Posted on 09/10/2007 4:12:39 PM PDT by BGHater
Lots of interesting exchanges:
Brett: I don't have to say anything. I have the 5th Amendment right.
Officer #1: Do you really?
Brett: Do you know what the 5th Amendment right is?
Officer #1 Do you know what impeding the flow of a police officers duties are?
Brett: What's that? Go ahead, tell me.
Officer #1: Whenever I ask you... If I'm conducting an investigat... This is called a field investigation, if you're impeding it, you're impeding it.
Brett: You're saying, I can't refuse to answer your questions?
Officer #1: They're not incriminating are they?
Brett: You don't know that.
Officer #1: Are they incriminating?
Brett: Yes they are.
Officer #1: They are?
Brett: They could be.
Officer #1: Then are you doing something illegal here?
Brett: No I'm not.
Officer #1: Then they are not incriminating.
Brett: Yes, they could be incriminating. I have the right to privacy.
Officer #1: What privacy? Not when you're out in public, you don't have the right to privacy.
Brett: Yes, I do have a right to not tell you where I'm going or what I'm doing.
Officer #1: Really?
Brett: It's the 4th Amendment right.
Officer #1: Really?
Brett: Yes it is. Violation of my rights...
Officer #1: I like this. You want me to tell you the law.
Brett: Go ahead and tell me the law.
Officer #1: If you fail to comply with my orders, my lawful orders, you have the right to go to jail. Failure to comply with a police officer.
Brett: Your lawful orders to answer your questions...
Officer #1: Yes, my field.
Brett: Personal questions?
Officer #1: What's personal questions? You're sitting here in a commuter parking lot at 2 o'clock in the morning, you understand.
Brett: Okay, that's fine.
Officer #1: You know what, I think I'm gonna bring you with me. Come on.
Brett: Officer please.
Officer #1: I think you're gonna come with me. Then you can try and sue me in grand jury and I bet you I win. Then I'll sue you.
Brett: Officer I really... I just had a bad night.
Officer #1: Well let's ruin your night. You want to show me attitude.
Brett: No, no I don't.
Officer #1: I want to show you the law. I want to show you the law. I'm gonna show you my law is right yours is wrong.
Brett: Officer, I'm sorry. Like I said, I'm not trying to start anything. I've had problems with everybody tonight and I didn't mean to give you attitude. It's just one of those nights.
I didn’t go view the video. I’m on dial-up.
Was is the video from the police cruiser?
Regardless the Cruiser cam’s have been a very good thing for both good police and good citizens and a very bad thing for bad police and bad citizens.
We all know some police abuse their power but without video proof nothing can be done to get rid of the bad apples.
This one of many little speed trap communities in the St. Louis County area.
If it was a 24 hour parking lot, he wasn’t there “after hours”, unless they don’t mean 24 hours in a row. (That’s an old Steven Wright joke).
Maybe the cop was “fooling around” and didn’t appreciate the company.
This cop should spend years in prison for his systematic abuse of power.
“I just wonder how many other people have been arrested on these charges.”
Good for the guy!
Checking things out when seeing someone pulling into a parking lot at 2 in the morning sound reasonable. The officer didn’t file false charges but he did let the guy yank his chain.
If someone hard been hurt, how would it have gone over in court if LE stated well I saw him but I didn’t figure it was any of my business what he was doing there.
I love how polite the cop gets when he hears he’s being taped.
I agree. The officer went off the rails, but he was at least partly provoked.
His job is to investigate suspicious behavior, such as someone driving around a deserted parking lot at 2:00 AM.
Sure, you have a constitutional right to remain silent, but in this case it seems pretty stupid. What’s wrong with being polite to an officer who is only doing his job? Why not say he’s waiting to pick someone up after work?
This doesn’t excuse the cop, but I think it’s only right to be polite to a police officer at least until he makes it clear that he is abusing his powers.
Yeah. There is a difference between protecting our rights and flaunting them.
Although I hope the Cop gets fired for this I do know if I was in this guys situation I would answer the Officers questions with a Yes Sir and not give him any crap. It’s actually nice that he was watching what was going on instead of sleeping in his car. This still does not excuse his behavior though.
He certainly doesn't seem like good law-enforcement material to me.
I took a class recently which was taught by two ex sheriff's deputies. They described their law-enforcement careers as being "duck hunters".
Ducks are the people who are committing crimes. Their names show up time and time again in the records. They very often look the part and act the part of criminals.
The other type of persons that the deputies encountered were people they considered their "bosses". That is, the people who pay them to do duck hunting.
Since I wouldn't like the idea of ever being mistaken for a "duck", I'm not sure I agree with this approach. But I appreciate the fact that I am going to get particularly polite treatment if I do not appear to be one.
The cop in this article seems to have become confused and has treated his "boss" as a "duck". If any of us mis-treated our boss in this fashion, we would deserve to be fired.
He should, but he won’t.
He was perfectly polite. He just didn't want to answer questions he legally didn't have to answer, a sin for which the cop clearly threatened to falsify charges against him.
The problem is, the definition of what consitutes "suspicious" will keep changing. As the article described, the "perp" was not engaging in suspicious behavior but was just there to pick somebody up. Isn't that allowed?
As soon as everybody agrees that being outside our homes at 2:00 am is suspicious, the cops will want to consider anybody out at 1:00 am suspicious. Where does it end?
If any one of us carries $11,000 dollars on us, it is not only deemed suspicious but the money can be confiscated. Soon it will be $5000, then $100.
The problem with this approach is that there is no law passed which can be repealed to restore our rights. The courts recently have made some decisions that we DO have to identify ourselves, but we don't have to be polite.
At least that is what I think they have decided. Unfortunately, I can't so easily just read the law to determine what is required.
While I don't recommend that everybody only do just that which is required and no more, it ought to be possible to decide what satisfies the requirements. If one decides to provide more to the police, fine. But if it is not required, THEN IT IS NOT REQUIRED.
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.