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.
Preparation ain't got sh*t to do with it. That said, he's a law student. Most people of any race aren't law students. Nor can most (black or latino) people (with or without a law degree) provoke police by being a smart ass even if they are in the right. Henry Louis Gates wasn't trying to provoke the cops, was easily MORE prepared (credential wise) than this smart ass kid, and he still got arrested. And he didnt' even have a gun. All he did was question the right of an officer to ask him for his I.D. in his own damn house.
Henry Louis Gates was an isolated incident... like this
First of all, i never once said that cops don't screw around with all races of people on a fairly regular basis. You're going off into outer space with that nonsense. Put your head back on top of your neck.
I'm talking about the incident outlined by the OP. If that dude was black or Hispanic, IT AINT GOING DOWN LIKE THAT!! Black folks aren't about to back down a police officer, ESPECIALLY where it involves a gun EVEN IF HE IS IN THE RIGHT!! Get it?
Someone would've been shot or received a nice ass whipping. You can play these games all you want, but those that know...well, know! Be naive all you want. I know the truth.
Among the various videos it referred me to after watching your video, I found this one also, which primarily shows footage of police brutality against blacks but also a few clips of whites being hit or otherwise mistreated.
For the third time. If that was true he would have. You will be arrested in many places. You will be released though. You can then sue and win for having your Constitutional Rights trampled on.
I said that if you try this in any number of jurisdictions, you'll be arrested, but not in every single jurisdiction. It depends on the wording of various laws that come into play in this type of situation. In the case in question, which occurred in the state of Maine, an officer has the legal authority to respond to a complaint filed by a citizen in their jurisdiction, which he did. The complaint was that a person was walking around with a gun in public. The assumption that an officer can make in this case, since he is not there to observe for himself, is that it warrants his attention for the purposes of public safety -- I don't know of any court that would deprive a police officer of this power.
You can sue for anything, but you don't necessarily win because you sue. The courts typically give officers broad authority to detain and request information from individuals. Sometimes it's too broad, I agree. But it is what it is.
...You gonna explain what you meant by "The Terry law is just a clarifying apparatus under the law", or not?
I mean that laws that specifically articulate a requirement that an individual identify himself clarifies and explicitly codifies an individual's legal duty to comply with the officer's request to identify himself, as per state laws. In short, such a law makes the requirement explicitly clear, whereas it is less clear in states that do not have such a statutory requirement. However, the absence of a statutory requirement does not automatically mean that can refuse to identify yourself without consequence, or that an officer does not have other means to compel you to identify yourself. An officer does need a Terry statute to force you to verbally identify yourself, but he does not necessarily need a Terry law to essentially compel you to identify yourself, one way or the other. It's ultimately, however, a subjective judgment made by the officers involved as to whether or not they wish to get involved and go through the trouble of confronting someone who may drag this matter out and try to turn it into a public spectacle. The supervisor probably decided that it wasn't worth his or the department's time to deal with this guy. He could have used a number of means to get the information he was looking for had he wanted to press on, and had the suspect interfered, he could have been taken in for obstructing an officer, or other similarly worded charges. The charges might well have been thrown out, but a lawsuit would likely be only marginally successful in recovering damages, if at all.
Quote:
I'm not talking about "any number of jurisdictions"; I'm talking about Maine, where no "stop and identify" law exists, and thus no legal obligation to answer any questions asked by an officer who doesn't have reason to suspect a crime. A citizen complaining about a legal activity doesn't change anyone's rights. Sure, a police officer can ASK to verify if the firearm is legal. But the student was well within his rights to refuse.
What's your point? You're not getting what I'm saying here. I never said he was required to talk to anyone about anything. Even if he had turned out to be a crank and gone on a shooting spree in broad daylight, he's not required to answer questions. He can be a mute if he chooses to be. He is not required to incriminate himself. He is not required to talk to officers or anyone he doesn't want to. But the officers have the authority to obtain the information that they desire, using a variety of lawful means, some of which might make just cooperating and being on your merry way the better alternative. That is the point.
