tHa_KhAn

Both of your scenarios have big holes. Warrants are necessary for home raids and police do have to identify themselves as such, to my knowledge. Not that most people could tell a decent fake badge from a real one. I do believe police make mistakes. The point I am trying to make is that the officer making the mistake is not the one to take it up with. Especially at the time of the incident. Follow up properly and save everyone a big hassle. Warrants are signed by judges after a case is brought before them. Mistakes in address or intel could lead to your scenario, but in general a raid on a home has gone through a few filters.

Also, read your local laws. Obtaining and using a driving license is consenting to a great many things. In most states I would guess it's the same as in Florida. By driving, you agree to submit to DUI tests(which you should always refuse if you are intoxicated, you'll go to jail anyway, but just for refusing the test) and searches with probable cause(up to the officer), etc. Yeah, they basically mean any officer can pull you over and give you a hard time for any reason, but they are law and you did consent to drive.

__________________

CingularDuality

Are you talking about it little piddly arguments like the Austin traffic stop? Most ex-cops and military don't argue with cops if they're in their right mind. They tend to respect the authority of police.
If it's a major crime, or they're not in their right mind (crazy, drunk or high), then it does come down to a matter of training and who shoots better.
No, most of the time, people understand and want to do everything they can to catch a serial rapist.

Sure, an hour or two, but not as training as they have in liability and how to deal with the media...

What are you talking about? A magistrate judge or grand jury is going to determine the formal charges presented against anyone. What if an officer arrests someone for assaulting someone else, and then the victim dies? Do you not think the charges will change from aggravated assault to murder or manslaughter? It does no good for the cop to tell the arrestee what crime he/she is being arrested for, unless it will calm them down by telling them maybe...

You're implying that that's something the police typically do... Shame on you.

Why do you say this? If you're a lawbreaker and the police catch you, what does it matter if they tell you what you already know? You'll be formally charged later in the process, after you're in jail, have been photographed and fingerprinted and stand in front of a magistrate.

See, here's where we disagree. You say police are often wrong. I say they're seldom wrong. Sure, there are mistakes made, and those mistakes are often horrible when seen from the perspective of the victim of the mistake, and there are also bad cops. But the vast majority of the time, our cops and our justice system work well.

__________________

Become a supporting member!

Buy a Tactical Duck!
Take the world's smallest political quiz! "I was touched by His Noodly Appendage."
TacticalGamer TX LAN/BBQ Veteran:

Tarenth

TheFenix you're working under some serious misconceptions which are understandably distorting your view.

If a police officer is stopping you in suspicion of a crime you no longer become a 'private citizen' but a suspect of said crime. No, that's not the same as 'guilty until proven innocent' so don't try that arguement because it doesn't fly. Its closer to 'possible guilty suspect that is a danger to others'. The way you approach the suspect can have lasting consequences on both their life and safety as well as the safety of bystanders and/or the public at large. When your life and comfort as a potential criminal is weighed against the numberous lives of the public and the officer themselves, you'll find your side of the equation comes up very VERY short.

By law no charges need be brought to your attention regarding why you are being detained until your first appearance before a magistrate or you are being interrogated at which point your miranda rights are read and the charges are stated so that you may recognize that the questions being asked pertain to the charges. There are numerous reasons for this that both you and CD have touched upon. Say you are looking for a dangerous criminal or one with a high potential of flight. If you publicize that you are actively searching for and arresting people on suspicion of that crime they have committed the chances of them making a run for it or escalating the situation into something deadly increase substancially. However officers can use discretion with that depending on how suspicious you may appear. If the best description they have is 'white male in the 20-40 age range driving a truck' then the odds of a confrontational inquiry for information are a lot slimmer than 'white male around 6'4" driving a blue truck with licence place starting with 6TCD' because the range of suspects have narrowed considerably. And if you find it hilariously unlikely that someone may be the same ethnic background as you, the same age as you, wearing clothes of a similar color or design, have similar hair design/color, or drive a similar vehicle with a similar license plate...then you have to remember that the world is big and there are a lot of people in it. Hell, driving down the street of my city I can spot 4-5 cars of the same make and model with similar car colors, its not that unlikely.

