Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
First I said they can ask for your name but MUST have PC but that police don't have to divulge their PC and that SCOTUS has ruled that it is the court's purview to decide if the PC was proper, not the citizen's.
I posted the pertinent rulings that say otherwise. Actual rulings trump your opinion.
Quote:
Secondly, I didn't say ID card I said name. You always have to disclose name during a PC (terry) stop.
Brown V Texas.
Quote:
Thirdly, the various stop and frisk policies around the nation show otherwise...
Fourthly, I cited rulings. Cite or it didn't happen...
Maybe you can point out them out to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnonymouseX View Post
But... And here is the problem and what will hurt the cases of these two guys.
SCOTUS has already ruled several times that while people DON'T have to carry identification, they MUST provide a name.
SCOTUS has also ruled that police officers DON'T have to divulge their probable cause or reasonable suspicion to citizens.
SCOTUS has also ruled that the mere act of touching someone is considered assault & battery (title dependant on state).
So this is going to hinge on two things:
Did the police have reasonable suspicion to approach and is slapping the police officer's hand away legally considered assault?
Unless the tape shows their side to be obviously true methinks these two guys will end up on the wrong side of that decision...
You state "they ruled" without any ruling to back that up.
Quote:
And lastly, the entire thrust of my post aims at detentions, terry stops, etc. Consensual encounters are a different matter altogether.
You should either ask for clarification or cite your knowledge before attempting to deride, insult or otherwise act rudely. Just saying...
Unfortunately people believe random claims on the internet. Without a stated valid probable cause you do not have to give your name.
Brown V Texas.
Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47 (1979), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court determined that the defendant's arrest in El Paso County, Texas for a refusal to identify himself, after being seen and questioned in a high crime area, was not based on a reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing and thus violated the Fourth Amendment.
Larry D. Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, Humboldt County, et al.
Appealed to SCOTUS who refused to hear which is a due facto ruling in agreement of the finding.
Holding: "Laws requiring suspects to identify themselves during investigative stops by law enforcement officers do not violate the Fourth Amendment, and do not necessarily violate the Fifth Amendment."
IOW: You MUST identify yourself to police when subject to a Terry stop.
As to the legitimacy of probable cause, that is decided by judges and NOT you. This is proven by the fact that every state allows probable cause hearings BEFORE you go to arraignment if you wish to challenge. Challenging at the scene is foolish because if you are wrong you may be charged with resisting arrest.
I will post New Jersey's statute (not mine hit random) but all states have this...
Resisting arrest...
1) Except as provided in paragraph (3), a person is guilty of a disorderly persons offense if he purposely prevents or attempts to prevent a law enforcement officer from effecting an arrest.
(2) Except as provided in paragraph (3), a person is guilty of a crime of the fourth degree if he, by flight, purposely prevents or attempts to prevent a law enforcement officer from effecting an arrest.
(3) An offense under paragraph (1) or (2) of subsection a. is a crime of the third degree if the person:
(a)Uses or threatens to use physical force or violence against the law enforcement officer or another; or
(b)Uses any other means to create a substantial risk of causing physical injury to the public servant or another.
It is not a defense to a prosecution under this subsection that the law enforcement officer was acting unlawfully in making the arrest, provided he was acting under color of his official authority and provided the law enforcement officer announces his intention to arrest prior to the resistance.
(N.J.S.A. 2C:29-2a)
So like I said before...
When detained by police (terry stop) or arrested and since you cannot decide if a cop has pc (only the courts can) then you are probably being detained or arrested.
In fact, if the police DON'T let you leave or make a reasonable person feel as if they can't like surrounding you then you are in fact detained and MUST id yourself.
And as the NJ statute shows, shoving the police officer's hand is a substantial risk of injury, you may even escalate. Not to mention that you know touching someone is assault. I don't need to cite that...
Larry D. Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, Humboldt County, et al.
Appealed to SCOTUS who refused to hear which is a due facto ruling in agreement of the finding.
Holding: "Laws requiring suspects to identify themselves during investigative stops by law enforcement officers do not violate the Fourth Amendment, and do not necessarily violate the Fifth Amendment."
Never once did I argue that you didn't have to identify yourself during an investigation and in the example here there was no investigation.
Quote:
As to the legitimacy of probable cause, that is decided by judges and NOT you.
A judge decides if the reason presented is legit but all the same a reason has to be presented or you do not have to give the officer squat.
No reason was gave in this instance that we are aware of.
Touching someone in retaliation is not assault. If someone grabs you and you knock their hands away that is not assault.
Quote:
Done and done. Google is your friend...
Yes but google can't make you understand what you are reading.
