Replies

observed appellant and another man walking away from one another in an alley in an area with a high incidence of drug traffic.

That is enough for me to accept it as proper for cops to inquire ID. I do not find that unreasonable in the least bit. This is a clean example of a beat cop doing his job.This is absolutely reasonable behavior by a beat cop. Recognizing his area of patrol and strange activity within it. This is not unlike what we need in Iraq today out of Iraqi soldiers. They can recognize the same type things and bring an added tool to catch terrorists.

"looked suspicious and we had never seen that subject in that area before."

There is the suspicioun needed when added CONTEXT of the area in question. You attempt to remove that context in order to cloud the issue.

This situation is precisely the difference between suspicion and probable cause.

"who has lawfully stopped him and requested the information." YUP.

and he was convicted and fined.

GOOD.

Are you tring to claim that his ID was 'siezed' when he was asked to produce it?

This fella would never have been arrested had he shown his ID. You seem to dismiss the entire reality of that issue. You want to hide, go for it and take note that you hide just like terrorists do, just like criminals do. You had better get busy making the claim that terrorists rights are being violated in fallujah when ID is required for entry.

You can deny the police and every other law enforcment entity you like sir. That is your right. But realize that standing mute does not shield you form detention or prosecution. You seem to think it does somehow. Just as you have the right to stand mute, law enforcment has the right to ask you questions.

If you chose to feel that police are your enemy, go for it. I sure am glad I have another choice. My question to you is why is it that you think law enforcment is your enemy, much less your number one enemy?

Another question I pose to you is HOW can they even begin to do the job they are tasked with when people like you make the claim that it is wrong for them to even ASK you a question about who you are?

At the very same time you are of the idea that they cannot watch you from afar. You will claim that is a violation of rights just as you do when they come right up and ask you. You will not allow them to listen to you, to watch you, to collect various types of data about you, you would even go so far to say that I violated your right to reasonable search if I told the cops who you were.

Sir, there is no right in the constitution to break the law. The laws were not designed, put in place,or ruled upon thru the constitution or thru the legislative branch or even the judicial branch in order for people to remain totally anonymous to all bodies 100% of the time. You seem to think that is the case, and it simply isn't so.

In the spirit of debate, I will say that you offer lots of opposition, claiming it is honest dissent. I will offer to you that honest dissent is qualified, and seperated from, baseline opposition by the presence of alternative solution. Seems to me the only thing you bring to the table is opposition with your reason being the defention of unreasonable as you see it. You do offer court decisions that favor your position from many years ago, while you ignore recent ones that do not. To honor one you must honor them all. Or you must honor none at all.

Now, you offer lots of opposition that hamstrings every ability of any law enforcment entity to actually gain the level of cause you demand. While in the abstract context of all people being right, proper and law abiding, you offer fair and valid points. When true context is added into the equation your dog ceases to hunt. People DO commit crime and that fact deems law enforcment neccesary.

With that fact established,the necessity of law enforcment, I ask you to rectify your position of not allowing law enforcment any tools to gain the cause you demand. This can be done by offering to me what tools you see as allowable to law enforcment in order that they may actually gain the cause you demand. When you do this, your opposition to the current methods used will be qualified. They will indeed, have a base on which to rest.

Context matters sir, taking things out of context and only seeing them as a singular entity often leads to a skewed view on the actual situation as it exists in reality.

So, if you care to discuss this on a reality based level, then by all means offer to me how law enforcment CAN gain the cause you demand at the level you demand it.

Are you of the character to simply offer opposition without solution or are you of the character that seeks to actually solve the problems you propose?

If law enforcment cannot ask you questions directly, if they cannot collect any data about you from any source, if they cannot watch you or listen to you, if they cannot talk to others about you, if they cannot even ID you, HOW DO YOU EXPECT THEM TO DO THEIR JOBS? How will they ever reach the level of cause you demand?

Tell me Sir, what you are for as it pertains to this issue. Not what you are against. I already know what you are against. I pose to you that law enforcment could not even begin to do their job if you were to have your way. Your position would see them completely ineffective in any way. So in reality your position would see this nation fall into complete and utter chaos.

Please tell me what tools you would consider reasonable for law enforcment to use in order that they may gain the level of cause you require.

How will they ever reach the level of cause you demand?

The courts have laid it all out very clearly.

It's called "articulable suspicion." If they have no specific, explainable reason to talk to someone, they can't force that person to talk to them.

In the Brown case, the conviction and fine was overturned.

You're going way off the deep end by claiming that I want to strip cops of all their tools.

They have the authority to watch me, to observe my behaviour, to gather whatever information they like. If that adds up to a reasonable suspicion that I have broken, am breaking, or am about to break the law, then they have the authority to detain me, compel me to identify myself, and investigate further.

But if there is NO reasonable suspicion that I have broken, am breaking, or am about to break the law, if there is NOTHING about my conduct that is, or appears to be, illegal, then in a free country I must, by definition, have the right to tell them that I don't care to talk to them.

Law enforcement has been able to do their jobs for hundreds of years without harassing innocent, law-abiding citizens on the basis of hunches, routine dragnets, and wild-ass guesses.

I'm not worried that they'll think of a way to continue to do their jobs without violating their oaths.

Here's an example of the kind of thing that can result when there's an absence of any restraint or accountability on the actions of police officers with respect to their interactions with the public:

http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/local/states/pennsylvania/13272741.htm

---
On July 13, 1995, Judge Lazarus was listening to lawyers arguing a motion when two men in casual clothes entered the sequestered courtroom.

When Court Officer Gary Wakshul tried to stop them, one declared: "You can't do anything to us. We're... cops!"

Wakshul told the Police Department's Internal Affairs that Fleming grabbed his necktie with one hand and punched him in the face, knocking off his glasses. The other man, Officer Jean Langan, also punched Wakshul.

The Internal Affairs investigation found that Fleming and Langan, who had been working undercover with a narcotics unit, punched Wakshul and used profanity, though both denied it.
---

He also engaged in a public strip search of someone who was ultimately not arrested, and nearly paralyzed a 53-year-old pastor with a take-down maneuver who was eventually found not guilty on all charges. He's also been caught testilying.

He has cost the department about a million bucks in settlements, but he still carries a badge.

Is that the kind of person you want to give carte blanche to confront anyone they care to confront regardless of evidence or suspicion?