N.J. troopers arrest woman for remaining silent during traffic stop

[bodecea]

Bottom boi, check #162 above. I posted to the way you posted. You do have the obligation to cooperate with the police, and if you deliberately obstruct lawful police behavior, you go down town. So you don't like being called what you are? Tough.

She's only required to provide id...shedid, drivers license..she did, proof of insurance...she did. She is not required to talk.

 

[MikeK]

She will win no punitive award. She will pay court costs and may well be assessed the state's fees.

What do you base that notion on?

 

[MikeK]

And to talk in common sense language in terms of the offense. No one here has shown in the legal code they can refuse to talk period to the officer. That is a nuisance, disorderly conduct, and you can be taken to the station in hand cuffs.

If I am wrong, show me in the state code where.

Show us in the state code, or in any other legal document, where one is required to incriminate oneself by answering questions prior to consultation with an attorney, if one so chooses.

 

[Jarlaxle]

She will win no punitive award. She will pay court costs and may well be assessed the state's fees.

What do you base that notion on?

The same place Fakey gets most of his "facts"--he squatted and bore down.

 

[MikeK]

The police can do their job without someone talking to them. If pulled over all someone has to say is "I am remaining silent unless an attorney is present".

At that point the police officer cannot continue any interrogation. What they should do is just say "I need your license and registration". Once they have it they write the ticket, tell the person why they were pulled over and hand them the ticket. They have completed their task.

This misconception so many people have that the police are god-like is false.

[...]

You are quite right. This worship of police is a manifestation of the authoritarian/submissive personality which is very common in the U.S. According to Dr. Erich Fromm in his classic work, Escape From Freedom, it was also very common in Germany during the 1930s and it facilitated the rise of the Third Reich.

The propensity for blind obedience to police we see in this forum is not based on any existing laws but on the wishes of those who insist it is absolute law.

 

[MikeK]

Or the police can run them in for being a public nuisance. Not a thing the citizen can do about it.

Jake,

This is a serious question:

Do you find this image appealing?

 

[MikeK]

boi toi, the police have the right to run you in as a public nuisance if you do not cooperate lawfully.

If you have no law at all to cite in support of your "I don't have to talk to the officer who has pulled me over for speeding." Watch the judge require you to be in court to explain yourself.

Jake,

Google up the Miranda Decision and study the reasoning behind it.

A police officer has the right to compel you to pull over while driving if he believes he has cause and you are required to comply. The officer is then required to tell you why he has stopped you and he has the right to demand that you produce your driver license, the vehicle's registration and its insurance documentation.

Unless he has stopped you for some reason other than a traffic offense the only business he has with you is to cite your for that offense, which requires no spoken dialogue. If he has reasonable suspicion that you are engaged in some other type of offense he does have the right to question you but you have the right to remain silent. That right is called the Miranda Rule.

Look it up.

 

[Theowl32]

Oh, she did not follow police instructions?

God I hate left wingers

 

[MikeK]

Oh, she did not follow police instructions?

God I hate left wingers

She did follow instructions. She pulled over and she produced he required documentation upon demand. That is all she was required to do.

The reason cops ask, "Do you know why I pulled you over," is their hope you will say you do know, which can be construed as affirmation of your offense. It's a stupid little donut-shop game that hot-shot cops like to play to prove to themselves how smart they are.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Bottom boi, check #162 above. I posted to the way you posted. You do have the obligation to cooperate with the police, and if you deliberately obstruct lawful police behavior, you go down town. So you don't like being called what you are? Tough.

She's only required to provide id...shedid, drivers license..she did, proof of insurance...she did. She is not required to talk.

Show me in your states' law where she is not required to talk during a traffic stop.

You can't.

 

[JakeStarkey]

And to talk in common sense language in terms of the offense. No one here has shown in the legal code they can refuse to talk period to the officer. That is a nuisance, disorderly conduct, and you can be taken to the station in hand cuffs.

If I am wrong, show me in the state code where.

Show us in the state code, or in any other legal document, where one is required to incriminate oneself by answering questions prior to consultation with an attorney, if one so chooses.