Also, you yet again hold up a clearly recognized and accepted case of abuse as the norm and not the exception. It has already been established and publically announced that the case you hold so dear to heart was in clear violation of the operating procedures of the law. The "Get out of the car!" *taser* incident is not subject to debate or use as an example because its a clear and noted example of improper proceedure, not abuse. The foundations and reasoning are probably sound as to the officer's actions, but the progression of actions he took and execution are clearly in the wrong. And yes, there is good reason why you would escalate a situation with someone who refuses to comply with a simple command that no reasonable person would refuse. There's also a good reason to demand a suspect exit their car (a large, potentially dangerous weapon and medium of escape) and demand they do so in a way that would not raise their suspicion that they are suspected of wrong doing and thus provide incentive to use that car to escape. The foundations are there for good solid logical reasoning, but the rest of the incident falls apart like a house of cards under the improper way the officer handled himself.

People always try to empathize with the people they claim are the victims of these 'abuse' cases. Truthfully speaking if I was in any of those incident I probably would've reacted a lot differently than the person being video taped and thus recieved a different reaction. Why? Because they were idiots acting in an idiotic fashion and it would give me a headache to think in such an idiotic way. You could make a case that a majority of the 'average citizens' are also rude idiots without any common sense or sense of personal safety. I would just say if the 'average' is 'below average' then we need a new definition of 'average'.

If the officer asks for identification, licence, and/or registration. The best course of action is to give it to them. You can question the officer while giving them what they request, but refusing to hand over that information is stupid, suspicious, and not going to win you any points. There's a good reason for that too. If you are refusing to hand over identification a logical case could be made that you are afraid to do so due to outstanding warrents placed on those pieces of ID. Another line of reasoning would be because you are willing to attempt escape and you don't want to give the officer any actual identification that could be used to apprehend you later on. Its stupid...don't do it.

If the officer asks you to sign something so you can be on your way, just read it and sign it. Refusing to sign, as I stated before, just means you want the officer to arrest you. Seriously. There's no 'I think I want' its a clearly stated 'I want you to arrest me' because you are refusing to put up bond for your release. The officer doesn't want to drag you into the lockup and do the paperwork just as much as you don't want to be there. They also can't appraise you to sign in order to avoid jail time because that would be a violation of the law. You must recognize on your own (or with legal council) that by signing you are keeping yourself out of jail. They can't advise you on ways to keep out of jail, that would be bad for them legally since they aren't recognized legal council.

If an officer asks you nicely to shut up, then please SHUT UP. I swear if the officer doesn't shut you up, I'll be happy to act the 'good samaritan' and shove your sock into your mouth to shut you up. Talking loudly, rudely, and confrontationally in public is against the law. Them telling you to shut up is about as much warning as you're going to get before they shut you up.

Lastly, if it has degraded to the point where you've made enough of an ass of yourself that the officer questions their safety in your presence...from that point on is not the best time to make a scene or do some drama. If the officer has drawn a weapon to cover you and/or is demanding you stand where they can see you with hands in plain sight then retreating, hiding your hands, or making threatening gestures is not the best way to approach them. They're already seeing you as a danger to themselves and others so giving them reason to justify those believes by acting dangerous isn't smart. It isn't even within the same district of 'smart' or even 'stupid' its just completely 'idiotic' and I'll have no sympathy for you when they 'neutralize' your threat.

__________________
My sanity is not in question...
It was a confirmed casualty some time ago.

CingularDuality

I used to think this went without saying, but I've seen so many stupid people that came "this" close to being shot when they really could've just stood still and come away unscathed...

Look, guilty or innocent, the only person that reaches into their pocket, behind their back, or advances toward a police officer with his gun drawn is someone that wants to be shot. No matter how you slice it, failure to comply with an officer's instructions in a deadly force encounter is easy to articulate into a legitimate reason to shoot. You would have to be absolutely crazy to not comply with a police officer with his gun drawn. And if you're that crazy and your non-compliance involves reaching for a hidden weapon or advancing on the officer, then that officer absolutely is justified in shooting you. This has been upheld in the courts time after time. There's no argument that anyone here can give that will change it.

Don't be that stupid.

__________________

Become a supporting member!

Buy a Tactical Duck!
Take the world's smallest political quiz! "I was touched by His Noodly Appendage."
TacticalGamer TX LAN/BBQ Veteran:

CingularDuality

Anyone remember the thread on the guy that refused to give his ID to the police officer after refusing to let Best Buy employees rummage through his property? Anyone think I'm saying anything hypocritical?

__________________

Become a supporting member!

