- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Score Board
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- SEC Score Board
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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: Ignorant BR PD Officer w/ FBI
Posted on 12/31/18 at 12:49 pm to TSLG
Posted on 12/31/18 at 12:49 pm to TSLG
quote:
However, they couldn't legally detain him, and they couldn't legally take his wallet out of his pocket to get his id.
I didn't watch any of the video, so I can't comment on the wallet aspect.
However, they 100% CAN legally detain him and that detention can be continually extended based on the elements arising from their discussion (investigation).
Refusing to give a name is 100% wrong AND 100% valid reason to continue a detention.
1
Posted on 12/31/18 at 12:51 pm to Sayre
quote:
Gotta love how all the boot lickers are so easily dismissive of your civil rights and the way the police trample over them.
The guy filming has a valid point and is doing the community a service.
I am not easily dismissive of my civil rights, I am just not a fricking idiot.
He might have the right to go take pictures or video a FBI building, but if you are seen. People in that building will wonder "why is this random guy videoing out building? Maybe we should go check it out". With all the crazy fricking people in the world, you expect them to just say "well, it's his right to video this building. He could be some irrational headcase who wants to attack an FBI building for whatever reason".
Either way, the police officer and FBI agent went ask the guy "why are you taking pictures of my building" and he replies "it's not your building it's the taxpayers building". The fact that he doesn't give them a reason will make him appear suspect. Do you not understand there is a certain point where civil rights and safety meets?
Now if the guy was a college student, for example and he was doing some type of project and when asked why he was taking pictures of the building and he didn't come off as an arrogant frick and just said "hi my name is ________, I attend __________ and I am taking a __________ class and we are doing a project on __________ and as part of my project I am filming this building because _____________. Is that okay?". It's about how you communicate with someone.
This dude was baiting them.
Posted on 12/31/18 at 12:51 pm to TSLG
quote:
Ok. You might technically be somewhat correct. I didn't read it like you were arguing semantics.
Are we arguing semantics and technicalities in your wording?
I could be wrong about you being wrong, or you could just be wrong. I'm kind of leaning towards the latter, but you could prove me wrong by explaining your statement more fully.
However, if you weren't arguing semantics or technicalities...
Well, you'd be wrong.
This is a quality melt even by PT standards.
Posted on 12/31/18 at 12:51 pm to PrivatePublic
quote:
Pretty sure the courts have tackled this issue and the answer was no.
Can you provide us with a specific case? Just curious...
Posted on 12/31/18 at 12:52 pm to 777Tiger
quote:
his is kind of reverse entrapment though
No more so than a bait car. The opportunity is there to make a good or bad decision. It is not entrapment if you choose to act illegally.
Posted on 12/31/18 at 12:54 pm to TSLG
Video is from May of 2017. What the frick OP?
Posted on 12/31/18 at 12:54 pm to TSLG
I think the guy is just trolling to try and piss them off. The whole thing is just weird. I guess that's how he makes a living, off of youtube clicks.
Posted on 12/31/18 at 12:55 pm to Wtodd
Both.
Posted on 12/31/18 at 12:56 pm to OweO
quote:
Now if the guy was a college student, for example and he was doing some type of project and when asked why he was taking pictures of the building and he didn't come off as an arrogant frick and just said "hi my name is ________, I attend __________ and I am taking a __________ class and we are doing a project on __________ and as part of my project I am filming this building because _____________. Is that okay?". It's about how you communicate with someone.
This dude was baiting them.
The situation you present is fine, it would not be wrong to answer this way. However, you are giving them more information than you are required to give them, nothing wrong with that. But, takign a different approach and not giving them anything more than the law requires is a legal approach which should not result in the loss of any liberty.
Nothing wrong with baiting people, even cops have bait cars. Bait does not work on people intent on not breaking the law.
Posted on 12/31/18 at 12:57 pm to novabill
quote:
It is an adversarial relationship
Only if you make that way
Posted on 12/31/18 at 12:58 pm to novabill
quote:
Snowflake is triggered?
I hope the term "snowflake" stays behind with 2018. It just seems like a g rated version of words like "pussy", "lil bitch", or "twat".
Posted on 12/31/18 at 12:58 pm to Meauxjeaux
quote:
However, they 100% CAN legally detain him and that detention can be continually extended based on the elements arising from their discussion (investigation).
Refusing to give a name is 100% wrong AND 100% valid reason to continue a detention.
How the frick can you state that they could legally detain him if you haven't watched the video?
By the way, you're wrong. When you quit the local PD, ask your superiors, the city attorney, or the da to explain it to you.
Posted on 12/31/18 at 1:03 pm to TSLG
quote:
TSLG
Times have changed since 9/11. Expect to get harassed for scoping out FEDREAL buildings. All you had to do was not be a dick. If you needed an image of the building elevation, you should have walked inside, identified yourself and asked permission to shoot a pic of the elevation. They may or may not have granted your request. But, that would be the way a non-dick would have handled it.
Treat people the way you would like to be treated.
As I stated earlier, I despise motherfrickers like you. You are a pussy and live a lonely miserable life. Congrats!
Posted on 12/31/18 at 1:03 pm to PearlJam
The hell it couldn’t. You have no idea what you are talking about and likely failed that part of the bar if you are a lawyer.
Posted on 12/31/18 at 1:05 pm to cyarrr
Not identifying oneself can't be reasonable suspicion of a crime to support a stop, Matlock.
This post was edited on 12/31/18 at 1:07 pm
Posted on 12/31/18 at 1:07 pm to The Torch
quote:
Only if you make that way
Not true. It is adversarial because their careers are built on those that they arrest. Cops need people to break the law, they want to put people in cages. Now if I play very nice I can avoid bad encounters and they will move on and find someone else to cage.
Posted on 12/31/18 at 1:08 pm to novabill
The law requires you provide name and place of residence. He refused that.
Posted on 12/31/18 at 1:08 pm to PearlJam
quote:
Not identifying oneself can't be reasonable suspicion of a crime to support a stop, Matlock.
It does give a reason to delve deeper and do a little investigating.
Posted on 12/31/18 at 1:09 pm to TSLG
Cocksucker was looking for trouble.
Posted on 12/31/18 at 1:10 pm to TSLG
quote:
How the frick can you state that they could legally detain him if you haven't watched the video?
By the way, you're wrong. When you quit the local PD, ask your superiors, the city attorney, or the da to explain it to you
Louisiana has a Stop and ID law - LA RS 14:108 (B)(1)(c) - which requires a person to provide ideniftication to law enforcement when stopped under reasonable suspicion grounds. Failure to comply with this request grants law enforcement the right to arrest the suspect. This law was found constitutional in Hiibel.
Here, the suspect was taking video of a federal building - an action with extremely limited reasonable non-criminal motivations. When questioned as to motive, the suspect failed to answer. Police then requested identification to which the suspect refused. At that point, detaining the suspect was within the Constitutional bounds of law enforcement activity until motive could be determined and a probable cause determination made.
Page 6 of 16
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News