You must show your driver's license and registration when stopped in a car. Otherwise, you don't have to answer any questions if you are detained or arrested, with one important exception. The police may ask for your name if you have been properly detained, and you can be arrested in some states for refusing to give it. If you reasonably fear that your name is incriminating, you can claim the right to remain silent, which may be a defense in case you are arrested anyway.
QFTThe Stillhouse Kid wrote:
1. The use of the word "constantly" in the thread title automatically puts your argument to rest.
2. The woman refused to identify herself to the officer. From the ACLU:
http://www.aclu.org/police/gen/14528res20040730.htmlYou must show your driver's license and registration when stopped in a car. Otherwise, you don't have to answer any questions if you are detained or arrested, with one important exception. The police may ask for your name if you have been properly detained, and you can be arrested in some states for refusing to give it. If you reasonably fear that your name is incriminating, you can claim the right to remain silent, which may be a defense in case you are arrested anyway.
I remember voting on a similar issue where I live, wanting to let the city vote for Sheriffs. I voted against it, not wanting the Sheriff to waste his time on my tax dollar campaigning every election. And no, I don't want to vote people into medical doctor positions or for promotion to general, either.kilgoretrout wrote:
I actually have a suggestion to help with douchebag cops. I think the Chief of Police should be an elected office. I've noticed that Sheriff's Deputies are generally cooler than city policemen. If a Sheriff doesn't win re-election, a lot of his deputies are going to get fired. If the Police Chief were elected, city policemen would be cooler.
For once, I actually agree with IRONCHEF. This is the second dumbass thread in the last couple of days where you guys cry about police abuse of power without even understanding how the law enforcement system works.IRONCHEF wrote:
lol, what a piece of shit representation! lol
a) the cops had every right (even then, being pre-patriot act) to stop her at the check point. then proceed to ID her and verify that she is in compliance with motor vehicle laws (which they did). by her refusing to produce ID, they had the right to bring her to the station to ID her themselves.
b) when she resisted their requests, in all the ways she did regardless of her being well versed in constitutional laws, she forfeited her 4th ammendment rights and could then be seized upon and given her miranda rights which replace her 4th ammendment rights at that time.
Regardless of how the court decided, the officers were following their procedures without passion or prejudice in my opinion. GOing through her things was also fine because their probably cause after arresting her expanded their rights to then search her car and even support their arrest (if applicable). They could talk all the shit they want about her being a hippie, anti-government (and btw, you don't need to have a SS card), etc. They made her charge a just one - obstruction of justice, and they were right.
bad example. there's much worse..and you don't need a crazed hater doing the narrating. we see things on TV and in special reports done much better that do show abuse of power, invasion of civil rights, and even criminal activity on the part of cops...this one is not one of them.
Last edited by Spearhead (2006-11-17 21:20:11)
Go find a link on what are the laws of pulling over someone. You can't pull someone over, knock on their door, or stop them in the street randomly without probable cause and ask them for I.D, then arrest them if they don't present it.The Stillhouse Kid wrote:
1. The use of the word "constantly" in the thread title automatically puts your argument to rest.
2. The woman refused to identify herself to the officer. From the ACLU:
http://www.aclu.org/police/gen/14528res20040730.htmlYou must show your driver's license and registration when stopped in a car. Otherwise, you don't have to answer any questions if you are detained or arrested, with one important exception. The police may ask for your name if you have been properly detained, and you can be arrested in some states for refusing to give it. If you reasonably fear that your name is incriminating, you can claim the right to remain silent, which may be a defense in case you are arrested anyway.
Last edited by Dec45 (2006-11-17 20:50:58)
Says it all, can I get a fuck the police?Dec45 wrote:
Sorry folks, you can't pull someone over and check their I.D without probable cause of a violation of law. Let me ask you something...
Who won in court, and was acquitted of all charges? The lady you all said broke the law. Thanks for playing.
