Posted on 01/24/2016 6:46:26 AM PST by rktman
The following responses are useful for those that do not wish to cooperate with the police
- I do not wish to be engaged or have a conversation
- Please identify yourself
- (after asking the above 3 times without a response with name and badge number) I have asked you to identify yourself in accordance with your unit’s policy. Since you have intentionally refused to identify yourself, I can only assume that you are NOT a sworn law enforcement officer and I am now going to call 911 and request a real officer come to this location.
- Am I being detained
- (after asking the above 3 times without a response that you are being detained) Since you have not notified me that I am being detained, I am going to assert my constitutional rights to travel and will be on my way.
- I do not answer questions from law enforcement or agents of the state without the presence of my attorney.
- (if you are recording in a notification state) I am informing you that this encounter is being recorded for legal accuracy and record.
LOL! There is that aspect of it too.
It’s too bad, but after my incident, that’s the only way I am going to deal with LE who come uninvited onto my property.
I have a psycho SIL who (when she lived near us) kept threatening to file a complaint with the cops saying that I was stalking her and threatening her with violence. For a while I was expecting the police to show up at my door to question me.
Thankfully the loon moved to TN, next door to her other sister and is driving her nuts.
Point here is the amount of grief someone can cause you by using LE as a weapon against you, no proof needed. The cops always assume you’re guilty, expect you to prove you are not.
Yes, a very bad decision, but not domestic violence in my opinion. I would think one should need to become violent in order to be punished for violence. It’s no surprise. I do not agree with seat belt and other nanny state laws either.
Well, this post certainly created a lot of varying views on how folks perceive the local gendarmes.
________________________________
Indeed!
I think everyone has different views/experiences with Law Enforcement; some good, some bad.
I do think this was a good topic you posted.
That is a good point; they represent government, and when considering involving police into a matter understand that you are reaching out to the government (for better or worse). They have a role in society, but seem quite determined to expand it for economic reasons (just like teachers’ unions wanting to add bilingual and special needs teachers as quickly as possible).
LOL! Seems like I got some pats on the back and some boots to my backside. But, ain’t that why we do this?
LOL! Seems like I got some pats on the back and some boots to my backside. But, ain’t that why we do this?
___________________________________
I think you posted a relevant topic that gets people thinking. This is one area where the opinions will cover the spectrum, that’s for sure! :-D
Not a big fan of video cameras are you, rktman?
How so? You can tell them as much or as little as you want. They can’t force you to talk no matter what.
Nope. And, you ain’t safe anywhere anymore. I don’t have anything to hide but what I do is not anybody’s business unless I’m interfering with what you’re doing. Still, with all the cell phones, cctv systems, go-pros etc it’s hard to not be under someone’s watchful eye nearly constantly. I see guys on motorcycles with go-pros mounted on their helmets. Cars with go-pros on the dash. Chest mounted go-pros. Why?
The law presumes that talking is a waiver. . Because it is. If you really want to assert your 4th amendment guarantee do so, then STFU.
It’s not condemning someone to know the law.....Thank lawyers for a LOT of this. If you see a kid playing in a yard and do nothing, if she gets snatched, and hurt, the cop is at fault. If you pull someone over and they are a “ little bit intoxicated” and you take them home, if they fall down, you are at fault. Plus, your department gets on your ass for not arresting the guy. If a drunk is told to walk home and starts a fight, you violated his rights, NOT for breaking the law, but for not obeying your orders. I’ve seen all of the above and there are MANY others.
Please cite examples.
“There is no situation so bad it cannot be made worse by the presence of a policeman”.
Do people actually read the article and think this is what the author meant?
Idiots.
That’s the problem, her reasoning is all about example, anecdotes. The reason to not talk to police isn’t because this cop here was bad or that cop there was bad, it’s for the reasons I outlined. We have an inherently adversarial relationship with cops, good ones and bad ones. Their job is to find criminals, and you could tell them you’re a criminal at any time.
I absolutely agree.
Tagline.
I suppose that could be the intent. Not how I read it, but OK.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.