Skip to comments.
Reporter doesn't like questioning
Washington Post ^
| 3/24/03
| Courtlan Milloy
Posted on 03/25/2003 2:40:51 PM PST by Tspud1
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120, 121-140, 141-160 ... 221-232 next last
To: Henrietta
"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?
121
posted on
03/25/2003 6:01:33 PM PST
by
TigersEye
(Let the liberals whine - it's what they do!)
To: weegee
> 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!
122
posted on
03/25/2003 6:03:28 PM PST
by
xdem
To: TigersEye
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.
To: CrimeOf73
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 Don't you know we don't use that outdated document anymore?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
124
posted on
03/25/2003 6:04:29 PM PST
by
billbears
(Deo Vindice)
To: Henrietta
Yes, you are very pathetic.
To: Jhoffa_
You twit, you wouldn't know the difference between a jackboot and a hole in the ground.
To: Henrietta
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!
127
posted on
03/25/2003 6:08:29 PM PST
by
Michael.SF.
(A nod is as good as a wink, to a blind horse.)
To: TigersEye
> "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.
128
posted on
03/25/2003 6:09:28 PM PST
by
xdem
To: All
129
posted on
03/25/2003 6:09:58 PM PST
by
Bob J
To: Pukka Puck
"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?
To: Henrietta
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.
131
posted on
03/25/2003 6:12:04 PM PST
by
TigersEye
(Let the liberals whine - it's what they do!)
To: Michael.SF.
"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.
To: xdem
When interrogated by a stranger, most people want justification before they share information. We are citizens, not subjects.A cop isn't a stranger.
133
posted on
03/25/2003 6:13:54 PM PST
by
TigersEye
(Let the liberals whine - it's what they do!)
To: xdem
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).
134
posted on
03/25/2003 6:14:23 PM PST
by
weegee
(McCarthy was right, Fight the Red Menace)
To: TigersEye
"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!
To: Henrietta
You are a boring hysterical gasbag, not worth wasting time and effort on. Your own words are the best argument against your position.
To: 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."
Really? Care to articulate further, or is reasoned debate beyond your ken?
To: Henrietta
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.
138
posted on
03/25/2003 6:16:37 PM PST
by
general_re
(Think green...burn only 100% recycled dinosaurs in your car.)
To: Truth29
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.
To: Henrietta
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?
140
posted on
03/25/2003 6:17:43 PM PST
by
TigersEye
(Let the liberals whine - it's what they do!)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120, 121-140, 141-160 ... 221-232 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson