Posted on 03/25/2003 2:40:51 PM PST by Tspud1
Something Suspicious Is in the Air
By Courtland Milloy Monday, March 24, 2003; Page B01
The sign above the highway leading into the nation's capital advised motorists to "Report Suspicious Activity" and gave an 800 number for the Office of Homeland Security. As a reporter, I figured this was right up my alley and set out yesterday to report on things that struck me as suspicious.
For instance, near the Jefferson Memorial, I saw a five-foot-tall metal box that was hooked up to an electrical outlet and equipped with a high-tech antenna and chrome-dome receptor. What was it?
I asked a couple of National Park Service workers and some Cherry Blossom Festival organizers whose tent was set up next to the thing if they knew. Little did I know that my inquiry would become a suspicious activity in itself.
"We hear you've been asking curious questions," U.S. Park Police officer Michael Ramirez said as he and fellow officer Karl Spilde approached me from behind a blossomless cherry tree. "Why are you doing that?"
Both officers carried 9mm semiautomatic pistols, Mace and batons. Perhaps because I had just left the Jefferson Memorial, where I'd read a few lines about "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" and "all men are created equal," I felt bold enough to pose a question of my own: "Why are you asking me that?"
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Yes, but those people don't believe any question from a police officer (or to use their term "jack-booted thug") is simple or reasonable.
Would that not then be bordering on harrasement? If he did nothing wrong, how could you justify "watching him"?
You are right about the police having no duty to protect any single specific person, however their job in general terms is to:
"Serve and Protect"
Meaning the general public, which ios what these cops were doing.
You know on a strict legal basis you may, may be right. But what purpose is served by giving cops, who just want to help in most every cases, a bad time?
This reporter/columnist was being an asshole, pure and simple.
At what point in the story, which was articulated, were the officers expected to determine this guy was a "reasonable guy" and on what basis were they to make this judgement?
In a civil society, the 'authorities' don't have the right to stop and frisk anyone anytime they want. Unless asking questions about weird things you see in public places and taking pictures of same is now a crime, they didn't really have much if any business at all detaining him. It's not up to random Joe Citizen to answer any question the 'authorities' might think to have unless tere is some reasonable suspicion that a crime had, in fact, or was likely to take place.
now for the first...
If we're ever going to return to a state where we can walk safely any where at any time, rather than always fearing the possibility of a crime or a terrorist attack, we're going to have to expect answers from those people who seem to think they are too important, or do not want to be bothered by authorities, and refuse to provide civil answers to reasonable questions.
In a word, no. You people are seeing terrorists behind every lamppost. You notice that according to the article, the 'authorities' massively de-escalated the situation once they discovered that he was a reporter. Why is it that a reporter should get that kind of deference when the rest of us out here dont? Could it be that the 'authorties' in question knew they were out of line, and had exceeded their authority in searching him because he didn't feel like quaking in his shoes and licking their boots in a properly submissive manner?
Just because some people are criminals, does not give them the right to treat us all like we are.
Some else on the thread already mentioned Franklin's quote earlier. It is frankly more apt today than at any time in our history outside of the lawlessness that occurred during reconstruction in the south.
Just give them bogus information. I found that the washington post's registration page doesn't think it's possible for someone to be born before the year 1900. I figured the zip that they cite as an example worked. As for the 'sex' question, there was no button for 'yes', so I just randomly chose one. I feed all sites that ask for stuff like that random information, and then purge their cookies once I've read what I want to.
He only has one note and he's very anxious to somehow make it fit the world that has changed and no longer hears it.
You can email him at: milloyc@washpost.com
...or you can e-mail to: whinylittlesh*t@washpost.com but it could wind up going to almost any of their columnists, editors or their legal department.
The police had been called, and therefore they had a duty to ask the reporter what he was doing. He owed the police officers doing their job a civil reply - that he was doing his job, perhaps. If he had done that, there would have been no issue. He did not do that. He challenged police trying to determine what he was doing because it looked suspicious. (He - the reporter - was not just walking along the sidewalk innocently. He was snooping or certainly appeared to be.) The police not knowing what they were dealing with called for back-up when he would not answer their simple question; correct action. As I read it, the hostile Washington Post reporter asked for trouble and got some.
