Reporter doesn't like questioning

Washington Post ^ | 3/24/03 | Courtlan Milloy

[TigersEye]

"But his response was "Why are you asking me that?""

That would have been my response, too. Why would they care what he was asking? Doesn't he have a right to know why they want to know? What harm was his question?

That's not the way authority works. You answer the policeman's question first then he answers yours. There is nothing new about that. It was like that long before the WOsD's and WAY before the Patriot Act. The harm was that he made himself look suspicious by being uncooperative with a perfectly reasonable question. If his rights have been violated he can take it to court. But you know he won't because he doesn't have a case, does he?

[xdem]

> Does he refuse to show his driver's license when he gets on a plane?

WTH must the government know our names when we travel? Isn't knowing we aren't carrying weapons enough for a domestic flight?

Also, the airlines should be prohibited from using security information for marketing purposes. What's so hard to figure? I do not want more spam or junk mail!

[Henrietta]

No, I think he does have a case, for reasons I have articulated in my last post to you.

Citizens don't have to answer questions put to them by police. The Supreme Court says so. See Terry.

[billbears]

Hold it now!! You're talking about the Constitution. Don't you know we don't use that outdated document anymore? It just doesn't work in every case when the cops want to 'ask' you questions. Next thing you know, people might start thinking they have rights or something, and we can't have that

investigative purposes evolved into one of ''reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.''

I despise that word. Evolved. As if it was just an acceptable next step to the original intent. Activist judges (from both sides of the aisle) have twisted the Constitution into a document that's no longer recognizable. What I wouldn't give for a set of federal judges that read the document and ruled based on what it said instead of trying to gleam the 'intent' out of the argument

[Pukka Puck]

Yes, you are very pathetic.

[Pukka Puck]

You twit, you wouldn't know the difference between a jackboot and a hole in the ground.

[Michael.SF.]

It's really exasperating to have to explain to people what their rights are. Why don't people know this stuff?

Without stooping to the tone that you have ("you must have flunked civics") I am going to respond to you in a civilized manner:

Re read post 51. He explained to you once already the officers justification.

His Constitutional rights were violated by the 1 1/2 hour "detention" (really an illegal arrest) to which he was subjected.

Lets back up a second: Why was he 'detained' for an hour and a half?

Answer: because he refused to identify himself or to answer simple and reasonable questions. By his lack of cooperation, he was wasting the time of eight cops (or was it ten?).

If he had said: Hey guys, whats up? me? Oh, I am just a reporter fishing for a story, here is my Post ID. You guys were quick, by the way.

He would have been gone in five minutes and possibly even have had a better story!

[xdem]

> "But his response was "Why are you asking me that?""

When interrogated by a stranger, most people want justification before they share information.

We are citizens, not subjects.

[Bob J]

Join us tonight as The Shrew interviews Robert Spencer author of "Islam Unveiled: Disturbing Questions About the World's Fastest Growing Religion" This should prove to be a fascinating and provocative interview about this highly timely topic. Additionally, The Shrew interviews Robert Nowacki of the Free Congress Foundation Judicial Review and we will discuss the filibuster of Miguel Estrada!

Click HERE to listen LIVE while you FReep! HIFI broadband feed HERE! (when available)

Would you like to receive a note when RadioFR is on the air? Send an email to radiofreerepublic-subscribe@radioactive.kicks-ass.net!

Click HERE to chat in the RadioFR chat room! OPEN AND CHATTING NOW!

Miss a show?

Click HERE for RadioFR Archives!

[Henrietta]

"Yes, you are very pathetic."

Ad hominem attack; you lose the debate. Care to say something intelligent, or are you just going to call names?

[TigersEye]

Citizens don't have to answer questions put to them by police. The Supreme Court says so. See Terry.

In that case people pulled over for suspicion of knocking over the 7-11 should just refuse to get out of the car and refuse to answer any questions. Just drive away.

[Henrietta]

"Answer: because he refused to identify himself or to answer simple and reasonable questions. By his lack of cooperation, he was wasting the time of eight cops (or was it ten?). "

Sigh. You just don't get it, do you? He doesn't have to produce I.D. just because the cops ask for it. Refusal to produce I.D. or cooperate with a search is not probable cause for arrest.

[TigersEye]

When interrogated by a stranger, most people want justification before they share information. We are citizens, not subjects.

A cop isn't a stranger.

[weegee]

The airlines originally went along with ID requirements for travel so that they could prohibit the trafficking in unused portions of flight tickets (a round trip could be had for the same price or less of a one way ticket; sell the other half of the ticket and you definitely come out ahead; the airline find this to be illegal but not the overselling of tickets, i.e. selling your seat to someone else as well).

[Henrietta]

"In that case people pulled over for suspicion of knocking over the 7-11 should just refuse to get out of the car and refuse to answer any questions. Just drive away."

Straw man argument. Irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Next!

[Pukka Puck]

You are a boring hysterical gasbag, not worth wasting time and effort on. Your own words are the best argument against your position.

[Henrietta]

"You are a boring hysterical gasbag, not worth wasting time and effort on. Your own words are the best argument against your position."

Really? Care to articulate further, or is reasoned debate beyond your ken?

[general_re]

Care to say something intelligent, or are you just going to call names?

Like in your third post on this thread, where you described the folks who have the temerity to disagree with you as "pathetic".

You lose - get your high and mighty butt off this thread.

[visualops]

Exactly!
Just as the demonstrators are wasting resources and providing cover for anarchists, making a nuisance of yourself is a problem, too. This guy obviously has not been paying attention and has no clue.

[TigersEye]

Straw man argument. Irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

How? Calling it a strawman argument doesn't make it so. Prove it. How is it different?