Quote:
Makes absolutely no difference. Again, I'm required by law to have a valid driver's license to drive a car, which should be considered every bit a safety concern as a gun. But a police officer has to have probable cause or reason to suspect me of a specific crime to stop me. It can't be just to make sure my license is valid.
If another driver calls the highway patrol and lead cops to your car, you're going to be lawfully inconvenienced. The phone call by another member of the public *is* the reasonable suspicion until it can be investigated and determined otherwise. Once that has been done, the officer has to leave you alone. That was the problem in the Henry Louis Gates case, in which Gates was antagonized by an officer after he had already made it clear what his identity was (if I recall the facts correctly). Once Gates identified himself, that was the end of it; the cop had a duty to leave, and being a prick to an officer is not against the law. That's why his case was thrown out. However, this is a different case.
Quote:
Refusing to identify myself in Maine because some cop stopped me solely because I was carrying a firearm, would NOT get me lawfully arrested. If you wish to argue that point, yet again, I say "Prove it." I've given a source to back up what I'm saying. Show us what you've read that tells you otherwise.
I'm not saying it automatically *would* get you arrested in Maine; I'm saying it *would* get you arrested in many other places, and even in Maine, it *could* get you arrested. You're not obligated to talk, but an officer can get the information he wants one way or the other. Sorry, bro, I don't make the rules.
I mean that laws that specifically articulate a requirement that an individual identify himself clarifies and explicitly codifies an individual's legal duty to comply with the officer's request to identify himself, as per state laws. In short, such a law makes the requirement explicitly clear, whereas it is less clear in states that do not have such a statutory requirement. However, the absence of a statutory requirement does not automatically mean that can refuse to identify yourself without consequence, or that an officer does not have other means to compel you to identify yourself. An officer does need a Terry statute to force you to verbally identify yourself, but he does not necessarily need a Terry law to essentially compel you to identify yourself, one way or the other. It's ultimately, however, a subjective judgment made by the officers involved as to whether or not they wish to get involved and go through the trouble of confronting someone who may drag this matter out and try to turn it into a public spectacle. The supervisor probably decided that it wasn't worth his or the department's time to deal with this guy. He could have used a number of means to get the information he was looking for had he wanted to press on, and had the suspect interfered, he could have been taken in for obstructing an officer, or other similarly worded charges. The charges might well have been thrown out, but a lawsuit would likely be only marginally successful in recovering damages, if at all.
What's your point? You're not getting what I'm saying here. I never said he was required to talk to anyone about anything. Even if he had turned out to be a crank and gone on a shooting spree in broad daylight, he's not required to answer questions. He can be a mute if he chooses to be. He is not required to incriminate himself. He is not required to talk to officers or anyone he doesn't want to. But the officers have the authority to obtain the information that they desire, using a variety of lawful means, some of which might make just cooperating and being on your merry way the better alternative. That is the point.
If another driver calls the highway patrol and lead cops to your car, you're going to be lawfully inconvenienced. The phone call by another member of the public *is* the reasonable suspicion until it can be investigated and determined otherwise. Once that has been done, the officer has to leave you alone. That was the problem in the Henry Louis Gates case, in which Gates was antagonized by an officer after he had already made it clear what his identity was (if I recall the facts correctly). Once Gates identified himself, that was the end of it; the cop had a duty to leave, and being a prick to an officer is not against the law. That's why his case was thrown out. However, this is a different case.
I'm not saying it automatically *would* get you arrested in Maine; I'm saying it *would* get you arrested in many other places, and even in Maine, it *could* get you arrested. You're not obligated to talk, but an officer can get the information he wants one way or the other. Sorry, bro, I don't make the rules.
"he could have been taken in for obstructing an officer"
The officer was guilty of obstructing a citizen.
He had no legal right to stop that person or question him.
Just because the cop uses the bill of rights for toilet paper doesn't mean there aren't those among us who have a spine and revere the Constitution.
The cop also committed a felony by pointing a loaded firearm at him without justification.
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.
