- 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: Man dead after refusing to show police ID
Posted on 3/6/14 at 1:37 pm to DawgfaninCa
Posted on 3/6/14 at 1:37 pm to DawgfaninCa
quote:There is no shortage of video on the net where this has not been the case.
All of the times I have been stopped by the police and I asked them why am I being stopped they immediately told me.
quote:What if all they got was "young black male"? Or, "young white male"? How good does the description need to be? I mean, your description example is very specific. That wouldn't be the norm.
They should be able to detain everyone who fits the description.
If the bank robber was a white man, approximately 60 years of age, 5' 11" in height, 140 lbs then they shouldn't be able to stop a black or other dark skinned man, a young white man, a woman, a midget or anyone else who obviously doesn't fit the description of the bank robber.
quote:Ax murders are rare but they're still illegal.
That almost never is the case. They usually have some type of description such as height, weight, type of clothes, etc. but in that case they would most likely stop no one because they have no description to go by.
And hell. We had a very long thread on THIS board when cops(I think in colorado) stopped EVERY LAST SOUL at a particular intersection and detained every car there for over an hour so they could check EVERY car on a phone tip that the robber MIGHT be in that area.
quote:I don't even understand the "false name" line because how exactly would the cop even know if I gave them a false name. You said earlier, I could just give them my REAL name. If, at that point, they don't have anything on me for whatever the stopped me for AT THAT MOMENT, then I should be on my way.
Why make it impossible by letting the bank robber or in the example I gave, the wanted murderer, be able to give a false name
Of course, if they have nothing on me, they shouldn't have stopped me in the first place. And THAT'S the point. If they have something on me, they don't need my name and if they don't have something on me, I shouldn't have to give my name. SIMPLE.
Back to your "they could stop all 20" line. Really? For how long? I mean, my ID isn't going to tell them if I robbed the bank in question and neither is anyone else's. So. Are cops supposed to be allowed to just sit there holding all 20 of you until they're happy?
2
Posted on 3/6/14 at 1:38 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
What's reasonable suspicion? To you, because I can pretty much guarantee it means something to everyone else.
I am using the legal definition of reasonable suspicion.
What definition are you and everyone else using?
Posted on 3/6/14 at 1:40 pm to DawgfaninCa
quote:
I am using the legal definition of reasonable suspicion.
What definition are you and everyone else using?
In the case of the OP, what were the specific and articulable facts?
quote:
but more than an "inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or 'hunch
This post was edited on 3/6/14 at 1:42 pm
Posted on 3/6/14 at 1:40 pm to DawgfaninCa
Just wondering. What suspicion existed to ask the guy in the OP for his ID? Has one been articulated?
Posted on 3/6/14 at 1:41 pm to SettleDown
quote:
quote:
All of the times I have been stopped by the police and I asked them why am I being stopped they immediately told me.
There is no shortage of video on the net where this has not been the case.
quote:
They should be able to detain everyone who fits the description.
If the bank robber was a white man, approximately 60 years of age, 5' 11" in height, 140 lbs then they shouldn't be able to stop a black or other dark skinned man, a young white man, a woman, a midget or anyone else who obviously doesn't fit the description of the bank robber.
What if all they got was "young black male"? Or, "young white male"? How good does the description need to be? I mean, your description example is very specific. That wouldn't be the norm.
quote:
That almost never is the case. They usually have some type of description such as height, weight, type of clothes, etc. but in that case they would most likely stop no one because they have no description to go by.
Ax murders are rare but they're still illegal.
And hell. We had a very long thread on THIS board when cops(I think in colorado) stopped EVERY LAST SOUL at a particular intersection and detained every car there for over an hour so they could check EVERY car on a phone tip that the robber MIGHT be in that area.
quote:
Why make it impossible by letting the bank robber or in the example I gave, the wanted murderer, be able to give a false name
I don't even understand the "false name" line because how exactly would the cop even know if I gave them a false name. You said earlier, I could just give them my REAL name. If, at that point, they don't have anything on me for whatever the stopped me for AT THAT MOMENT, then I should be on my way.
Of course, if they have nothing on me, they shouldn't have stopped me in the first place. And THAT'S the point. If they have something on me, they don't need my name and if they don't have something on me, I shouldn't have to give my name. SIMPLE.
Back to your "they could stop all 20" line. Really? For how long? I mean, my ID isn't going to tell them if I robbed the bank in question and neither is anyone else's. So. Are cops supposed to be allowed to just sit there holding all 20 of you until they're happy?
I'll answer your questions later.
I have to go and do something right now.
Posted on 3/6/14 at 1:43 pm to DawgfaninCa
quote:
I'll answer your questions later. I have to go and do something right now.
Depriving people of freedom, or just a routine dog shooting?
