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, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 221-232 next last
To: Tspud1
I got a stupid "sign up" link when I tried to read the rest of the story.
However, from what I have read here it appears that the police state doesn't appreciate the curious.
His tax dollars helped pay for that stupid box. If he wants to take pictures of it or ask what it's for, that's fine with me.
41
posted on
03/25/2003 3:53:07 PM PST
by
Jhoffa_
(Hi, I'm Johnny Knoxville, and this is "Freepin for Zot!")
To: weegee
I've seen people who were certifiably crazy (talking to themselves and forming no cohessive thought) out on the street and in bars I saw the same thing at the DNC convention, there were hundreds of them. It was a ghastly sight indeed.
42
posted on
03/25/2003 3:53:39 PM PST
by
Michael.SF.
(A nod is as good as a wink, to a blind horse.)
To: Henrietta
It's a non-story. I went and read the whole thing and he had several things against him. One, he fit the Middle-Eastern profile. Two, he was doing things in a manner that terrorists were doing. Three, he was already reported by someone else. Four, he did it at this time specifically to obtain a response. Now, were reinforcements necessary? I'd say no -- that was a judgement call on the cop's part. But on the other hand, the officer was acting on the side of safety. I've had the local boys in blue call for reinforcements on me before, too. Did I think it silly? Yup. Did I think their hysteria overrated? Yup. But I didn't have three characteristics of a potential terrorist, either. The guy doesn't have much right to complain.
The asbestos panties line was a gem, though.
43
posted on
03/25/2003 3:53:57 PM PST
by
=Intervention=
(so freaking sick of the lies...)
To: Henrietta
Where are we headed as a society if we all are now forced to justify why we are doing what we are doing just because some guy in a uniform asks?I guess that depends on what you are doing and saying. If he was really concerned about suspicious objects in the park wouldn't he have immediately identified himself and layed out his suspicions to the first authority figure to come along? Wouldn't he have been actively seeking one out?
Instead he was evasive and antagonistic. What is a cop supposed to think when that is coupled with a report that he was photographing equipment and taking notes?
44
posted on
03/25/2003 3:54:01 PM PST
by
TigersEye
(Let the liberals whine - it's what they do!)
To: Jhoffa_
PS: Ahh yes, I see this thread has been infiltrated by the 'New Conservatives"
You know, the ones who never met a jack boot that didn't sexually arouse them.
45
posted on
03/25/2003 3:55:21 PM PST
by
Jhoffa_
(Hi, I'm Johnny Knoxville, and this is "Freepin for Zot!")
To: TruthNtegrity
Go right up the chain to your zone major, precinct captain, or whoever the person in authority is.
Be cordial, very cordial (put on your "honest concerned citizen just trying to help" hat) and explain that you were trying to report a suspicious circumstance as instructed and were treated quite rudely by the dispatcher. You can say that you're concerned that folks might not report the "big one" if the dispatchers don't handle things a little more carefully. I have had VERY good results approaching the folks in charge with my concerns in a very polite way. (I also make a point of writing "attaboy" letters when I see patrolmen doing a good deed or responding well to citizen calls.)
46
posted on
03/25/2003 4:02:31 PM PST
by
AnAmericanMother
(. . . there is nothing new under the sun.)
To: TigersEye
"What is a cop supposed to think when that is coupled with a report that he was photographing equipment and taking notes?"
Who cares what the cops think? They aren't supposed to detain people unless they have a reasonable and articulable suspicion that the person in question is about to commit a crime.
We have the right to take photographs. We have the right to ask questions. And we have the right to expect that we will not be illegally detained (and this WAS an illegal detention) based on the asking of seemingly silly questions or the taking of seemingly suspicious photographs.
To: Jhoffa_
Yes, the usual contingent is here, all willing to give up basic freedoms for the illusion of security. Pathetic, isn't it?
To: Henrietta
Franklin mentioned these people.
You frequently hear them punching cell phone buttons from under the bed.
49
posted on
03/25/2003 4:07:28 PM PST
by
Jhoffa_
(Hi, I'm Johnny Knoxville, and this is "Freepin for Zot!")
To: Michael.SF.
"A lot of Policemen would have ran his sorry ass downtown in a proverbial NY minute for being such a smart ass. And they would have been justified in doing so."
Justified? Hardly! Time to bone up on your Constitutional Law, my friend. Last time I looked being a "smart ass" is not against the law. Anyway, his questions in response to his questions didn't seem particularly smart-assy. But some folks think that anything short of groveling before the glorious police is acting like a smart ass.
They work for us, and we have the right to ask cops why they are requesting I.D. or asking us questions, and we have the right to expect a polite, prompt, and truthful answer to our questions.
To: Henrietta; NetValue
Around here (GA) it's been refined into three levels of police inquiry:
1. A policeman may ask a citizen polite questions at any time. He may not impede your progress to do so, however. Inquiries have to be very basic and generic - what's your name? where are you going? - and (here's the key) the citizen does not have to answer. You can simply say, "I'm sorry, I don't wish to talk at this time" and go on your merry way. The GA courts have reversed convictions when the police dogged somebody who said he did not want to talk.
