- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: .
Posted on 9/15/14 at 6:27 pm to mmcgrath
Posted on 9/15/14 at 6:27 pm to mmcgrath
quote:Not according to the "full audio" link you yourself provided.
Likely a crime was committed
quote:Why do they not "ID" in the same way their state ID's voters?
the police have a right to identify suspects and witnesses
Hmmm?
quote:Actually, no. As long as police are free to release names and mugshots associated with ACCUSATIONS, there is MAJOR potential injustice. As long as we have a system tolerant of "perp walks" in the case of ACCUSED individuals, there is MAJOR potential injustice. As long as we have a system tolerant of intimations that one is guilty unless proven innocent, there is MAJOR potential injustice.
Anyone who would take the police asking for ID after they have received a call for service as a form of injustice is living in a dream world.
2
Posted on 9/15/14 at 6:31 pm to Negative Nomad
quote:Let's be crystal clear. You are saying "the law was broken but the police chose to" . . . LIE?
The law was broken but the police chose to . . .
Posted on 9/15/14 at 6:39 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Likely a crime was committed
Not according to the "full audio" link you yourself provided.
According to the complainant there was probable cause.
Maybe the complainants decided not to press charges, thus the cops have to drop it. Defeats your "well if the cops didn't arrest, they must not have been doing anything illegal" argument.
Posted on 9/15/14 at 6:50 pm to Meauxjeaux
quote:
According to the complainant there was probable cause.
Well by damn, there you have it.
quote:Maybe little green men from Mars were involved.
Maybe the complainants decided not to press charges
Maybe.
But that is not what the PoPo said.
Right?
Again why not ID her in the same way California IDs its voters?
Posted on 9/15/14 at 7:06 pm to Asgard Device
Boy got him some jungle fever.
Posted on 9/15/14 at 8:18 pm to gthog61
This post was edited on 1/14/16 at 2:32 pm
Posted on 9/15/14 at 8:41 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Why do they not "ID" in the same way their state ID's voters?
Hmmm?
quote:Please try to stay on subject. The police have a right to identify you and detain you if you do not cooperate. Voter ID laws and mug shots (taken when you are arraigned, no?) are completely different subjects.
Actually, no. As long as police are free to release names and mugshots associated with ACCUSATIONS, there is MAJOR potential injustice. As long as we have a system tolerant of "perp walks" in the case of ACCUSED individuals, there is MAJOR potential injustice. As long as we have a system tolerant of intimations that one is guilty unless proven innocent, there is MAJOR potential injustice.
Posted on 9/15/14 at 8:44 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:If you are going to stay on this argument, a picture ID is NOT required by police to identify someone... they can use other means.
Again why not ID her in the same way California IDs its voters?
Posted on 9/15/14 at 8:53 pm to mmcgrath
quote:Right. So she says who she is, exactly as she would in the polling place. There's your ID.
The police have a right to identify you and detain you if you do not cooperate
quote:Not sure how to ferret thru the random association, or whether to even take it seriously.
mug shots (taken when you are arraigned, no?) are completely different subjects.
(1) You made an assertion regarding ID. The assertion is more vague than you apparently assumed.
(2) You then made an assertion regarding ramifications of a celebrity providing that ID. That was flatly incorrect.
Posted on 9/15/14 at 8:55 pm to mmcgrath
quote:OF COURSE THEY CAN!
... they can use other means.
THAT IS THE POINT!
Posted on 9/15/14 at 9:19 pm to NC_Tigah
What has been learned?
Show ID or be stubborn?
Show ID or be stubborn?
Posted on 9/15/14 at 11:07 pm to Meauxjeaux
Sounds like we've actually, hilariously (though sadly) circled back to the "reports must be completed" justification. Bravo cops, bravo.
Posted on 9/15/14 at 11:15 pm to Asgard Device
Legalize prostitution and this won't be a problem.
Posted on 9/15/14 at 11:16 pm to RollTide4Ever
quote:
Legalize prostitution and this won't be a problem.
Secks in public would still be frowned upon.
Posted on 9/15/14 at 11:18 pm to Asgard Device
Secks is kissing?
Posted on 9/16/14 at 6:08 am to NC_Tigah
quote:Except that she refused to give her name as well.quote:Right. So she says who she is, exactly as she would in the polling place. There's your ID.
The police have a right to identify you and detain you if you do not cooperate
Posted on 9/16/14 at 7:25 am to NC_Tigah
If you'd listen to the audio, you would understand.
Someone called 911 about lewd activity. Per police procedure, when the police respond to a complaint, they ask for id. The idiot refused and then left the scene which led to the cop handcuffing her (per police procedure).
It makes perfect sense for police to request some form of ID when responding to a call. They need to know who they are dealing with and if they are a danger to the community, the cop or themselves.
Someone called 911 about lewd activity. Per police procedure, when the police respond to a complaint, they ask for id. The idiot refused and then left the scene which led to the cop handcuffing her (per police procedure).
It makes perfect sense for police to request some form of ID when responding to a call. They need to know who they are dealing with and if they are a danger to the community, the cop or themselves.
Posted on 9/16/14 at 8:03 am to Asgard Device
This thread along with pretty much every thread regarding police interaction in today's world has cemented the fact that all police should wear audio/visual equipment.. The amount of cooperation between both parties would sky rocket if this simple readily available equipment was used..
Posted on 9/16/14 at 8:14 am to TROLA
quote:
This thread along with pretty much every thread regarding police interaction in today's world has cemented the fact that all police should wear audio/visual equipment.. The amount of cooperation between both parties would sky rocket if this simple readily available equipment was used..
If people would just cooperate and obey the law ..
So they are banging in the backseat of a car in someone's parking lot, cops come because witnesses saw them and wanted it dealt with via law enforcement ...the lady in the back seat gets ticked off and refuses to show ID? As if this is unheard of and must be racially motivated.
who gets angry versus being humble and embarrassed in this scenario? who of you would respond like this lady?
This isn't about police being over the top, this about people feeling entitled to sin wherever they want to and that isn't "freedom" and it is not a "police state" because it's being dealt with
Freedom has boundaries... sin in your own living room for Goodness sake!
NCTigah, I am suprised at your position on this one
Page 4 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News