Posted on 3/6/14 at 1:52 pm to DawgfaninCa
"In the theater incident the police did not know who committed the domestic violence when they arrived at the scene and began questioning the father as a suspect. "
He can't be suspect then.
"If the guy arguing with his wife fits the description of the bank robber then the police have reasonable grounds to stop him and question him."
They did not have a description of the father so that makes no sense.
"After all, they don't know that the woman he is arguing with is his wife and what they are arguing about. "
And a couple of easy questions would have led to answers and a man not dead.
"The police could reasonably suspect that she is an accomplice in the crime arguing with the bank robber because he won't give her any of the money"
Makes no sense again as there is no reason to believe these two are the bank robbers in your very bad analogy.
He can't be suspect then.
"If the guy arguing with his wife fits the description of the bank robber then the police have reasonable grounds to stop him and question him."
They did not have a description of the father so that makes no sense.
"After all, they don't know that the woman he is arguing with is his wife and what they are arguing about. "
And a couple of easy questions would have led to answers and a man not dead.
"The police could reasonably suspect that she is an accomplice in the crime arguing with the bank robber because he won't give her any of the money"
Makes no sense again as there is no reason to believe these two are the bank robbers in your very bad analogy.
This post was edited on 3/6/14 at 1:56 pm
Posted on 3/6/14 at 1:56 pm to goatmilker
quote:
In the theater incident the police did not know who committed the domestic violence when they arrived at the scene and began questioning the father as a suspect.
He can't be suspect if as you say
That's my question. So cops show up to a theater after hearing of a domestic dispute but they don't know who did it and they can question this guy as a "suspect"? frick. They obviously didn't even have a description cause the perp was a WOMAN.
I mean frick. If that's this guy's definition of "reasonable suspicion" and that's his idea of a good suspect ID, then yeah........bull shite.
quote:Yeah. He appears to be saying that no description = no problem. EVERYONE"S a suspect then!!!
They did not have a description of the father so that makes no sense.
Posted on 3/6/14 at 3:18 pm to Asgard Device
quote:
Depriving people of freedom, or just a routine dog shooting?
I just went out and bought a 1/2 gallon of Strawberry Cheesecake ice cream and I'm eating it right now to celebrate that I'm not like you Einsteins.
Posted on 3/6/14 at 3:28 pm to DawgfaninCa
Posted on 3/6/14 at 4:16 pm to SettleDown
quote:
There is no shortage of video on the net where this has not been the case.
I didn't say it doesn't happen and I already said if it does happen then the police officer is being an a-hole.
I just said what happened to me every time I've been stopped by the police and asked for my identification.
quote:
What if all they got was "young black male"? Or, "young white male"? How good does the description need to be?
let's go with that. Let's say your wife/girlfriend/daughter was just raped before you arrived home and the only description she gave you was that it was a young white male. You immediately call the police and tell them what happened and give them the description. The police arrive within minutes and detain 20 young white men who were found walking down the street in a two block area.
Would you want the police to detain all of those young white men so that your wife/girlfriend/daughter can look at all of them and see if one of them is the young white man who raped her?
quote:
I mean, your description example is very specific. That wouldn't be the norm.
How do you know a detailed description like the one I gave isn't the norm?
Although I didn't rob the bank, I fit that specific description of the bank robber.
Are you saying if 5 minutes after the bank was robbed the police see me walking down the street only a block away from the bank, the police don't have enough reasonable suspicion that I may be the bank robber in order to stop me and ask me to identify myself?
quote:
Ax murders are rare but they're still illegal.
Well, if the police have no physical description of the ax murderer but they see someone walking down the street only a block from where the murder occurred who is holding a bloody ax do the police have enough reasonable suspicion to stop that person and ask them to identify themselves?
quote:
And hell. We had a very long thread on THIS board when cops(I think in colorado) stopped EVERY LAST SOUL at a particular intersection and detained every car there for over an hour so they could check EVERY car on a phone tip that the robber MIGHT be in that area.
So what?
You discussed that specific incident in that specific thread.
We're discussing a different specific incident in this thread.
quote:
I don't even understand the "false name" line because how exactly would the cop even know if I gave them a false name.
If you were a cop and stopped someone because you had reasonable suspicion they committed a crime then after you asked them to identify themselves they told you their name was "Mickey Mouse" would you reasonably suspect that they gave you a false name?
If they gave you a false name that was more difficult to suspect was a false name then they may get away with it if you can't require them to show a valid ID with their name and picture on it but there may be a legitimate reasonable reason why the police officer might suspect that they gave a false name. I'm not going to try to figure out every possible reasonable reason why a police officer may suspect that a person gave a false name.
quote:
You said earlier, I could just give them my REAL name. If, at that point, they don't have anything on me for whatever the stopped me for AT THAT MOMENT, then I should be on my way.
That's correct.
