- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Any boot lickers here defend these police actions?
Posted on 11/8/22 at 9:30 am to AMS
Posted on 11/8/22 at 9:30 am to AMS
quote:That's the key to the whole situation. She states that she thought he was carrying a firearm. She specifically calls out the object in his back pocket. He demonstrates it is not. At that point, her "suspicion" is null and void. She then escalates the situation by requiring him to produce id. That's where she screwed herself. He was in his rights to refuse based on her stated reasoning for stopping him. Should have been the end of the story, but no, they then cuff the guy, search his person, then arrest him after asking for her name and badge number.
... yea she was interrupted but she was able to finish her explanation like a sentence or two later so not sure what point you are making.
also your point is nonsense because the man already proved to her it wasn't a weapon before an explanation was even asked for.
A civil suit will most definitely be filed, and will never see a court room. No way the lawyers or insurance company will want that video being played to a jury. The average person will see an older dude, minding his business, walking down the street. This is text book police harassment in the eyes of almost everyone but a select few.
0
Posted on 11/8/22 at 9:33 am to WaWaWeeWa
quote:
The cops were definitely assholes. So was the guy.
They both resorted to extremes of their rights to make their point and they both lost. It’s an example of how not to act by everyone involved.
i dont think the guy was 'resorting to the extremes of his rights'. its just a basic fundamental right the man was resorting to and was a victim of malfeasance for doing so.
maybe he shouldnt have insinuated they were tyrants while they were being tyrants, but i dont think calling a spade a spade is being a dick. maybe youre right, he shouldve just licked their boots instead of exercising a basic fundamental right.
Posted on 11/8/22 at 9:36 am to AMS
quote:
if they can reasonably articulate their suspicion that this occurred* they can ask him for ID.
Can you link the law?
I think that’s true of a search but I can’t find that it’s true of “stop and identify” laws
Posted on 11/8/22 at 9:51 am to WaWaWeeWa
quote:
Can you link the law?
I think that’s true of a search but I can’t find that it’s true of “stop and identify” laws
its the same thing you've been posting...
if they cant articulate the circumstances that made one suspicious of some crime... there isnt RAS.
otherwise its more like the cops from this video who are basically arresting people for bad vibes, but with some nonsense 'stretch the law' approach.
Posted on 11/8/22 at 10:12 am to AMS
quote:
Stop-and-Identify Laws Many states have "stop-and-identify" laws. Under these laws, if a police officer reasonably suspects that someone has engaged in criminal activity, the officer can detain that person and ask for identification. A person who refuses to provide identification commits the crime of resisting an officer's lawful order. (Hiibel v. Nevada, 542 U.S. 177 (2004).) Without that reasonable suspicion, however, a demand for identification may be illegal. Drivers who are asked to produce an ID may need to comply as well. Laws in many states require drivers who are stopped for speeding and similar infractions to provide identification when an officer requests it. Example Jones is standing outside his parked truck. Noticing that Jones fits the description of a man who took clothing from a nearby store about a half hour earlier, Officer Juarez asks Jones for identification. Jones refuses to provide his ID. Because Officer Juarez reasonably suspected that Jones might have stolen the clothing, Jones's refusal to provide identification would violate a "stop-and-identify" law.
LINK
I don’t see where the law says they have to notify you of their suspicion before asking you for identity.
To detain you, yes they should have to articulate why they are detaining you
But I’m open to changing my mind if you provide a link
Posted on 11/8/22 at 10:15 am to AMS
I could see the cops defense being
1. He crossed the street illegally and looked like he was carrying a firearm illegally, therefore I had a right to ask for ID
2. He refused to show ID so I detained him (at this point him showing the stick is irrelevant because he’s being detained for not identifying himself)
How would you respond to that defense?
1. He crossed the street illegally and looked like he was carrying a firearm illegally, therefore I had a right to ask for ID
2. He refused to show ID so I detained him (at this point him showing the stick is irrelevant because he’s being detained for not identifying himself)
How would you respond to that defense?
Posted on 11/8/22 at 10:16 am to WaWaWeeWa
quote:
I don’t see where the law says they have to notify you of their suspicion before asking you for identity.
To detain you, yes they should have to articulate why they are detaining you
But I’m open to changing my mind if you provide a link
stopping to ID is a detention.
Posted on 11/8/22 at 10:29 am to WaWaWeeWa
quote:
I could see the cops defense being
1. He crossed the street illegally and looked like he was carrying a firearm illegally, therefore I had a right to ask for ID
2. He refused to show ID so I detained him (at this point him showing the stick is irrelevant because he’s being detained for not identifying himself)
How would you respond to that defense?
