re: Has a photo of the tyrant that arrested the legally blind man in FL been posted?

quote:

---

I personally had an incident not long ago that opened my eyes. I will never give one the benefit of doubt again.

---

I learned 28 years ago.

I treat the police like they treat me.

quote:

---

just thought it was bull shite that they didn't let him go on his way when the very clearly discernible ONLY REASON THEY STOPPED HIM was clearly proven to be something else.

---

It’s complete bullshite but the way the law is written they can do it.

What I learned is that you are only required to say your name and address at most and you don’t have to present ID if you aren’t in a car.

Then you can go on your way if they aren’t detaining you for suspicion of a crime.

But if you refuse to give your name you could get fricked. You will have to go to court and prove they didn’t have suspicion of something when they get to write the report after.

quote:

---

What I learned is that you are only required to say your name and address at most and you don’t have to present ID if you aren’t in a car.

Then you can go on your way if they aren’t detaining you for suspicion of a crime.

---

You're wrong.

quote:

---

But if you refuse to give your name you could get fricked. You will have to go to court and prove they didn’t have suspicion of something when they get to write the report after.

---

so guilty until proven innocent?

You need to read terry v Ohio and read up on RAS.

LINK

quote:

---

Some citizens have been misled by websites and other organizations that promote “sovereign rights.” If any law enforcement officer has reason to interact with someone in an official capacity, Louisiana law states that the officer has certain rights to detain and question.

LA Criminal Code: Article 215.1. Temporary questioning of persons in public places; frisk and search for weapons.

A. A law enforcement officer may stop a person in a public place whom he reasonably suspects is committing, has committed, or is about to commit an offense and may demand of him his name, address, and an explanation of his actions.

B. When a law enforcement officer has stopped a person for questioning pursuant to this Article and reasonably suspects that he is in danger, he may frisk the outer clothing of such person for a dangerous weapon. If the law enforcement officer reasonably suspects the person possesses a dangerous weapon, he may search the person. Your stories live here. Fuel your hometown passion and plug into the stories that define it. Create Account

C. If the law enforcement officer finds a dangerous weapon, he may take and keep it until the completion of the questioning, at which time he shall either return it, if lawfully possessed, or arrest such person.

The officer does not have to observe criminal activity. If an officer has reasonable suspicion that a person may have been recently involved in criminal behavior, then he has the right to interact.

For instance, if he has been alerted by his dispatch or by his “pass on” from a previous shift that a red Buick with body damage on the passenger side was involved in a hit-and-run crash in the area, and you’re driving a red Buick with some damage on the passenger side, the officer can stop you, even if he has not observed any specific criminal behavior. Once the reasonable interaction is initiated, then you are bound by Louisiana law to cooperate and provide proof of your identity. You may be detained as long as reasonably necessary.

---

quote:

---

Do you know what stop and identify laws are? If not you might want to review those first.

---

I would argue that under the FL Stop and Frisk Law once the officer saw there was no weapon in his back pocket there was no longer reasonable indication that the man has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a violation of the criminal laws. As such the officer's underlying requirement for the stop was no longer valid and thus the right to demand ID was no longer covered within the scope of the statute.

quote:

---

So does jwalking allow the police to stop you and ask for identification?

---

Depends on the local ordinance, I would imagine.

quote:

---

And are they required to state every reason why they are asking you for identification?

---

Required is a fairly strong word. Cops apparently aren't required to do much of anything. They aren't required to protect citizens (see: Town Of Castle Rock, Colorado V. Gonzales), they aren't required to know the law (see: Heien v. North Carolina), they aren't required to not violate your constitutional rights (see: the body of qualified immunity jurisprudence), and they aren't required to prove you've committed a crime before stealing from you (see: the body of civil asset forfeiture jurisprudence). They are supposed to, but required? I'm not sure I can find anything they are truly required to do at this point.

quote:

---

And he might not have even jwalked but if they put it in the report and you can’t dispute it you are gunna get fricked.

---

You understand this is the core why public opinion has begun to turn against police, right? People have heard stories for decades, if not centuries, about police lying to cover for each other at best and being flat out illegally corrupt at worst. And now in the age of body worn cameras, we are being given proof of that damned near every day. They know they are being recorded, but the arrogance is so deep rooted at this point that they keep up the bullshite, on camera, every single day.

Why on earth should we be giving law enforcement the benefit of the doubt at this point? They have proven over and over again that they don't deserve it. They are supposed to be above reproach; they are supposed to watch the watchmen. So when a situation like this occurs, I see absolutely no reason for everyone to fall all over themselves to find some half-assed way the cops could be technically correct. frick. That. shite. I don't care if we have to cut the police force by 50%, pay them each $100k a year, and focus on real, actual police work instead of penny ante bullshite. I'm over the self-important jackbooted thugs. The Thin Blue Line crowd wants to cry over LEOs not being treated with deference? They fricking earned being questioned on every step they take.

ETA: And for the record, I have friends who are LEOs, both PD/SO as well as POs. Love them dearly. Great people. But if they ever told me that they thought LEOs should be cut more slack, I would tell them that they should be above reproach, period. I'm an attorney; I can't handcuff or lock anyone in a cage. And literally every decision I make is scrutinized for, potentially, decades. I can be sued, or even disbarred, for mere negligence. LEOs need to buck the frick up.

I know they saw him cross with stick in pocket as it was mentioned he crossed when light said no crossing and legally blind isn’t completely blind, but if he uses cane walking at night shouldn’t he use it when lighting is pretty dim like in pics (overcast and sunrise little before 8 on this day)?


Outside of Florida or local law that allows citations/tickets or checking ID for crossing against signals or any actual concern about someone walking against the signal who had a walking stick not in use (which is definitely not the case here with the thinking it was weapon) the cops shouldn’t have pushed for ID without some kind of infraction they are citing before argument happens which doesn’t appear to be case based on video.

The guy must have some black in him that those cops sensed since this kind of thing only happens to blacks…

Regardless I am still not going to get arrested over issue or argue about it. Show it and then file a complaint or something else about it later.

quote:

---

The officer then asked Hodges if he was legally blind, to which Hodges replied that he was and that he'd used the cane to help him walk through the dark to jury duty that morning.

---

What time do they have to show when called for jury duty in Florida for this guy to be dismissed, walking, and then handcuffed by 8:09am (if time on pic is correct)?

quote:

---

the cops shouldn’t have pushed for ID without some kind of infraction they are citing before argument happens which doesn’t appear to be case based on video.

---

They should have to, but I don’t think they do have to state why before the ask for ID or at anytime really. I haven’t found that requirement anywhere.

He better push the disability discrimination angle or he might lose.