However, if after getting your name they put it through the system and it comes back that there is a warrant for your arrest or that you have been previously arrested for the same crime and they reasonable suspect you committed a crime then they can detain you for further questioning or maybe even arrest you.
quote:
Of course, if they have nothing on me, they shouldn't have stopped me in the first place.
If they do not have a reasonable suspicion that you committed a crime then I agree with you.
However, if they do have a reasonable suspicion that you committed a crime then I disagree with you.
quote:
If they have something on me, they don't need my name and if they don't have something on me, I shouldn't have to give my name. SIMPLE.
It's not that simple.
If they have a reasonable suspicion that you committed a crime then run your true name though the system and it comes back that there is a warrant for your arrest then they can arrest you on the spot.
However, if you want to refuse to identify yourself claiming your 5th amendment right against self incrimination because you know there is a warrant out for your arrest then I can understand why you don't want to give them your true name.
That is a constitutional question the SCOTUS has not made a ruling on yet so maybe you could be the case that the SCOTUS can take and rule on that specific question.
quote:
Back to your "they could stop all 20" line. Really? For how long? I mean, my ID isn't going to tell them if I robbed the bank in question and neither is anyone else's. So. Are cops supposed to be allowed to just sit there holding all 20 of you until they're happy?
I would have no problem with the police detaining all of you long enough for the eyewitnesses to the bank robbery to be brought to where all of you are being detained and given the opportunity to identify whether the bank robber is one of you.
Damn, this Strawberry Cheesecake ice cream sure is good!
This post was edited on 3/6/14 at 4:22 pm
Posted on 3/6/14 at 4:41 pm to goatmilker
quote:
"In the theater incident the police did not know who committed the domestic violence when they arrived at the scene and began questioning the father as a suspect. "
He can't be suspect then.
Why not?
I'm certain one of you will correct me if I'm wrong but I believe someone pointed out to the police the family that was involved in the domestic violence incident which included the father, mother and daughter.
quote:
"If the guy arguing with his wife fits the description of the bank robber then the police have reasonable grounds to stop him and question him."
They did not have a description of the father so that makes no sense.
You're mixing apples and oranges again.
The example I gave and the specific incident have nothing to do with each other.
I just explained that the father, mother and daughter were pointed out by an eyewitness as being the family that had the domestic violence incident.
quote:
"After all, they don't know that the woman he is arguing with is his wife and what they are arguing about. "
And a couple of easy questions would have led to answers and a man not dead.
Apples and oranges.
The police were in the process of asking the father some questions and he responded that it's "none of your business".
Then when he was asked to identify himself he refused and tried to walk away even after the police ordered him to stop.
If he had stopped when the police ordered him to stop and fully cooperated with the police by answering the questions about what happened then he would still be alive.
quote:
"The police could reasonably suspect that she is an accomplice in the crime arguing with the bank robber because he won't give her any of the money"
Makes no sense again as there is no reason to believe these two are the bank robbers in your very bad analogy.
Of course it makes sense but you will deny, deny, deny it because it destroys your irrational core belief that the cops are stupid, evil and always the bad guys.
This post was edited on 3/6/14 at 4:43 pm
Posted on 3/6/14 at 4:48 pm to DawgfaninCa
quote:
your irrational core belief that the cops are stupid, evil and always the bad guys
Those are all lies by you.
I've never said nor do I believe such.
Your now a waste of time.
Posted on 3/6/14 at 4:54 pm to SettleDown
quote:
That's my question. So cops show up to a theater after hearing of a domestic dispute but they don't know who did it and they can question this guy as a "suspect"? frick. They obviously didn't even have a description cause the perp was a WOMAN.
When the police arrived on the scene the family was pointed out to them as the people involved in the domestic violence incident so the police confronted the father because they wanted to find out what happened.
Sounds reasonable to me.
quote:
I mean frick. If that's this guy's definition of "reasonable suspicion" and that's his idea of a good suspect ID, then yeah........bull shite.
I'm using the legal definition of "reasonable suspicion".
What bullshite definition of "reasonable suspicion" are you using?
quote:
Yeah. He appears to be saying that no description = no problem. EVERYONE"S a suspect then!!!
bullshite.
I'm explicitly saying that the police had a reasonable suspicion that the father was involved in the domestic violence incident because he was pointed out as being one of the members of the family that had the domestic violence incident.
Damn, I'm having another bowl of Strawberry Cheeescake ice cream.
Posted on 3/6/14 at 5:01 pm to goatmilker
quote:
Those are all lies by you.
I've never said nor do I believe such.
Your now a waste of time.
You don't have to say it explicitly.
Your words and attitude say it for you.
Posted on 3/7/14 at 9:54 am to DawgfaninCa
Mmmmm, that Strawberry Cheesecake ice cream was sooo good I'm going to buy another 1/2 gallon.
Posted on 4/3/14 at 12:01 pm to DawgfaninCa
Page 58 of 58
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News