1 - jaywalking was never brought up, its is clearly an after the fact thing they used illegitimately to justify the action. if it were brought up maybe he would have complied, but was never given the chance due to it being an after the fact justification by the cops. the firearm suspicion was dispelled before the ID was requested.
2 is nonsense because the dispelled notion of a crime is entirely relevant. you cant be arrested for failing to ID without some crime justifying the ID request. the suspicion of a weapon was dispelled before asking for ID. IF she asked for his ID before knowing it wasnt a weapon she would be justified.
3 its all nonsense because they didnt even cite him for any of those things. they got him for 'resisting arrest' because they didnt like his attitude and he was going to report them so they wanted to show him whos boss.
its crazy how far some will go to lick boots thinking cops are defensible in this case.
Posted on 11/8/22 at 10:36 am to AMS
Did you see what I quoted? It’s from a defense attorney. It doesn’t say anything about identifying their suspicion to ID the person in the example.
So again, can you link where the law requires them to identify their suspicion when ASKING FOR IDENTIFICATION?
I’m not saying you are wrong. I’m saying show me proof and I’ll change my mind.
So again, can you link where the law requires them to identify their suspicion when ASKING FOR IDENTIFICATION?
I’m not saying you are wrong. I’m saying show me proof and I’ll change my mind.
Posted on 11/8/22 at 10:40 am to AMS
quote:
What Are the Rules in Louisiana?
If you give police a good reason to suspect that you are involved in criminal activity, they have the right to make you identify yourself. If you fail to do so, they may be entitled to arrest you. The only information you will be required to share in this situation is your name and address.
What Should You Do if a Police Officer Stops You for Questioning?
The first thing to remember in this situation is to stay calm. Confrontations with law enforcement can be frightening, especially if you aren’t used to them. If you lose your cool, you can make your situation a lot worse than it needs to be. The next thing to do is to remember your rights. Some police officers will try to take advantage of your surprise and ask you for information which you are not obliged to give. If you do give such information, it may be held against you later, regardless of whether you knew you didn’t have to mention it. Any restriction of your freedom of movement by a police officer amounts to detainment. Detainment is possible where an officer has a reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is occurring. Police officers can only arrest you if they have an arrest warrant or probable cause. In the case of the latter, you will have to be brought before a competent authority soon after your arrest, so that it can be confirmed as lawful. When a police officer begins asking you for information, simply ask “are you detaining me?” If the answer is no, move on quickly without answering any further questions
Another example
It doesn’t say anything about them having to give reason to ask you for identification.
It also makes it sound like asking for identification is different than detaining someone.
It sounds like providing an actual ID isn’t necessary though and you could just state your name.
Looks like you were wrong
This post was edited on 11/8/22 at 10:50 am
Posted on 11/8/22 at 10:57 am to WaWaWeeWa
quote:
So again, can you link where the law requires them to identify their suspicion when ASKING FOR IDENTIFICATION?
I’m not saying you are wrong. I’m saying show me proof and I’ll change my mind.
technically they can 'ask' for whatever they want like a coffee or a massage too. you are free to deny. if they are legally demanding an ID by suspicion of a crime its different.
if they are just asking then kick rocks.
if they are demanding legitimately with good faith you should comply.
if they illegitimately demand then come up with some after the fact nonsense to justify then they are scum and broke the law although will likely be protected until they get exposed more and more like this video.
asking for ID is a detention. if you need RAS to detain, you need RAS to demand ID.
all of your argument now seems to be allowing nonsense after the fact justifications for clear abuse of power. cops going around demanding ID and arresting people without being able to articulate any reason for doing so is the problem of this situation, that being your main defense of this behavior doesn't make sense because it is exactly the problem in holding them accountable for corruption.
Posted on 11/8/22 at 11:07 am to WaWaWeeWa
quote:
Another example
It doesn’t say anything about them having to give reason to ask you for identification.
It also makes it sound like asking for identification is different than detaining someone.
It sounds like providing an actual ID isn’t necessary though and you could just state your name.
Looks like you were wrong
none of your examples proved me wrong lmao. i never said they have to immediately articulate their suspicion, just that they have to be able to articulate it. and you are getting so in the weeds for something irrelevant to this video. the cop did articulate her suspicion, after the suspicion was dispelled.
also asking for an ID is different than demanding an ID. they can ask your ID just like they could ask you for to get them mcdonalds. you can refuse both. demanding an ID is the legal authority version where there are consequences if you fail to do so.
you really need to stop inventing spins to my posts in order to justify cops abusing power.
