Barstow cops are fucked!

[Billo_Really]

Then move to Baltimore.

Why don't you move to Weimar?

 

[Billo_Really]

Why aren't you posting in this thread?
Obama s Baltimore Taking shape Page 2 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

I dunno...

 

[Billo_Really]

Why don't we just shove Baltimore up your ass instead? Then you can light it and smoke it.

I had a hunch he took his Baltimore rectally?

 

[Billo_Really]

Yep, as a blonde white woman myself I can tell you that is the truth.

Now if she had been wearing a baseball cap that said, "Police" on it, the situation might of ended differently.

A friend of mine gave me one and I was wearing it when I ran a red light. The cop gave me a warning on the red light and a fix it ticket for my bald tire.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

The OP is one funny dude !

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

No, not really...

The government can pluck anyone off the street and indefinitely detain them for the rest of their life without charges.

That's pretty fuckin' German to me!

No it can't.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

The OP is one funny dude !

A certified lunatic.

 

[HappyJoy]

Dealing with blacks should no longer be a Cops job, call in animal control

Yet another example on this board of why minorities are running away from the republicans and conservatives.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

No, not really...

The government can pluck anyone off the street and indefinitely detain them for the rest of their life without charges.

That's pretty fuckin' German to me!

German?

 

[Mad Scientist]

I know I said I was out, but I'm glad to see the healthy debate on this subject!

Yes, a Cop can ASK for ID but that doesn't mean you have to give it. You only have to Identify yourself when Arrested.

Merely failing to ID when a Cop asks is NOT AN ARRESTABLE OFFENSE BY ITSELF!

When a Cop asks for your ID ask him "Officer, can my I D be used against me in a Court of Law?"

If the Officer knows the Law he'll say "Yes". You then invoke your 5th Amendment Rights.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Dealing with blacks should no longer be a Cops job, call in animal control

Yet another example on this board of why minorities are running away from the republicans and conservatives.

It's actually more of an awkward primate loping stride.

 

[Steinlight]

No, not really...

The government can pluck anyone off the street and indefinitely detain them for the rest of their life without charges.

That's pretty fuckin' German to me!

I doubt that it is true the police can indefinitely detain you without charges for life, and that isn't happening here.

 

[HappyJoy]

Dealing with blacks should no longer be a Cops job, call in animal control

Yet another example on this board of why minorities are running away from the republicans and conservatives.

It's actually more of an awkward primate loping stride.

Ah, you betray everything the GOP pretends to be.

 

[EverCurious]

You're giving bad advice Mad Scientist. The difference you "fight the police/exercise your rights" folks always forget when dealing with an officer is detainment vs consensual request. Your advice applies ONLY in a consensual conversation. An officer may detain you and ask your name if he has any reason to believe you are suspect in a crime or if he is investigating a crime and thinks you have information about it, or if he believes you were witness to a crime.

Arguing amendment rights is going to be a dead end 99% of the time because if an officer asks you a question, especially in connection to something that got them called to the scene, then you are pretty much automatically /not/ in a "consensual" conversation. When the officer is trying to figure out what is going on, and you refuse to provide your name when you are the reason he was called to the scene, then you are without a doubt obstructing the officer's attempt to do his job; his reasonable suspicion is only /heightened/ by a refusal to provide identification and any court will dismiss your claims of right violations.

So you /can/ "plead the fifth," but you are going to be arrested for it 90% of the time, and the other 10% of the time you're going to be "detained" in the back of the officers car until he finds out who you are [especially if you are in any way involved in the reason he was called to the scene.]

It's just a really bad idea, especially if you're just doing it to "fight the police," you are far better off to ask if you are free to leave, if the officer says no, then answer his questions /or/ expect to spend a while hanging out in cuffs. - I believe the general rule is that they can "detain" you for up to 24 hours, after that they have to arrest you [which they can for obstruction in most situations,] then you'll have to wait for a judge to decide if you're free to go or not. Worse, you will get absolutely /nothing/ out of your "fighting," because the highest court in the land has clearly, and repeatedly, ruled that it is /not/ a civil rights violation.

I found this comment from a [supposed] California Officer (Yahoo Answers isn't the best source perhaps, but this is a very well worded explanation):
Q: If an officer approaches you, or calls out to you as you're walking by:

1. Do you have to stop for him?
2. Obviously you can refuse to speak, but can you just walk away from a police officer who approaches you?
3. What will happen if you refuse to tell an officer your name?
4. Can an officer legally arrest/detain you for not speaking to him? i.e. he asks what you're doing, and who you are, and you remain silent.

