Cop vs. Cameraman (Howe, Detroit: office, cell phone, jobs)

[LostInHouston]

Originally Posted by tab008

Well I dont think I will be able to convince you guys, since you obviously are anti police

Anti-police? No.

Anti BAD police? Yes.

Just like I'm anti bad teachers, or anti bad politicians, or anti bad stock traders, etc.

I'm also against police working too many overtime hours and/or moonlighting, as it leads to the stress induced outbursts that can be seen in this video.

[tab008]

Originally Posted by LostInHouston

It could be anytime after 11pm... how does that diminish their credibility? Also, they're at a wal-freaking-mart, not out in the streets slinging drugs or robbing people.



Link to this purported earlier assault and what that has to do with these kids?



Wrong Wrong Wrong. Failure to identify has to do with a suspect that has been arrested, detained or is believed to have witnessed a crime. Feel free to read the penal code: PENAL CODE**CHAPTER 38. OBSTRUCTING GOVERNMENTAL OPERATION

Again, the only thing the officer should have, and was protected under the law to do, was tell them to stop filming and/or leave the premises. He has no right to detain them unless they refuse to comply with that initial request... which was never given. The only thing the officer said before going ape-*****, was "you can't film me" at which point the kid acknowledges that and the camera is turned to from filming the store front, to the parking lot.

Feel free to read the rest of the penal code......like sections 38.03. RESISTING ARREST, SEARCH, OR TRANSPORTATION, and 38.04. EVADING ARREST OR DETENTION, and Sec. 38.05. HINDERING APPREHENSION OR PROSECUTION. Most of these are applicable to this case. At the point where these guys aren't giving their information, that would tell me they dont want to be identified for some suspicious reason. (EVERYONE HAS ATLEAST ONE WARRANT) They would then probably be detained. These penal code sections aren't always black and white. The ultimate decision upon an arrest resides in the Harris County district attorney. The district attorney decides whether the circumstances fit the intent of the statute, or whatever they think is the intent of the statute. And if you read there is no law against who an officer can detain and under what circumstance they can be detained. Again if I were a police officer it wouldn't have been handled like that. But one fact that cant be argued is that these guys brought the attention on themselves.

[tab008]

please see this simple detain vs arrest article to know they arent the same thing.

Detain Vs. Arrest | eHow.com

[nana053]

Where in the world do you get that everyone has a warrant out for them? That's an absolutely outrageous assumption.

Also, I thought Texas was the land of the free. Citizens are not even required to carry ID, much less produce it for police officers unless they are stopped for a reason. You have to produce your license in a traffic stop, for example, but if you are walking down the street, you do not have to produce id just because the cop asked for it.

[LostInHouston]

Originally Posted by tab008

Feel free to read the rest of the penal code......like sections 38.03. RESISTING ARREST, SEARCH, OR TRANSPORTATION, and 38.04. EVADING ARREST OR DETENTION, and Sec. 38.05. HINDERING APPREHENSION OR PROSECUTION. Most of these are applicable to this case. ....

Again, no they are not. An officer needs reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed in order to perform a brief detainment (Terry Stop). Furthermore, there is no Federal Law that requires individuals to identify themselves during a Terry Stop... some states have Stop and Identify Statutes, however Texas is not one of them.

I suggest you take a look at the US Supreme Court case Terry v. Ohio, as you clearly have no idea what you are talking about.

[tab008]

Originally Posted by LostInHouston

Again, no they are not. An officer needs reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed in order to perform a brief detainment (Terry Stop). Furthermore, there is no Federal Law that requires individuals to identify themselves during a Terry Stop... some states have Stop and Identify Statutes, however Texas is not one of them.

I suggest you take a look at the US Supreme Court case Terry v. Ohio, as you clearly have no idea what you are talking about.

And yes most of the people in this neighborhood, and in Houston have warrants. Anywhere from a class C to a felony warrant.

This argument is pointless unless its between law enforcement officers or someone who works for the district attorney. The reason its kinda pointless is you cant just know what a statute in the penal code is, you have to be able to apply it to real life. Again in this case the officer has reasonable suspicion that a crime will/has occurred. Any suspicious looking person can be stopped, and asked questions, and you can ask them for their id. When that person says, " no you dont need to see any id," they become even more suspicious. Then when that person starts to walk away, and repeatedly not listen to the officer, and still doesnt give an id, it falls with in the law.

Again you need to be able to apply the laws to situations its not black and white. I know plenty about what im talking about, deal with it every day. But I think its pointless to argue on this subject any longer. So this is my last post on the subject.

