- 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 1:12 pm to PearlJam
Posted on 12/31/18 at 1:12 pm to PearlJam
quote:
Not identifying oneself can't be reasonable suspicion of a crime to support a stop, Matlock.
But it does allow for the detainment of the suspect if reasonable suspicion exists under Hiibel.
1
Posted on 12/31/18 at 1:12 pm to VABuckeye
quote:That's fine, but it doesn't allow for that investigation to infringe on the guys rights. Which means, without reasonable suspicion of a crime he can't detain him. The guy in the video asked if he was being detained, the officer said no, the guy said he wanted to be on his way and then the officer detained him without reasonable suspicion of a crime. As much of a douche as the guy was, he was right on the law and the officer was wrong.
It does give a reason to delve deeper and do a little investigating
Posted on 12/31/18 at 1:13 pm to Antonio Moss
quote:correct, but you have to have reasonable suspicion for the Terry stop in the first place
if reasonable suspicion exists
This post was edited on 12/31/18 at 1:14 pm
Posted on 12/31/18 at 1:13 pm to Supermoto Tiger
quote:
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!
You are missing the point completely. This conversation is about cops following the law. Did the law change regarding the scoping out Federal buildings after 911? I am sure the sentiment did, but did the law?
I get that you do not like people that exercise their rights, and I agree it is more comfortable for all if people would just do the easy thing. But, that is not the law and not the subject of this thread.
Did the cop obey/follow the law? It is a easy simple question. He did not.
Posted on 12/31/18 at 1:13 pm to PearlJam
quote:
if reasonable suspicion exists
correct
Which it does is in this case
Posted on 12/31/18 at 1:14 pm to Antonio Moss
quote:how?
Which it does is in this case
Posted on 12/31/18 at 1:14 pm to novabill
quote:
Did the cop obey/follow the law? It is a easy simple question. He did not.
Where did he break the law - specifically?
Posted on 12/31/18 at 1:14 pm to TSLG
quote:
How the frick can you state that they could legally detain him if you haven't watched the video?
Because I know this particular point of the law regarding police interactions with the public.
If you think I'm wrong, why don't you bring an action against the offending officer in the video and see how it plays out in the courts?
Posted on 12/31/18 at 1:17 pm to Antonio Moss
quote:When he told the guy he wasn't being detained and the guy announced his intention to go about his day. The officer then grabbed his arm and searched him without reasonable suspicion of any crime as far as I can tell.
Where did he break the law - specifically?
This post was edited on 12/31/18 at 1:18 pm
Posted on 12/31/18 at 1:17 pm to LSURussian
The cops see him holding a camera. Either they haven't been trained properly, or they DGAF about public perception. How stupid can they be?
Posted on 12/31/18 at 1:17 pm to PearlJam
quote:
Which it does is in this case
how?
What are the non-criminal motivations for videotaping a federal building?
What are the non-criminal motivations of videotaping any building that isn’t a tourist attraction?
Posted on 12/31/18 at 1:18 pm to PearlJam
quote:
Not identifying oneself can't be reasonable suspicion of a crime to support a stop, Matlock.
Noone is ever "stopped" for not identifying themselves.
Can you attempt to argue your thoughts on actuality please?
I will say, to add to this conversation, once "stopped", not identifying oneself is 100% valid cause for an officer to continue a detention.
Posted on 12/31/18 at 1:18 pm to Antonio Moss
quote:
if reasonable suspicion exists
correct
Which it does is in this case
What crime did that reasonable suspicion point towards?
Posted on 12/31/18 at 1:18 pm to Antonio Moss
quote:
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.
You'd get tons of points for this, and I really appreciate you making a good, logical argument, supported by proper law, but I'd have to disagree that videoing, in this case, is an action "with extremely limited reasonable non-criminal motivations" that would constitute reasonable suspicion.
You're going to make my ignorant arse have to do some research though.
This post was edited on 12/31/18 at 1:19 pm
Posted on 12/31/18 at 1:19 pm to PearlJam
quote:
When he told the guy he want being detained and the guy announced his intention to go about his day. The officer then grabbed his arm and searched him without reasonable suspicion of any crime as far as I can tell.
At that point reasonable suspicion had already been established and the suspect had refused to comply with Stop and ID. The cops have to detain at that point.
Posted on 12/31/18 at 1:19 pm to Antonio Moss
quote:Curiosity, news reporting, video blogging, real estate appraisal, fun, hobby, etc. Recording a building from public property isn't a crime.
What are the non-criminal motivations for videotaping a federal building?
Posted on 12/31/18 at 1:20 pm to Antonio Moss
quote:
Where did he break the law - specifically?
Am i being detained
No
Can I leave
No.
Went in his back pocket and took his wallet and information that he did not want to give the cop.
If the law required it, the cop would have told him or arrested him for not providing it when asked.
I think of cops like this when I hear bad news across the country.
Posted on 12/31/18 at 1:20 pm to Antonio Moss
quote:Stop and ID required reasonable suspicion. See Terry.
At that point reasonable suspicion had already been established and the suspect had refused to comply with Stop and ID.
Posted on 12/31/18 at 1:24 pm to Antonio Moss
quote:
What are the non-criminal motivations for videotaping a federal building?
What are the non-criminal motivations of videotaping any building that isn’t a tourist attraction?
I bet i could list you more non-criminal motivations, do I need to show my non criminal actions have non-criminal motivations?
1. I like the building
2. I dont like the building
3. Thinking of building a building like this one
4. Read about the FBI on the interenet and want to see how fancy their office is.
5. I collect pictures of public buildings
6. I work for the insurance company
7. I work for the lender
8. I want a picture of Jimmy coming out of work at 4pm instead of 8pm like he told his wife
9. I want to put in a landscaping bid
10.I want to see if the cops can handle their emotions and handle my picture taking legally.
Posted on 12/31/18 at 1:25 pm to novabill
quote:
What crime did that reasonable suspicion point towards?
Numerous crimes following the casing of a building.
You can’t judge reasonable suspicion in hindsight - which most in this thread are doing. Reasonable suspicion is judged by the reasonableness of the officers’ actions based on the information available to them at the time of the encounter.
The cops see a guy videoing a federal building. Are there non-criminal motivations for the action? Sure. But there are also severe criminal motivations for that action as well. And, upon questioning, the suspect 1) failed to identify himself or 2) or state a reasonable motivation for videotaping the building.
Imagine walking out in your front lawn and some random person is videoing your neighbor’s house. What is your first reaction?
Page 7 of 16
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News