No, "hate crimes" come next. Then "thought crimes." Followed by "future thought crimes."
Bite me.
This guy must be hallucinating!
5. Where a reasonably prudent officer is warranted in the circumstances of a given case in believing that his safety or that of others is endangered, he may make a reasonable search for weapons of the person believed by him to be armed and dangerous regardless of whether he has probable cause to arrest that individual for crime or the absolute certainty that the individual is armed.
(a) Though the police must, whenever practicable, secure a warrant to make a search and seizure, that procedure cannot be followed where swift action based upon on-the-spot observations of the officer on the beat is required.
(b) The reasonableness of any particular search and seizure must be assessed in light of the particular circumstances against the standard of whether a man of reasonable caution is warranted in believing that the action taken was appropriate.
Ahh, the vaunted gold standard of jurisprudence! /sarcasm
This ruling is hazier than Baghdad television reception and has more holes in it than a Taliban Toyota.
Thanks for posting it.
Overall, I think that in the case of this particular stop, the cops did not meet any of the current thresholds for 'reasonable suspicion' to search the guy. Asking questions, taking pictures, and having a notpad and pen do not fit IMO. The cops are perfectly within their right to ask him anything they want, and he was perfectly within his rights to question the basis for them to ask him questions. Most of the time people just give them whatever information they want, because they feel (reasonably IMO) that they'll be much further harassed if they don't. I wish people did this more often, (question back) as it would likely lead to police to not think of us all as cowed sheep by default.
In a civil society, the 'authorities' don't have the right to stop and frisk anyone anytime they want.
That was not the case here. The officers responded to a call of a person 'acting suspicously.' They were simply responding to others fear. They only frisked him when he refused cooperation. Maybe his 'right' but not too smart.
Unless asking questions about weird things you see in public places and taking pictures of same is now a crime, they didn't really have much if any business at all detaining him.
I recall recently a similar incident. A mideastern man and a woman were taking pics of a TVA dam at 4 or 5:00 on a Sunday morning. That was not in and of itself illegal, but it was suspicious. The cop took his name and reported it to the FBI. The man was wanted for questioning by the FBI and later arrested for false passport or ID. According to your statements, the cop was out of line. In my mind he played a hunch and was correct, which is good police work.
It's not up to random Joe Citizen to answer any question the 'authorities' might think to have
Although true, think about how life will be if everyone refused to cooperate with the police under all circumstances, eveb reasonable ones, such as this.
You people
You people? Who are 'you people'? anyone who disagrees with you, or are you drawing your own conclusions?
are seeing terrorists behind every lamppost.
No. We are keeping our eyes open. By doing so it may make it more difficult for real terrorists.
You notice that according to the article, the 'authorities' massively de-escalated the situation once they discovered that he was a reporter.
In other words when he went from being a suspect, to being a cooperative person.
Why is it that a reporter should get that kind of deference when the rest of us out here dont?
Brief story. I was at the local video store when I saw two cops approaching a guy standing by a car. They asked him some questions and he produced ID. One cop called it in. The guy then took off and was soon tackled by the other cop. In attempting to cuff the guy, the guy stood up, with two cops on him. A third cop came over and some punches were thrown. The man was soon subdued, after some continued struggle.
A woman standing next to me thought the cops to be way out of line and commented to her friend that "somebody should report this". That was when I decided to act. I approached one of the officers, gave him my card, told him what the woman said and offered to be a witness to the whole incident.
The cop was very grateful that I stepped forward. He said too few do in support of them.
People can see things differently, you and others see the reporter incident as "harrasment" I see it as police being a little cautious in these trying times.
However, if he *accurately* described the confrontation (big "if"), then the cops were in the wrong.
Let me see your ID," Spilde said.
"Why?" I asked.
Wrong response.
"Call for backup," Spilde eventually told Ramirez as he seized my notebook and pen and began to search me. Was I being arrested, I asked before turning over my driver's license.
The cops had NO legal authority to lay a finger on this guy.
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.