[llmrkc07]

Crazy video. HPD is bad business, my dad always complains how much he dislikes working for HPD. I always get profiled and pulled over for no reason to here. When I tell them my dad works for them they try to come up with some lame excuse of why they pulled me over.

[LostInHouston]

Originally Posted by tab008

Again in this case the officer has reasonable suspicion that a crime will/has occurred.

What reasonable suspicion does he have that a crime has or will occur? It is not illegal to use a camera phone. The officer never made any request for the kids to leave the premises before going apesh!t.

Originally Posted by tab008

and still doesnt give an id, it falls with in the law.

Again, you're wrong. Texas does not have a Stop and Identify statute. There is no legal requirement for a detained individual to present ID. There is only a law making it illegal to present false ID.

I'll say it again, you have ZERO idea what you are talking about with regards to US/Texas laws, statues and constitutional rights. Before you respond, take 5 mins to google what you wrote so you're not spouting BS... make it a little harder for me.

[tab008]

Originally Posted by LostInHouston

What reasonable suspicion does he have that a crime has or will occur? It is not illegal to use a camera phone. The officer never made any request for the kids to leave the premises before going apesh!t.



Again, you're wrong. Texas does not have a Stop and Identify statute. There is no legal requirement for a detained individual to present ID. There is only a law making it illegal to present false ID.

I'll say it again, you have ZERO idea what you are talking about with regards to US/Texas laws, statues and constitutional rights. Before you respond, take 5 mins to google what you wrote so you're not spouting BS... make it a little harder for me.

----REPEAT----

Any suspicious person can be stopped at any time. An officer can talk to anyone they wish to speak to. If you stand outside a walmart after hours and film, and talk about shopping carts YOU ARE SUSPICIOUS. When you fail to identify yourself to an officer, at that point you are not free to go and are being detained. AT THIS POINT THE OFFICER HAS REASON TO BELIEVE THAT A CRIME HAS OCCURRED OR WILL OCCUR BECAUSE YOU'RE NOT GIVING YOUR NAME AND ACTING REALLY WEIRD. Which now falls under this sections: 38.02. FAILURE TO IDENTIFY.
(a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally refuses to give his name, residence address, or date of birth to a peace officer who has lawfully arrested the person and requested the information.
(b) A person commits an offense if he intentionally gives a false or fictitious name, residence address, or date of birth to a peace officer who has:
(1) lawfully arrested the person;
(2) lawfully detained the person; or
(3) requested the information from a person that the peace officer has good cause to believe is a witness to a criminal offense.


Next time an officer stops you for any reason I want you to refuse to identify your self and see what happens. like I said before you cant just read statutes and know what you're talking about when it comes to making an arrest or just general police work. If officers went by the exact statutes and penal code officers would never make an arrest. Its through innocent interactions and INVESTIGATIONS that officers make arrests. You can sit there and google texas and federal law all day, but real law enforcement cant be read, its learned and taught on the streets. And why dont you think I know what Im talking about?? Because Im not reaching the same conclusion about as you about this video? I happen to have real life experience with all of this and didnt have to google it.

Now there are lots of things this officer could have done different believe me. But these guys are not innocent, I hope this teaches them a lesson to respect people, and just comply with what a law enforcement officer is asking of them. To be fair, none of us know what is actually going on in this video. We are getting one side, we do not know what the narrator is doing. We also dont know if its being narrated accurately. When I watch this video I see that the friends are telling the guy, "hey man thats a real cop!" I also see alot of other things that "lost in Houston" probably doesn't see. Not many days ago a Austin Police officer lost his life responding to a call inside a walmart, a call that probably didnt start out to different than this one with this officer.

[LostInHouston]

Originally Posted by tab008

Which now falls under this sections: 38.02. FAILURE TO IDENTIFY.
(a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally refuses to give his name, residence address, or date of birth to a peace officer who has lawfully arrested the person and requested the information.
(b) A person commits an offense if he intentionally gives a false or fictitious name, residence address, or date of birth to a peace officer who has:
(1) lawfully arrested the person;
(2) lawfully detained the person; or
(3) requested the information from a person that the peace officer has good cause to believe is a witness to a criminal offense.

Are you even reading what you are copying and pasting? Failure to Identify deals with two situations as clearly listed above. They are:

A. not proving ID when ARRESTED. or
B. providing FALSE ID when arrested/detained.

Neither of those situations apply to this video as none of individuals were arrested when they refused to provide ID, nor did they give false ID while illegally detained.

Again, there is NO federal or Texas law requiring a detained individual to provide ID.

Originally Posted by tab008

And why dont you think I know what Im talking about??

See above... you just continue to give example after example that you are in over your head. Now you're reaching for ways out like "real police work doesn't follow laws and statues"... blah blah blah.