Ask a cop. Probable cause can be created on the spot, not that you need it. And in that video, the lady was pulled over at a check point..she wasn't randomly pulled over. Once you are pulled over, they have the right to ID you because that is how cops net fugitives and people with warrants. that's probable cause enough.Dec45 wrote:
Go find a link on what are the laws of pulling over someone. You can't pull someone over, knock on their door, or stop them in the street randomly without probable cause and ask them for I.D, then arrest them if they don't present it.The Stillhouse Kid wrote:
1. The use of the word "constantly" in the thread title automatically puts your argument to rest.
2. The woman refused to identify herself to the officer. From the ACLU:
http://www.aclu.org/police/gen/14528res20040730.htmlYou must show your driver's license and registration when stopped in a car. Otherwise, you don't have to answer any questions if you are detained or arrested, with one important exception. The police may ask for your name if you have been properly detained, and you can be arrested in some states for refusing to give it. If you reasonably fear that your name is incriminating, you can claim the right to remain silent, which may be a defense in case you are arrested anyway.
EDIT: Let me just add that I have been abused by the police on numerous occasions. Nothing about my opinion put the argument to rest. If you would like a detailed description of my encounters, the encounters of some of my friends and even some links... I'll present them for you.
You would finally "abuse your power" to, if you had to deal with people like you, day in and day out. To sit there and say the cops or bad when this person didn't do what was REQUIRED for her to do, is stupid. I give cops a lot of latitude when dealing with assholes.Spearhead wrote:
Many cops DO abuse their power, much more than they should. And it's been like that for a long time... it's scary how little people actually care. They only start caring when they become victims of police abuse. No one should deny that, THAT is a fact.......
But none, it would seem, to people who want to deal with arsehole cops.lowing wrote:
I give cops a lot of latitude when dealing with assholes.
I can bow to that, but my knee jerk reaction when I hear stories like this is:........ok, what did that person do to piss off the cop? If I am not mistaken they screen people pretty heavily, looking for certain character traits that would be undesirable for a cop.UnOriginalNuttah wrote:
But none, it would seem, to people who want to deal with arsehole cops.lowing wrote:
I give cops a lot of latitude when dealing with assholes.
Last edited by JahManRed (2006-11-18 06:26:10)
Without police you would probably be dead as writer of this thread.Dec45 wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/v/EahooGbQrUs
Enjoy. Feel free to come up with lame excuses on this one, like many of you do in such instances as the UCLA student being tasered. After you have, be sure to read to yourself the fourth amendment.
Probable cause cannot be made up, without some affiliation to a true subject they're looking for. Again, I ask... Why do you think she won the case? Because there was no probable cause. See, the thing some of you are missing, is that the checkpoint, whether approved or not... is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.IRONCHEF wrote:
Ask a cop. Probable cause can be created on the spot, not that you need it. And in that video, the lady was pulled over at a check point..she wasn't randomly pulled over. Once you are pulled over, they have the right to ID you because that is how cops net fugitives and people with warrants. that's probable cause enough.Dec45 wrote:
Go find a link on what are the laws of pulling over someone. You can't pull someone over, knock on their door, or stop them in the street randomly without probable cause and ask them for I.D, then arrest them if they don't present it.The Stillhouse Kid wrote:
1. The use of the word "constantly" in the thread title automatically puts your argument to rest.
2. The woman refused to identify herself to the officer. From the ACLU:
http://www.aclu.org/police/gen/14528res20040730.html
EDIT: Let me just add that I have been abused by the police on numerous occasions. Nothing about my opinion put the argument to rest. If you would like a detailed description of my encounters, the encounters of some of my friends and even some links... I'll present them for you.
Ask yourself if that's reason to accept the alienation of someone's rights. Logical fallacy, buddy...teddy..jimmy wrote:
Without police you would probably be dead as writer of this thread.Dec45 wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/v/EahooGbQrUs
Enjoy. Feel free to come up with lame excuses on this one, like many of you do in such instances as the UCLA student being tasered. After you have, be sure to read to yourself the fourth amendment.
This situation that you have posted is a situation hardly seen in the modern world. It happens, get over it.Dec45 wrote:
Ask yourself if that's reason to accept the alienation of someone's rights. Logical fallacy, buddy...teddy..jimmy wrote:
Without police you would probably be dead as writer of this thread.Dec45 wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/v/EahooGbQrUs
Enjoy. Feel free to come up with lame excuses on this one, like many of you do in such instances as the UCLA student being tasered. After you have, be sure to read to yourself the fourth amendment.