2. The "Terry" stop requires "reasonable and articulable suspicion" which as a practical matter does not mean they have to believe you have committed a particular crime, just that you are acting suspicious. Hostility, random or inconsistent or irrational answers to basic questions, sweating or other nervous behavior, etc.
3. Probable cause essentially means they would have sufficient evidence to put before a magistrate to get a warrant. That's the highest standard. Usually probable cause issues revolve around car stops, where the police don't have time to go get a warrant because the car will drive off . . .
Frankly, given the climate in D.C. these days and this guy's behavior (asking pointed questions and taking photos of odd stuff, enough for a citizen to call the cops, plus the belligerence when questioned) it's probably enough for a Terry. If he had been polite instead of evasive and rude when questioned, they probably would have thanked him and walked off. (But if they had wound up finding contraband on him in the pat-down and busting him, I think a GA court would have affirmed the conviction.) When you learn from the article that he was deliberately baiting the police -- then the police WERE right to have an articulable suspicion that something was up. Call it a false report of a crime.
51
posted on
03/25/2003 4:15:39 PM PST
by
AnAmericanMother
(. . . there is nothing new under the sun.)
To: Tspud1
Good to hear that people and our police are alert and attentive. I only live about 4 miles from the Nation's Capital. Not a surprise that Court Milloy would try to find someway to be a victim. And, less of a surprise that he plays the race card.
This guy is an insufferable Bush hating liberal. Post runs his column just to keep Republican Blood pressure up. He is so absurd on some issues, I wonder if it isn't a put-on.
To: Tspud1
If he did identify himself as a Washington Post reporter, I would have tasered or maced him. But then again, I'm more protective of our nation than many others.
V
53
posted on
03/25/2003 4:19:44 PM PST
by
Beck_isright
(V is for VICTORY....Accept nothing less and give no quarter to cowards.)
To: Henrietta
We have the right to take photographs. We have the right to ask questions. And we have the right to expect that we will not be illegally detainedTrue. But the police have a duty to investigate suspicious activity which includes asking questions of any citizen they think may provide useful information.
(and this WAS an illegal detention) based on the asking of seemingly silly questions or the taking of seemingly suspicious photographs.
You'd be right if that was what they based their detention on. I imagine it was his belligerent, uncooperative attitude coupled with suspicious behaviour that gave them just cause.
The author sounds like a jerk to me and this is HIS version of the story. The story in post #16 is something to get bent about, not this.
54
posted on
03/25/2003 4:22:09 PM PST
by
TigersEye
(Let the liberals whine - it's what they do!)
To: TigersEye
"I imagine it was his belligerent, uncooperative attitude coupled with suspicious behaviour that gave them just cause."
That still wouldn't be just cause to detain him. Being uncooperative is not a crime.
To: Henrietta; Jhoffa_
Yes, the usual contingent is here, all willing to give up basic freedoms for the illusion of security. Pathetic, isn't it?That's bullshit. I'm usually accused of being a cop basher.
56
posted on
03/25/2003 4:26:32 PM PST
by
TigersEye
(Let the liberals whine - it's what they do!)
To: Henrietta
I was wondering how far down the thread I'd have to go before I finall found someone willing to question the need of these officers to harass this guy. Yours was response #32. Seems that the number of folks who remember that this was once a free country are decreasing by the hour.
If we're ever going to return to a state where we are Citizens of the Republic, rather than merely subjects of civil authority, we're going to have to question the actions of those authorities who seem to think they are too important to provide civil answers to reasonable people.
I'm sure some of you folks out there will think the cops did just wonderful because they didn't decide to bash the guy's head in or arrest him for having the nerve to believe he had the riht to question them, but that is exactly a symtom of the problem.
57
posted on
03/25/2003 4:27:03 PM PST
by
zeugma
(If you use microsoft products, you are feeding the beast.)
To: Tspud1
He should have identified himself. Can't blame the officers for doing their jobs I'm afraid that this is typical of these leftist idiots. They just "don't get it" that we are at war and that playing little games with the LEO's can bring trouble upon their puny little heads. I know he thought it was "cutsy" to answer questions with a question and play the race card but people, this is serious business and time to stop the games. Any problems he encountered were of his own making. An honest response and identification would have ended the questioning. period
58
posted on
03/25/2003 4:28:38 PM PST
by
zip
(I love being right)
To: Tspud1
Good for him.
59
posted on
03/25/2003 4:28:57 PM PST
by
aruanan
To: cgk
got as far as this post. i remember that just days ago there was a hand grenade that was thrown into tents. i have been telling everyone i talk to, not all muslims are middle eastern. he should have buttoned his lip. sounds like he was combative. he also should have called the 800 number. its good he was curious, but he really could have handled it differently.
60
posted on
03/25/2003 4:29:14 PM PST
by
aged
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 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