It's your claim, and hers, not mine. You can't provide it. You lose.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Let MikeK or others be your lawyer in this situation, you are going to jail, and you are going to pay fines and court costs.

 

[sealybobo]

The dashboard camera footage shows Stazzone approached the vehicle on the passenger side and asked Musarra for her license, registration and insurance.

"While you're looking for that, do you know why you're being pulled over tonight?" the trooper asked her, according to the tape. She claims she provided the documents but didn't respond.

After asking her several more times, Stazzone walked to the other side of her car, rapping on the window with his flashlight and again demanding a response.

"You're going to be placed under arrest if you don't answer my questions," he told her. Musarra claims the force of the flashlight chipped her window.

The footage shows she eventually told the trooper she was an attorney and that she did not have to answer questions. Stazzone then ordered her out of the vehicle.

As the two troopers cuffed her and walked her toward a troop car, Musarra asked them, "Are you detaining me because I refused to speak?"

"Yeah," Stazzone replied, according to the video. "Yeah, obstruction," Gosa added.


Yeah, another out of court settlement. These idiots arrested an Attorney for exercising her 5th Amendment Right and refusing to speak with them...

WATCH: N.J. troopers arrest woman for remaining silent during traffic stop

Blacks should pay attention to what she did. She knows her rights and she does not have the right to resist arrest

 

[sealybobo]

Both sides were stupid.

Shouldn't a judge decide? And I'd be curious to know the decision. Fuck judge Judy they should have a show with cases like this. Show the videos then have the trial on TV so we can see what the laws actually are.

And no cop can say no to being put on TV. Maybe cops will act differently if they know they're on candid camera.

And anyone that runs from the cops or resists arrest always gets the book thrown at them.

 

[MikeK]

Show me in your states' law where she is not required to talk during a traffic stop.

You can't.

Show us in your state's law where she is required to talk.

She is required to produce her license, registration and insurance card. That's all the cop needs to do what is called for under the Law, which is to write a citation, which requires no discussion.

The only reason you insist that civilians are required to obey cops is because that idea appeals to you in a deeply subliminal way. So I'll ask again; do you find this image somewhat stimulating?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Show me in your states' law where she is not required to talk during a traffic stop.

You can't.

Show us in your state's law where she is required to talk.

She is required to produce her license, registration and insurance card. That's all the cop needs to do what is called for under the Law, which is to write a citation, which requires no discussion.

The only reason you insist that civilians are required to obey cops is because that idea appeals to you in a deeply subliminal way. So I'll ask again; do you find this image somewhat stimulating?

I don't have to. The onus is on the person refusing to cooperate with the cop and becoming disorderly.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I'm a tad conflicted on this one. However I do think she should have complied with a response.

Her response was to invoke her 5th Amend Rights...
That legally should end any and all conversation.

She did not have a 5th Amendment right, if not under Miranda, to talk to the police. She had to give up her license and registration on request. She has to reply to questions in relation to the stop.

Why when the question is an obvious ploy to get her to admit she broke some law?

You never answer that question, "Do you know why I pulled you over?" Doing so is admitting guilt. Not answering that question in no way hampers the officers ability to issue a ticket, warning, summons or arrest that person for outstanding warrants.

 

[JakeStarkey]

She was asked appropriate questions by a cop in an appropriate situation.

She, and you and me, are subject to the law.

 

[Skull Pilot]

She was asked appropriate questions by a cop in an appropriate situation.

She, and you and me, are subject to the law.

"Do you know why I stopped you ?" is not an appropriate question. It is a ploy to get a person to incriminate himself.

The cop had her name and address from her license and registration. The cop knew why he stopped her already or he would not have stopped her at all. He had all the information needed to do his job

Her not answering that one question did not hamper the cop at all in his duties.

 

[Iceweasel]

Who missed this today? The DOJ's findings of the problems within Baltimore's police department. Not pretty at all. Not suprised at all.
Baltimore police have racial bias, Justice Department reports - CNN.com

The DOJ has been turned into a political wing of this administration so I'd take their findings with a grain of salt. These are the same operatives that assumed guilt by the officers due to skin color. It's called making the facts fit your conclusions.