[Gooshin]

If I am out in public I do not have to prove my "right" to be there to anyone in a free society. We have a concept in this country called "innocent until proven guilty." In your view, the police have the right to assume you are "guilty until you prove you are innocent."


If I go into a bar and they somehow think I am underaged (I wish I looked that young) then is their statutory responsibility to insure that I am old enough to drink otherwise they could face criminal charges. One thing you miss though. I am still free to refuse to give them my ID but of course then they are likewise free to bar me from their private property.

so in the bar scenario, you are guilty until proven innocent..

but thats okay because there is a law for that

but when you're walking in a park, since there is no law against walking in a park, all of a sudden its innocent until proven guilty..

:/

[Gooshin]

Also, Mike

If I am out in public I do not have to prove my "right" to be there to anyone in a free society.

but what if you are an illegal immigrant?

[16N64]

When the police are acting improperly or oversteping their mandate there is no legal requirement to be cooperative. "Unfriendly" or not he WAS calm and polite in every second of that video.

Yes, the guy had apparently more knowledge about the law than the young officer, and there is was legal obligation to comply to the officers request. But the way he reacted was not suited to deescalate the situation, instead he repeatedly requested to be detained - a request that was eventually granted. I can see no reason other than being a poser and making up a lame story out of thin air for his behavior, and we should not fall into his trap and sing along with his stupid complaints. I respect the officers and I fully excuse them for not knowing enough about jurisdiction, and I applaude for them to detain this wannabe photographer.
I contrast to him, those officers do an important job, and it is just rude to waste their precious time with this unnecessary performance.

Stefan

[Parallax]

..............

However your 4th amendment, has, in my opinion, been warped into something altogether bizarre. With a strict need for various warrents, and proofs and so forth.

Police have a difficult time as it is...

Here is a question..

Kid walking down the street, looks to be about 13-15, its 3AM and he is alone.. you're a cop. Are you allowed to ask the kid who he is and where he is going?

Can a cop force the child into his car if the kid refuses? Is the cop in the wrong?


Now lets say its not a kid but a 30 year old, and he looks like he's on drugs and about to cause some shit.... ohh wait, cant touch him, 4th amendment and all that... woo hoo.

:/

If the 30 year old "looks like he is on drugs" then there is reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed,(e.g. use of illegal drugs, public intoxication,etc) or he may be in need of medical assistance (diabetic coma or insulin shock perhaps) making the inquiry completely justified (and legal). I don't think in ANY free country taking picture in public of a Christmas pageant could be in any way be stretched so far as to construe suspicious behavior, let alone reasonable suspicion that a crime had been or is about to be committed.

As far as the "Police have a difficult time as it is..." You are right. It is a damned difficult and thankless job but if any police officer feels that the Constitution and the oath he took to support it is too much of a hinderance, then that officer should find a different line of work. That's like a basketball player saying that the traveling rule is unfair because he could score more points if he were allowed to hold onto the ball and run with it.

[flyer]

if they charge you with something and it sticks, then you are guilty of it

and in the future you SHOULD be watched, such is the price you pay for violating laws.

Are you against the rapist/pedophile databases then?

Not a month goes by I dont read about some mother that goes apeshit because she found out that her next-door neighbor is a convicted sex offender, even though the dude has been out of prison for some time...

sorry Flyer, your argument doesnt fly.

I think I know more about flying than you do, so there goes. First of all, your reading skills seem to be somewhat limited, since I never mentioned "convicted" of anything, just being arrested. Technically, if you are arrested by a police officer, he can put you in their database, even if you are later cleared of all charges. That doesn't make you guilty of anything, but you will show up in their database in a way that doesn't reflect the truth.

Then, maybe you should be charged for "Vicodin abuse".

[Gooshin]

I would not say no to trying some Vicodin....


Still, regardless of what is in the database, they wont know it until they get it, and they are far less likely to actually write something down if you cooperated than if you were resisting.

the individual mentioned in the original article will most likely have something scribbled down in his file.

[Jodokast96]

And that's one small reason the Soviet Union was under the rule it was for so long.

[Gooshin]

And that's one small reason the Soviet Union was under the rule it was for so long.

and therefore your point is?

[MRRiley]

so in the bar scenario, you are guilty until proven innocent..

but thats okay because there is a law for that

but when you're walking in a park, since there is no law against walking in a park, all of a sudden its innocent until proven guilty..

:/

Gooshin, the bar situation has nothing to do with guilt or innocence. Bar owners are not (generally) representatives of law enforcement nor are the they governmental representatives or agencies. They have no statutory power to arrest you or charge you with a crime. The government cannot even require that they check your ID. All the government can require is that the bar not serve achhol to anyone under a certain age. To comply with this requirement they commonly check your ID to confirm your age. They don't keep any records or log you into their database, they just look at your ID. However if they fail to check your ID and it is proven that they served you alcohol without attempting to verify your age, then they are potentially liable if you hurt or kill someone after they served you. Thus they check. As I said before, you are completely free to ignore their request, but then they will simply refuse to serve youu and are free to also ask you to leave the premises.

None of this has anything to do with the police asking for ID when you are out in public taking completely legal photographs.

Mike

[Gooshin]

Gooshin, the bar situation has nothing to do with guilt or innocence. Bar owners are not (generally) representatives of law enforcement nor are the they governmental representatives or agencies. They have no statutory power to arrest you or charge you with a crime. The government cannot even require that they check your ID. All the government can require is that the bar not serve achhol to anyone under a certain age. To comply with this requirement they commonly check your ID to confirm your age. They don't keep any records or log you into their database, they just look at your ID. However if they fail to check your ID and it is proven that they served you alcohol without attempting to verify your age, then they are potentially liable if you hurt or kill someone after they served you. Thus they check. As I said before, you are completely free to ignore their request, but then they will simply refuse to serve youu and are free to also ask you to leave the premises.