Buy a Tactical Duck!
Take the world's smallest political quiz! "I was touched by His Noodly Appendage."
TacticalGamer TX LAN/BBQ Veteran:

Tarenth

I remember that discussion. It was a few months ago before I had a chance to talk to the CJ professor.

Now I know that as a private employee of Best Buy the security guard has all authority afforded to him by his employer which 'could' include holding customers at gunpoint and doing full body cavity searches and be legally justified in doing so. That authority over them is accepted when customers cross over the threshold of the public domain by entering the private domain of the company when they pass through the doors.

The second part of it would be the refusal of the perpertrator to surrender identification when asked by the officer called to the scene. Given the reasonal suspicion and probable cause of a crime committed due to the drama and refusal to comply with the private security guard, the officer was within his rights to request identification in order to conduct a background check for his and public safety. Refusal to comply with such a request can be seen as an attempt to resist arrest by shielding outstanding warrents for similar crimes from notice by refusing to submit to the inquiry.

All of that could've been avoided if he used common sense and recognized that it's their store, their rules, and while they appreciate your custom you aren't important enough to flaunt their policies and get away with it.

Its kinda like cheating in a casino. Not everyone cheats, but you can't find the cheaters unless you suspect everyone of cheating and treat them all equally as criminals. Of course private businesses can get away with the 'guilty until proven innocent' train of reasoning because they aren't held to the legal standard police officers are when conducting public safety...like the constitution or its laws.

__________________
My sanity is not in question...
It was a confirmed casualty some time ago.

TheFeniX

Most of the time people are going to understand a cop barking orders at them and not explaining exactly why he's asking questions/arresting them? You seem to be jumping from "a cop doesn't have to explain squat" to "people will help a cop when he finds out he's looking for a rapist." Pick an argument.

Anyways, if true: What kind of sheep do you deal with on a regular basis?

Then that's stupid on account of the department and officers should look into classes on their own time. It honestly wouldn't hurt considering the general low public opinion of LEOs lately.

So what? An officer needs a reason to arrest someone. And a professional should have the common sense to at least inform someone of why they're being arrested.

And don't feed me a line about the charges changing. Just because you were arrested for jaywalking doesn't mean the state can't press charges when the officers finds an illegal handgun in your pocket during the pre-arrest search.

Any cop not at least having the common deceny to inform someone on why they are being detained and/or arrested rates as either a bully or lazy-ass. I hold server admins to a higher standard than that.

__________________

TheFeniX

Guess what: convicted felons are citizens as well.

I really have no idea what you're trying to say.

But let me be frank, me breaking no laws and being questioned as a "suspect" based on whatever criteria the officer may have: he should be the one watching what he says, not me.

Which basically boils down to: "A cop can do whatever he wants and make up the charges he wants later on."

Laws like this exist only to protect the officers and I don't mean their lives.

Since when did we go from: "Inform someone of why they're being arrested" to "inform someone of why they're being questioned?"

I agree that cops may not always want to inform someone they are questioning about an incident. Just don't always expect them to be forthcoming when they're being grilled for info.

Ha! You haven't seen my truck then. I'll give you the same line I gave the officer "I'd have to be monumentally stupid to commit a felony in THIS truck, then drive to a fast food joint with 4 cop cars parked out front."

Did you miss my entire post detailing the mental break-down people can have during stressful situations that makes even reasonable requests (which I find NONE of the officers requests besides the first to be reasonable in the time-frame they happened in) come to fast to be answered?

If cops don't understand this (no matter the reason) then that's a problem on their end. Not the average citizen.

Have you ever been in a stressful situation? I'm not talking about getting nervous about asking a girl out or passing an exam. I'm talking about a situation where pressure mounts in seconds and makes even basic motor movement more difficult.

People (even geniuses) can do incredibly stupid things when dealing with large amounts of stress in a shot period of time. Your brain can effectively shut down and your body reverts to a fight or flight situation or you just become completely oblivious to the situation.

In what circumstance? If I'm walking down the street minding my own business, I don't have to do that.

Actually it's C. only, unless you're driving a car.

Or it's because I live in America and I'm not required to give ID to anyone who asks for it. I'm only required to identify myself. A Driver's License is not a national ID card.