Last edited by ..teddy..jimmy (2006-11-18 07:02:20)
Um no... I'm not going to 'get over' people breaking the intent of the constitution. How about you 'get over' the fact some people like their freedoms preserved. It is not hardly seen in the modern world. It's clear that you don't know what you're talking about for one thing, and secondly you're accepting the revocation of inalienable rights. You're a pawn. Don't try and rub off on me...teddy..jimmy wrote:
This situation that you have posted is a situation hardly seen in the modern world. It happens, get over it.Dec45 wrote:
Ask yourself if that's reason to accept the alienation of someone's rights. Logical fallacy, buddy...teddy..jimmy wrote:
Without police you would probably be dead as writer of this thread.
Ask ANY civil rights attorney about how much shit the police do that goes unheard, and the vast majority of them will answer one thing: Too often.lowing wrote:
You would finally "abuse your power" to, if you had to deal with people like you, day in and day out. To sit there and say the cops or bad when this person didn't do what was REQUIRED for her to do, is stupid. I give cops a lot of latitude when dealing with assholes.Spearhead wrote:
Many cops DO abuse their power, much more than they should. And it's been like that for a long time... it's scary how little people actually care. They only start caring when they become victims of police abuse. No one should deny that, THAT is a fact.......
Last edited by Spearhead (2006-11-18 10:36:49)
good post,Spearhead wrote:
Ask ANY civil rights attorney about how much shit the police do that goes unheard, and the vast majority of them will answer one thing: Too often.lowing wrote:
You would finally "abuse your power" to, if you had to deal with people like you, day in and day out. To sit there and say the cops or bad when this person didn't do what was REQUIRED for her to do, is stupid. I give cops a lot of latitude when dealing with assholes.Spearhead wrote:
Many cops DO abuse their power, much more than they should. And it's been like that for a long time... it's scary how little people actually care. They only start caring when they become victims of police abuse. No one should deny that, THAT is a fact.......
Each case is unique, however, every REAL American should know that in the end, it's up to you to know your rights, and to defend yourself when your rights are violated. The police are a force of regulation, for the most part they are good at defending your rights, however, often times they stretch their limits, and sometimes they DO go beyond the line.
My mom had a client who was a black police officer, who was being racially intimidated by his fellow officers. The entire local police was corrupt with racial bigotry, and they banded together in hopes of getting him fired...
Also, when a local neighbor got in trouble with the cops, the cops actually VIOLATED the constitution by trying to prevent them from speaking to a lawyer, which they were fully entitled to. I stay out of things, but it takes either a real fool or an uninformed person to not know that the police force is corrupt and abuses their power in TOO many ways, TOO many times.
Do what you want, lowing, call me and other liberals whatever you want. But for you to think that the police force is almost completely free of abuse, which is why you put it in quotes, and that people who speak out against police corruption and brutality are just making shit up, is VERY naive and un-American of you.. I'd expect better from you, lowing..
What it boils down to is your rights. No one is your friend when it comes to defending your rights. That's why we have COURTS, the right to a FAIR TRIAL, and LAWYERS in the first place. Lowing, why the hell do you think they exist in the first place? The police is a necessary force of regulation, and society is definitely better off with it, but, to deny that it abuses it's power in many, but not the majority, of cases, is naive, ignorant, and un-American. It comes down to the CITIZEN, their RIGHTS, and the SITUATION. Any form of generalization, as lowing expressed, and has expressed for a long time, destroys the system, and turns it into a "Fuck it, your pestering us, so you're going to jail for no good reason" system. The law and order system of our society is probably the MOST crucial, and the MOST unrespected. Every aspect of American life, whether it's the right to vote, racial equality, freedom in general, all boils down to the court, and fair trials within that court. Without that, what would seperate us from the Nazis or the Soviets? The bases of American society are built off of radical, liberal thinking and processes.
Denying that the system isn't corrupt in many ways is a HUGE mistake... Yes, the majority of police out there will respect your rights, but there are TOO MANY cases that go completely unheard of where police abuse and corruption has ruined innocent peoples lives.