Posted on 11/8/22 at 11:08 am to AMS
quote:
asking for ID is a detention. if you need RAS to detain, you need RAS to demand ID.
Yea, the question is wether they are required to tell you before they request identification. I don’t see that anywhere.
Again, there is a disconnect between what you want the law to be and what the law is.
I don’t agree with these laws and it sound like we should be pushing for Louisiana to not be a stop and identify state, but for now it is what it is and you are giving people bad advice that could get them into a sticky situation if they think they have a right to something they don’t.
quote:
you really need to stop inventing spins to my posts
I’m quoting what defense attorneys are advising. Sorry I’m going to go with their advice over yours without any evidence.
This post was edited on 11/8/22 at 11:11 am
Posted on 11/8/22 at 11:09 am to AMS
quote:
The cops were definitely a-holes. So was the guy.
It’s not a crime to be an asshoe
Posted on 11/8/22 at 11:12 am to Ancient Astronaut
No but it appears to be a crime to jwalk and refuse to give identification when asked in a “stop and identify” state.
I don’t like it but I’m not sure we would win this argument with a judge.
I don’t like it but I’m not sure we would win this argument with a judge.
Posted on 11/8/22 at 11:16 am to WaWaWeeWa
quote:
Yea, the question is wether they are required to tell you before they request identification. I don’t see that anywhere.
Again, there is a disconnect between what you want the law to be and what the law is.
I don’t agree with these laws and it sound like we should be pushing for Louisiana to not be a stop and identify state, but for now it is what it is and you are giving people bad advice that could get them into a sticky situation if they think they have a right to something they don’t.
no no no. the man had the right to refuse. the cops just violated that right because they are abusers.
just because some scumbag cops will abuse your rights doesnt mean you dont have those rights.
we dont need to start inventing hypotheticals that could justify the cops. even though the cops didnt have to articulate the suspicion to the man, the fact is that they did. and there just is no articulable suspicion they had, considering they articulated their concern and their notions were dispelled.
you are just defending illegitimate bending of the law to enable bad cops to violate rights.
Posted on 11/8/22 at 11:22 am to AMS
quote:
you are just defending illegitimate bending of the law to enable bad cops to violate rights.
I’m not defending it, I’m disputing your poor interpretation of the law and the bad advice you are giving people here.
There is no requirement for them to tell you why. Just because she only mentioned a gun doesn’t mean that’s the only suspicion they have or reason they have to stop you.
You could be right that after the fact they searched for reasons but you can’t prove that and you aren’t going to win that in court. So yea it sucks but the laws need to be changed, being a dick and getting arrested isn’t going to fix the issue.
Posted on 11/8/22 at 11:28 am to WaWaWeeWa
quote:
asking for ID is a detention. if you need RAS to detain, you need RAS to demand ID.
Yea, the question is wether they are required to tell you before they request identification. I don’t see that anywhere.
Again, there is a disconnect between what you want the law to be and what the law is.
I don’t agree with these laws and it sound like we should be pushing for Louisiana to not be a stop and identify state, but for now it is what it is and you are giving people bad advice that could get them into a sticky situation if they think they have a right to something they don’t.
quote:
you really need to stop inventing spins to my posts
I’m quoting what defense attorneys are advising. Sorry I’m going to go with their advice over yours without any evidence.
looks like my interpretation is more in line with your link than your interpretation is, from your link:
quote:
Any restriction of your freedom of movement by a police officer amounts to detainment. Detainment is possible where an officer has a reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is occurring.
I was just describing the difference in asking vs demanding ID since they are different and may be colloquially misunderstood.
and like Ive been saying a stop and ID is a detention, RAS is required, thats even coming from your defense attorney link so it seems theres a disconnect with what you want the law to be and what the law is.
Posted on 11/8/22 at 11:44 am to AMS
quote:
and like Ive been saying a stop and ID is a detention, RAS is required, thats even coming from your defense attorney link so it seems theres a disconnect with what you want the law to be and what the law is.
God damn you are dense
Yes reasonable suspicion is required.
I’m asking wether they need to provide you with that reasonable suspicion for identification? The answer appears to be no.
You keep saying she only said something about the gun but the police report says he jwalked.
Does she not have a right to ask for ID because she didn’t mention jwalking?
Posted on 11/8/22 at 1:48 pm to WaWaWeeWa
quote:
jwalk
I thought she stopped him for a gun that didn’t exist?
Page 10 of 11
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News