Never once did I argue that you didn't have to identify yourself during an investigation and in the example here there was no investigation.
A judge decides if the reason presented is legit but all the same a reason has to be presented or you do not have to give the officer squat.
No reason was gave in this instance that we are aware of.
Touching someone in retaliation is not assault. If someone grabs you and you knock their hands away that is not assault.
Yes but google can't make you understand what you are reading.
1) You actually stated that I said you needed to present id. Clearly I didn't say that.
2) An officer doesn't have to give you a reason, he just has to say or imply (by word or action) that you are being detained or arrested. The key phrase is imply you are being detained. Approaching you aggressively and physically grabbing you is detention as per SCOTUS.
3) Hitting an officer in the act of detaining you is always criminal. Regardless of how you feel about it.
4) You don't have the video so your assumptions are at best premature and foolish.
5) You aren't exhibiting comprehension, you are merely attempting contrariness. And to point out your lack of comprehension...
They don't actually need probable cause to detain, only arrest. To detain they only need reasonable suspicion. And you must still give your name during a detention.
1) You actually stated that I said you needed to present id. Clearly I didn't say that.
No you said they must identify themselves. They do not without a reason for the request being gave.
Quote:
2) An officer doesn't have to give you a reason, he just has to say or imply (by word or action) that you are being detained or arrested. The key phrase is imply you are being detained. Approaching you aggressively and physically grabbing you is detention as per SCOTUS.
In an instance like this they can not.
Quote:
3) Hitting an officer in the act of detaining you is always criminal. Regardless of how you feel about it.
The officer had zero reasons to detain (that we are aware of) him so it was the officers actions that were offensive. An officer has no more right to come up and put his hands on you for no reason than anyone else does.
Quote:
4) You don't have the video so your assumptions are at best premature and foolish.
We have what is available and that's all one can comment on. I'm not assuming anything. I am commenting on what is presented.
Quote:
5) You aren't exhibiting comprehension, you are merely attempting contrariness. And to point out your lack of comprehension...
They don't actually need probable cause to detain, only arrest. To detain they only need reasonable suspicion. And you must still give your name during a detention.
Probable cause, reasonable suspicion.......whatever it is they have to have it before you have to identify yourself. If they suspect these guys of robbing the bank where the alarms just went off they can detain them. They are not going to act the way they did in this video though if that was the case.
You do not have to give them squat simply because they ask for it.
No you said they must identify themselves. They do not without a reason for the request being gave.
In an instance like this they can not.
The officer had zero reasons to detain (that we are aware of) him so it was the officers actions that were offensive. An officer has no more right to come up and put his hands on you for no reason than anyone else does.
We have what is available and that's all one can comment on. I'm not assuming anything. I am commenting on what is presented.
Probable cause, reasonable suspicion.......whatever it is they have to have it before you have to identify yourself. If they suspect these guys of robbing the bank where the alarms just went off they can detain them. They are not going to act the way they did in this video though if that was the case.
You do not have to give them squat simply because they ask for it.
Identifying your self MEANS giving your name...
You don't know they didn't have reasonable suspicion.
If they were detained then they DID have to give their name.
If they were being detained, legally or not, the pushing of the hand is assault.
You have no leg to stand on...
The only time you don't have to give "squat" is in consensual stops. A cop grabbing you would be a detention. The legality to be decided by the court.
Now, if you "defend" yourself and the court rules there was no PC then you are fine.
If there is PC or RS you go to jail for resisting and assaulting an officer.
You don't know they didn't have reasonable suspicion.
If they were detained then they DID have to give their name.
If they were being detained, legally or not, the pushing of the hand is assault.
You have no leg to stand on...
The only time you don't have to give "squat" is in consensual stops. A cop grabbing you would be a detention. The legality to be decided by the court.
Now, if you "defend" yourself and the court rules there was no PC then you are fine.
If there is PC or RS you go to jail for resisting and assaulting an officer.
Bad odds to play...
You are wrong. I've provided the pertinent cases. The two men did nothing wrong that we are aware of and court rulings fall on their side. If you want to argue they *might* have done something, have at it. I am discussing the facts as we know them.
You are wrong. I've provided the pertinent cases. The two men did nothing wrong that we are aware of and court rulings fall on their side. If you want to argue they *might* have done something, have at it. I am discussing the facts as we know them.
Premature yo declare me wrong. Unless you were there...
And your TvO citation is insufficient...
You don't know if there was PC or RS or not. Until that is ruled on you are merely guessing.
Premature yo declare me wrong. Unless you were there...
And your TvO citation is insufficient...
You don't know if there was PC or RS or not. Until that is ruled on you are merely guessing.
I am stating the facts as we know them.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