All of this ranting seems to boil down to "Do whatever a cop says." If a cop decide to be professional during my interaction with him, then I'm generally a lot more forth-coming than I normally would be. But if he decides bullying is the way to go, I'm going to treat him like I treat any bully that was given some form of authority: one-word answers with "are we done yet?" inserted every chance I get. I know I'm not a criminal and if during the course of finding that out for himself an officer decides that he'd rather act like some street punk and strong-arm me, he's only going to get as much "cooperation" from me to get him to go away.

As for the rest of your post, I don't know what arguments of mine you're targeting, but I don't recall making them.

__________________

Tarenth

I didn't even notice this one. You're taking things to the extreme from a borderline case and then coming up with wild conclusions with those misconceptions and assumptions.

1) Police need a warrent. To get a warrent they must has resonable suspicion, probably cause, or evidence of a crime and bring it up before a form of magistrate for approval before entering a private residence. The magistrate could be something as simple as 'auto-warrent 2.0' where you type in the situation and a computer program analyzes it and issues a go/no go warrent on the spot, but a warrent is still required.

2) Police must clearly state that they are the police when entering a residence by force. Ever wonder why they break down the door and yell "This is the police!", well there's your reason. The exception to that is if the presence of the police could escalate a situation to a dangerous level if it was known. If you have a gun to someone's head then they wouldn't have to do the whole 'clear and concise declaration of identification' spiel.

3) You have a right to know what you are charged with if the charge is not evident by your actions in the presence of the officers arresting. If you are stabbing someone in broad daylight in plain view of officers and witnesses then they do not need to state a charge or reason because the reason was self evident with you stabbing someone in plain view. It would take someone idiotic to not put one and one together to get the answer that stabbing someone in front of the police would result in an arrest. The issue you stated above was entering a private home with a warrent. Because a warrent issued would have a charge placed with it and you are automatically the focus of an investigation when taken after the fact of a crime committed they would go through the whole "you are under arrest for <charge>" and read you your rights spiel.

There are some exceptions to those rules though.

If the above is being done by private security, bounty hunters, parole/probation officers, or government agency without government sanction then they are perfectly within their rights to act in such a manner.

Private security follows its own rules set forth by their employers and have authority over you because of your either spoken, nonspoken, written, or implied surrender of rights and privliages due to your interaction with them. If you live in an apartment complex, dormitory, or gated community then those 'rent-a-cops' who act as security for those private sectors are the final word of law for all things pertaining to that sector and don't answer to restrictions put on public security (IE Police Officers and Law Enforcement) because they are not covered by things like the Constitution. They legally break down your door at 3 AM, beat the crap out of you, then throw you onto the street if their employer tells them they need you evicted.

Bounty hunters are officers of the court that work under the original arrest warrent and so fall between the crack of law enforcement and judicial due process. Because they are not law enforcement officers they do not need to follow proceedures or rule set forth to restrict public LEOs and the above situation can play out just like you described instead of 'cop' they'd say 'bounty hunter' and instead of you kicking them arround they'd probably beat the crap out of you in order to 'pacify' you to take in.

Parole/Probation officers can also act in just a manner you described if you are in their care, or they can have an officer act in that manner as long as they are the first to enter the room. If you are under probation or parole you have no privacy against the officer assigned to you and as such they can enter and search your place of residence at whim because it is your 'jail cell' and they are 'correctional officers'. No need to explain their actions are required because if you are being arrested it is for a violation of probation/parole and falls under the previous charge that you were given probation/parole for in order to avoid jail time. You will recieve a written notice of what violation you have been found guilty of including the approval for removal of probation/parole by the magistrate/parole board in due time for your review, but your presence and defense is not required or mandated by law to protest such charges. You may do so, however, after you've been put back in prison.

Lastly, just for the sake of completeness, if you're being taken in by the 'men in black' posing as the police...um...you have bigger wories ahead of you.

"Law Enforcement" is very very broad and people sometimes assume such niceities and safeguards like the Consitutions and Bill of Rights cover all of them. They don't. The Constitution and Bill of Rights only covers actions made by sanctioned officers of the government as a whole. Private parties (private security), officers of the Judicial Branch (bounty hunters), officers of the Executive Branch (correctional officers and probation/parole officers), and unsanctioned government agencies (theoretical 'men in black') are not restricted by those law due to not being agents of the government.

__________________
My sanity is not in question...
It was a confirmed casualty some time ago.

mentholated

No offense but one of us is insane, and I'm going to go have to choose you because of what you just said.