lurking around public schools isn't always a pedo freak either, but the police are paid to make sure. I'm sorry you and Rev are having a hard time coming to grips with the fact that the police have to be proactive in these sorts of things, but facts are facts.
You know i was walking past a school a few days ago, and i saw dozens of people lurking around it, some of them were even leaving with children. Suspicious, no? Well at least as suspicious as seeing people walking around downtown with cameras.
But taking this further, what do you expect the police are protecting people from with regards the camera man? I mean, they stop a guy, ask his name, and what, just hope there's an outstanding warrant against his arrest?
ConHog
07-03-2012, 09:31 AM
You know i was walking past a school a few days ago, and i saw dozens of people lurking around it, some of them were even leaving with children. Suspicious, no? Well at least as suspicious as seeing people walking around downtown with cameras.
But taking this further, what do you expect the police are protecting people from with regards the camera man? I mean, they stop a guy, ask his name, and what, just hope there's an outstanding warrant against his arrest?
You'd be surprised. LOL
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.