I'm looking for answers speaking strictly legally, please identify any "what would actually happen" statements, as to not confuse them with the law. A police officer's knowledge would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!

A: You can continue to walk, and not acknowledge him, so long as its just a "Hello, can I talk to you.". Its called a consensual encounter and only remains consensual as long as you're willing to consent to the encounter.

If the officer starts with something like this, or upgrades his speech to something like this "Police, stop." Then its not longer a consensual encounter, it has become a detention.

During either conversation he can ask whatever he wants. You can refuse to answer and walk away anytime during a consensual encounter. If he detained you, you are required to ID yourself, but can remain silent if you desire. Miranda is not required at this point.

If during the detention, you refuse to give your name, you can be arrested for obstruction.

The reason is, a detention is made because the officer has reasonable cause to believe that crime is afoot and you are somehow related to that crime. This gives him the right to detain and ID you, as well ask questions.

Many attempts at consensual encounters by officers are attempts to play it low key. I may have my reasonable cause to believe you are related to a nearby crime, but do not want to come right out and show you my hand. I'll just ask to talk to you. If you ignore me and continue walking, I will upgrade it to a detention and order you to stop. If you run at this point, you will be chased and subdued.

I look at a detention as a mini investigation, which it is. I have a person that may be involved in criminal activity so I have detained them to investigate their possible involvement. I must know who they are to run an investigation. If they won't ID themselves, they are obstructing/delaying my investigation, 148. True? Not identifying is not a crime in and of itself, but falls under the 148 umbrella. So technically Mickey is right, it's not a standalone crime, however, obstructing/delaying my investigation is.

 

[EverCurious]

I doubt that it is true the police can indefinitely detain you without charges for life, and that isn't happening here.

They cannot under normal circumstances, only if the suspect is a terrorist.

"A federal appeals court yesterday backed the president's power to indefinitely detain a U.S. citizen captured on U.S. soil without any criminal charges, holding that such authority is vital during wartime to protect the nation from terrorist attacks."

"A congressional resolution passed after Sept. 11 "provided the President all powers necessary and appropriate to protect American citizens from terrorist attacks," the decision said. "Those powers include the power to detain identified and committed enemies such as Padilla, who associated with al Qaeda . . . who took up arms against this Nation in its war against these enemies, and who entered the United States for the avowed purpose of further prosecuting that war by attacking American citizens.

Padilla is one of two U.S. citizens held as enemy combatants since the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon. The other, Yaser Esam Hamdi, was released and flown to Saudi Arabia last year after the Supreme Court upheld the government's power to detain him but said he could challenge that detention in U.S. courts."

"The ruling limits the president's power to detain Padilla to the duration of hostilities against al Qaeda, but the Bush administration has said that war could go on indefinitely." ~ U.S. Can Confine Citizens Without Charges Court Rules

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Fuck you, you racist fucking pricks!





Fuck Barstow cops!

This country is becoming Nazi Germany.

Then move to Baltimore.

Why don't we just shove Baltimore up your ass instead? Then you can light it and smoke it.

Why don't you just move to Baltimore instead?

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Then move to Baltimore.

Why don't you move to Weimar?

But you're the one bitching about cops. Move to Baltimore.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Fuck you, you racist fucking pricks!





Fuck Barstow cops!

This country is becoming Nazi Germany.

I don't see how the cops are supposed to be racist. If anyone was racist, it was the person getting detained. Also, this woman was stupid. You know if you walk away from an investigating cop that you're going to get detained.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Fuck you, you racist fucking pricks!





Fuck Barstow cops!

This country is becoming Nazi Germany.

You are quite the emotional little girl aren't you. Hate to see you when you break a nail

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Terry vs. Ohio. The cops can place you into investigative detention to investigate any possible crime. Reckless driving? Punching a window? Disturbing schools? All possible. Cop even said he didnt think there was a crime.

BUT...his job is to find out.

And by Terry vs Ohio...he can. And you must comply. They can use force to get compliance.

You cant just say the cop isnt investigating what I was just involved in and walk away.

When will people realize this???

But the cop did not say he was placing her in detention. And he only said she was under arrest after she was handcuffed. How can you resist arrest (or detention) if it is not being made clear?