Posted on 01/03/2007 2:08:50 PM PST by The KG9 Kid
So if I engage in the conversation, I could incriminate myself. I thought our the 5th amendment protected us from self incrimination.
The question is which is more important, the officer doing his duty or a person's rights. In this scenario, is the kid evading conversation or protecting his rights.
I would have to see the video to determine if he was being disrespectful. Because he didn't want to cooperate with the police doesn't mean he was disrespectful.
Not if I was on the jury. As I stated previously, I respect police officers. Never do I refer to them as "cops" or "pigs". Just officers. However, were I to sit on the jury in a suit against that officer and the tape showed what the transcript stated, I would do everything possible to convince the other jurors to find in favor of this kid.
You get it!! The policeman only needs to hear a few words from his (or anyone's) mouth to tell whether he should be given a few drunk driving tests. Plus this 19 year old might be going to buy some drugs and a few questions will shake him up
The brat should have been arrested.
I would have ripped the tape out of the little brat's video camera
"Police officers acting in their official role do not have rights; they have enumerated powers. Authority to compel you to tell them the nature of your business is not one of those enumerated powers. The authority to threaten a citizen with jail time for being insufficiently servile is not one of those enumerated powers."
Succinct and sparklingly clear. Any argument opposed to the young man's actions needs to speak to the above. Note: Why is this person (still marginally of an age that is between 13-19) dismissed as a "teenager"? This is a YOUNG MAN who probably works to have a car, pays taxes, can sign contracts, vote, and so on. His "rights" are only very, very slightly different than most of the readers here.
What are the guy's damages exactly? It was obviously a set up, for which I salute the guy, but still, what are the damages? Ya I know, the "damage" to his clutch. :)
Is there any merit in police following procedure? I didn't notice that he was given any breath test for alcohol. He was been harrassed for being "mouthy" when the police failed I suspect to follow procedure. As I said, if they did follow procedure, harrass the mouthy male young ones, particularly of color, then the procedure is flawed. It is unlawful. Is there any merit in the police hewing to the law?
The Constitution gives us the right to unencumbered travel, and unlawful search and seizures. Although the officer was just making small talk, the young man was not out of line in declining to tell him where he was going. It appears that the police violated several of the man’s constitutional rights.
"Third floor, jackboots and truncheons..."
godless troll begone!
Because he wasn't drinking. The police found this out very quickly by interacting with him
HERE'S THE GOOD PART MR LAWYER --->> The police usually figure this out by shining their flashlight at you and a verbal exchange which is what this little punk was refusing to engage in
He was been harassed for being "mouthy" when the police failed I suspect to follow procedure. As I said, if they did follow procedure, harass the mouthy male young ones, particularly of color, then the procedure is flawed. It is unlawful. Is there any merit in the police hewing to the law?
The mouthy ones need to be smacked around a bit. Just call it furthering their education
They knew he wasn't drinking when he said he did not desire to discuss his personal business with them. They knew at that point, that the guy was a middle class lawyer mind set type. What they didn't know, is that the whole thing was on film. The cops should be disciplined. I hope they are, and I hope procedures are tightened. Being a cop should not be a testosteroned unleashed zone. Leave that to the bedroom.
You need to be disciplined. I have more regard for the police than lawyers. You wear a suit and go to court and this makes you think you know it all when actually you know less than me about such situations as on this thread
I'm shocked, that you have that opinion! Who knew? :)
How predictable. You are a cheerleader for this little punk. Lawyers are all about "rights" and nothing about responsibility. You obviously want to see mouthy little maggots with video cameras have expanded rights to jerk the police around. Who were merely trying to weed out drunk drivers.
Don't blame him, blame James Madison.
You wish he were just a little punk. He is probably a ACLU operative. Hate it!
you wouldn't know the Constitution if it jumped up and bit you in your godless troll butt
You're really learning a lot in that religion of yours.
Self parody is the best revenge. I salute you sir.
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.