RugerP95DC
Regular Member
This guy was calm, stated the facts, was not militant, and was able to go on his way.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HsxxRUgJjAw&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HsxxRUgJjAw&feature=related
Yes, he was being an asshat. Like a broken record, kept saying the same things over and over. Would not even give them his first name. No way I would have acted like that.
He was a person exerting his rights and liberty~guess I am an asshat too.:banghead:
I do not have a problem with him asserting his rights. But IMHO he was doing it to the nth degree. Come on, what's wrong with telling them your first name and carrying on a nice conversation, instead of being aggressive. I have had many encounters with police, and have never carried on like that. If I was the officer, I would have held him until the supervisor got on the scene. But that's just me.
See the second post by the same person who started this thread.
SNIP He was a person exerting his rights and liberty..
Same way attorney's practice for court, same way officers practice to interrogate citizens, same way you get to Carnegie Hall.He handled that like a boss.
But how do you get over the "oh crap I'm going to jail after the SS tasers and beats me" feeling???
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2
+1
There is nothing in the Bill of Rights requiring rights to be exercised politely. If we require certain rights to be exercised politely, we're implying that those who can't or don't exercise them politely do not have those rights. What if a fella has a really hard time being polite in the face of indignity because of temperment?
He was tense. Are we really going to require people who are tense when seized by police have to exercise their rights politely?
His person was illegally seized as was his weapon.
I think he did great! He even got the cop to admit on video that the cop did not have legal justification for the seizures. Nice trap, "Is that the only reason you stopped me?" Very nice.
Regarding giving a first name, there is no requirement to cooperate even partially when not compelled by law to give a name. Notice that the cop tried the ID document demand. With the added tactic of coercion. "Need your ID, then we'll get you on your way." (emphasis added by Citizen). The cop just told him the illegal seizures of his person and gun would continue until he cooperated beyond the requirements of the law. Nasty little thug of a cop. Makes an ID document demand, adds coercion, and does it politely. No conscience in his way. Now, the ID document demand occurred early, before the cop's admission about no RAS. But, just because video viewers couldn't know the ID document demand was illegal doesn't mean the cop didn't know it. And, since the OCer couldn't know it, we have the cop trying to play on the citizen's supposed lack of information to help make the coercion stick. Furthermore, since the cop didn't immediately start reaching into the OCer's pocket for his wallet and ID, we have added evidence the cop knew his ID document demand was illegal. And, since the cop reverted to an attempt at a verbal first name, instead of continuing the demand for an ID document, or threatening citation for refusing to provide an ID document, we have further evidence the cop knew he had no authority to demand an ID document.
Notice also the cop's specious justification for demanding identity. He didn't know whether the OCer was a prohibited possessor. Nice admission on video--no RAS, no probable cause.
I think he deserves a medal for drawing out and proving some cops in that burg make it up as they go along and are willing to violate people's rights. Which raises two questions. How long have they been making it up and violating people's rights? And, in what other ways are they violating people's rights.
Now, I know something interesting and OC-related happened there, but I can't place it.
Wait, you mean that one time IanB and a bunch of like-minded asshats...
I do not have a problem with him asserting his rights. But IMHO he was doing it to the nth degree. Come on, what's wrong with telling them your first name and carrying on a nice conversation, instead of being aggressive. I have had many encounters with police, and have never carried on like that. If I was the officer, I would have held him until the supervisor got on the scene. But that's just me.
See the second post by the same person who started this thread.