Posted on 01/03/2009 4:41:51 PM PST by don-o
“a totally false report enables my rights to be suspended”
The 2006 Duke Lacrosse Team continues to ask that very same question.
And when did peering into a parked car on public property become a crime? There is no allegation that anybody attempted to enter the car.
Please do not tell me that you do not know at least 5 people who take even the slightest of slights and make a federal case out of it or hold an unreasonable, unhealthy long term grudge because of it. They exist in the police force. At your favorite restaurant (do not make them mad, either). At the DMV. In your own family.
If something happens that is a serious violation of your rights then damn straight, by all means, fight like hell. But for a minor inconvenience, be the bigger man, let it slide and be confident that you did the right thing...JFK
“But some people are vindictive, aren’t they? Some people lack the maturity to take thing for what they are and truly ‘sweat the small stuff’.”
One would hope that cops are professionals and have better things to do with their time. Immaturity is not a trait cops should have.
“Please do not tell me that you do not know at least 5 people who take even the slightest of slights and make a federal case out of it or hold an unreasonable, unhealthy long term grudge because of it.”
I know some, again if cops are this immature they should be fired.
“If something happens that is a serious violation of your rights then damn straight, by all means, fight like hell.”
When exactly are the rights important?
I don't believe that this is accurate. As an earlier poster mentioned, the Supreme Court ruled in the last 24 months that the police could in fact demand that a citizen (or non-citizen for that matter) identify themselves.
I will look to find the court case. But, at the time, there was plenty of concern voiced by liberal and conservative libertarians about this ruling.
“As an earlier poster mentioned, the Supreme Court ruled in the last 24 months that the police could in fact demand that a citizen (or non-citizen for that matter) identify themselves.”
There is a difference between identifying yourself and being required to carry and ID.
Excellent video. Thanks.
An uncooperative suspect, who fits an id, is going to be taken in and questioned. You asked what "crime," I tossed out suspicion of breaking and entering. If you've ever had any dealings with law enforcement, you know the mentality. This officer was following up on a complaint. Peering into a car is not a crime, but many who peer into cars commit crimes. It's an attempt to be preemptive. Do you honestly think that this officer was out of line, asking someone who fit the description, for his id and where he was going? I don't, and I detest bad cops, I detest no-knock warrants, paramilitarized SWAT teams and the whole nine yards. But, this officer sounds like he did what he was supposed to do, and broke no laws in doing so.
Secondly, immature people inhabit all levels of employment in this country. Like I said, it is part of human nature. Do we fire them all? And besides, who decides what is immature? What if the person in charge of deciding is immature himself? How in the world do you expect your way of doing things to be implemented in an inherently imperfect world made up of imperfect humans.
You seem to be showing a good bit of immaturity by insisting on perfection when you should know good and damn well that such a thing is necessarily impossible.
What do you do when someone is pointing a gun at you? Stand and recite that they should not be doing that and take your best right-fighter pose, like you are here, or do you take cover and otherwise defend yourself? The question is vital to your point. Do you deal with REALITY or do you insist that reality change to meet your point of view on a case-by-case basis, in the heat of the moment? I prefer to deal with reality, and have made it clear what I would have done in don-o's shoes. You would likely still be in custody, for no good reason at all.
As to your question of when rights are important, they always are. But where were don-o's rights violated? If you cannot prove that they were violated, your entire point falls apart. I contend that his rights were not violated. Prove that they were, your argument depends on it really...JFK
I believe the result of the Nevada case was as follows:
You’re NOT required to give or show a police officer your ID, but you are required to tell him or her your full name if he or she asks you your name. This was the Hilbel case.
Thanks for the info! With your explanation, my memory concerning the case got a little jumpstart as well. I am pretty sure you nailed it...JFK
Relax. If you were wearing a red jacket and an orange sweatshirt, it was only the fashion police.
Actually, jiggyboy, on the Frequent Flyer Board, www.flyertalk.com, there have been a number of posts about people boarding airplanes (successfully) without a government issued ID.
These individuals were subjected to extra screening, such as wanding, pat downs, and a search of their carry-on bag, etc. but in the end they were allowed to board the aircraft.....it was just an additional series of hassles for the passenger to go through.
I couldn't agree more. I found a link to a CNN story that does a good job explaining the court case in question. I may have been premature with respect to the "reasonable suspicion" element. Then again, I suspect in a practical, real-world sense, "reasonable suspicion" is a low threshold to reach for law enforcement.
I personally am split on this issue. I understand the difficulties that police face everyday in trying to prevent crime. But, I also fiercely defend the right of the citizen as guaranteed under the constitution. These questions should promote intense, passionate debate on both sides - that's exactly what the founders would have demanded.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/06/24/dorf.police.id/index.html
Depends on the state. Some states require by law that you identify yourself to police. Here in New Hampshire, you arguably don’t have to identify yourself unless the cop suspects that a crime has been, is being, or is about to be committed, covered under the prowling statute.
I got the impression that the case set forth that a state law that requires you to identify yourself when police ask you is not unconstitutional.
If your state doesn’t have such a law, the case doesn’t apply to you.
“You seem to be showing a good bit of immaturity by insisting on perfection when you should know good and damn well that such a thing is necessarily impossible.”
And you seem to be reacting in a very defensive manner because you have a weak argument. Not demanding perfection, I am demanding that our rights be respected.
“What do you do when someone is pointing a gun at you?”
Oh so now the cop was drawing down on him. Musta thought Don-o was a mirror.
“As to your question of when rights are important, they always are. But where were don-o’s rights violated?”
Lost the argument so now you are deflecting.
I would have told the officer that I was staring in shock when I noticed a handgun on top of the passenger seat of her car, wondering if she was a threat or not. Although she didn’t point it diretly at me, she did have her hand on the pistol and was giving me a threatening look.
Good one, although that may get you into trouble.
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.