None of this has anything to do with the police asking for ID when you are out in public taking completely legal photographs.

Mike

What if they want proof that you are legally in America, so that you can legally enjoy your freedom to not show them your ID

:/

:\

:|

Again i fail to see the moral dilema, or your fear of personal intrusion from showing a patrol-unit your papers.

Why does it not bother me? I mean, the first question out of my mouth will be "why?" or "have i done something wrong?", i would expect an explanation, and i would expect it to be sound, but if all is well, here you go officer, dont mind the photo i was hung over that day.

[MRRiley]

Yes, the guy had apparently more knowledge about the law than the young officer, and there is was legal obligation to comply to the officers request. But the way he reacted was not suited to deescalate the situation, instead he repeatedly requested to be detained - a request that was eventually granted. I can see no reason other than being a poser and making up a lame story out of thin air for his behavior, and we should not fall into his trap and sing along with his stupid complaints. I respect the officers and I fully excuse them for not knowing enough about jurisdiction, and I applaude for them to detain this wannabe photographer.
I contrast to him, those officers do an important job, and it is just rude to waste their precious time with this unnecessary performance.

Stefan

What makes you say he had an obligation to give his ID? The terrorism law they originally cited states that the subject is free to refuse to provide identifying documents. And when did he ask to be detained? He asked IF he was being detained. Big difference there. As for wasted time, the officers were the ones who wasted their and the citizens time. if they hadn't saw smoke where there was no fire, no one would even have anything to talk about here. And once he was actually arrested, if he had truly been in the wrong, they would have formally charged him. Instead he spent 8 hours sitting in a cell because the police could not make a valid case. I imagine the judge or majistrate they approached to have charges filed probably laughed them out of his office.

Mike

[Parallax]

and therefore your point is?

I think his point is that when you start taking people's rights away to make things easier for the police you end up with Soviet Union, Iran, North Korea, Uganda, [insert dictatorship here], etc. type regimes.

[MRRiley]

What if they want proof that you are legally in America, so that you can legally enjoy your freedom to not show them your ID

:/

:\

:|

Again i fail to see the moral dilema, or your fear of personal intrusion from showing a patrol-unit your papers.

Why does it not bother me? I mean, the first question out of my mouth will be "why?" or "have i done something wrong?", i would expect an explanation, and i would expect it to be sound, but if all is well, here you go officer, dont mind the photo i was hung over that day.

Police don't generally run around even in the DC area asking every latino person they see for ID to check to see if they are here legally. In fact, most local and state police officers have no jurisdiction over immigration violations. If they discover, in the course of detaining an individual that he is an illegal then they have to contact Immigration Control.

Now we get to the brunt of things though... You yourself say you will ask WHY or WHAT...? and that you will expect an answer. You then say if it's sound you will comply... Can't you see that that is exactly what Mr. Patefield did? He asked but the reason did not appear to be sound to him. So he refused to comply with what he considered to be an unlawful demand. Or is it your contention that you should/would comply even if the officer's answer was not sound?

Mike

[Gooshin]

I think his point is that when you start taking people's rights away to make things easier for the police you end up with Soviet Union, Iran, North Korea, Uganda, [insert dictatorship here], etc. type regimes.

Funny, I remember that the whole point of the Soviet Union was a rebellion against the upper class, giving MORE power to the PEOPLE.

hmm

anyway i'm not going to go down that avenue, Jodokast does not have his facts straight nor does he have any idea what it was like to live in the Soviet Union.

And even if he did, i would ask him to point at a particular time period that he is fearful of, the initial Lenin revolution, sometime around the first world war... the Stalinist era amidst world war 2? Maybe the Cold War era? How many social freedoms were restricted in America during that time.. i wonder...

What about the Patriot Act? Do we want to throw this little tid bit into the mix?

One thing i have noticed about American law and policy, and i have mentioned this before, is that you first state a broad positive generalization

"freedom of speech", and go from there

except that if you dig deeper you will find all the little bits of "except for" "however, in the case that" and so on and so forth.

:/

---------- Post added 02-23-2010 at 03:40 PM ----------

Police don't generally run around even in the DC area asking every latino person they see for ID to check to see if they are here legally. In fact, most local and state police officers have no jurisdiction over immigration violations. If they discover, in the course of detaining an individual that he is an illegal then they have to contace Immigration Control.

Police dont run around because its not PC, because its against your Amendments, and would get them into so much shit they might end up in jail themselves for some bogus racist and misconduct charge..

Cops in Russia do this on a daily basis, I see this every time I go back. Its blatant racism sometimes, like when two sharply dressed individuals of darker skins are loitering around a market square and the cops ask for their documents... but it works.

Cops do abuse their power in Russia, but its not like the citizens there just bend over and take it, you have to be smart yourself sometimes.

anyway..

He asked but the reason did not appear to be sound to him. Or is it your contention that you should/would comply even if the officer's answer was not sound?

That is why i said he was an ass, i do not share his belief. He was given an explanation and he was not physically coerced. He was then given a choice, ID now or jail (which is just a bad way of saying ID Later).

[Jodokast96]

And did the people in fact end up with more power? No, they ended up with a string of dictators. Tell me, how many dissenters in the U.S. have been imprisoned, killed, or just never heard of again? Certainly not the 20-50 million under Stalin alone.