Citizen
Founder's Club Member
imported post
McX wrote:
McX wrote:
We ignore people from Wisconsin.
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Former Moderator
- Thread starter Sheriff
- Start date
M
McX
Guest
imported post
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
imported post
McX wrote:
The sneaky part is that the cop verifies the information. That is more than just concern. That is fishing. Meaning the part about "concern" is bogus spin to gain consent.
Nonetheless we have had a few like that reported.
McX wrote:
Oh, there have been a few like that reported. They're kinda rare.
The sneaky part is that the cop verifies the information. That is more than just concern. That is fishing. Meaning the part about "concern" is bogus spin to gain consent.
Nonetheless we have had a few like that reported.
M
McX
Guest
imported post
bohdi
Regular Member
imported post
When was Nitro a moderator here? Was I asleep?
When was Nitro a moderator here? Was I asleep?
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
imported post
bohdi wrote:
You were not asleep. Gone to the dogs maybe, but not asleep.
He was never a moderator.
How is the pup, by the way?
bohdi wrote:
You were not asleep. Gone to the dogs maybe, but not asleep.
He was never a moderator.
How is the pup, by the way?
IanB
Regular Member
imported post
McX wrote:
The only time a government enforcer gets to know my name is when I've done something wrong. Openly carrying a pistol is legal in VA, therefore nobody gets to demand papers from me. He/she wears a nametag because he/she is a public servant. Police without nametags had a name several decades ago, they were called the Gestapo. In civilized societies we require our police to wear identification so if they misbehave they may be held accountable.
McX wrote:
That's cool. As long as we're at it we can burn the Bill of Rights and start randomly stopping cars to check for DL's and alcohol impairment. I mean after all, we are dealing with some term (that I'm not understanding) called "public trust". the public will be much more trusting once the police have the ability to randomly detain folks and verify their information. Should only take a few minutes. No harm no foul, right? Ohh by the way, you don't mind if we take a quick peek inside your house? Is that YOUR computer? Mind if I see if there's any kiddie porn on that? I mean, the public trust demands we do this, and if your innocent you have nothing to fear, right? Thank you for your compliance, Oceana and the public trust thanks you... have a great day.
The only time a government enforcer gets to know my name is when I've done something wrong. Openly carrying a pistol is legal in VA, therefore nobody gets to demand papers from me. He/she wears a nametag because he/she is a public servant. Police without nametags had a name several decades ago, they were called the Gestapo. In civilized societies we require our police to wear identification so if they misbehave they may be held accountable.
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
imported post
McX wrote:
Refusing consent is cooperating to the fullest extent required by law and good citizenship.
Why anyone would define cooperation as giving the police what they want is beyond me.
Lets look a little more. By cooperating to the extent of politely refusing consent, I am not non-cooperating by being rude, running away, ignoring him, telling him to shove his request (which are usually demands) up his (bleep).Criminalsevennot-cooperate by just shooting their (bleep).
Just by standing there and politely, verbally refusing consent, I am in fact cooperating. To the fullest extent required by law and good citizenship. Its not the cop, and what he is used to doing, that defines acceptable cooperation. Or, to include an idea that one cop wrote here recently, its not "good police work" that defines acceptable cooperation.
Which is just another way of saying the appropriate level of cooperation was defined long ago by the founding documents and the philosophical essays from the Enlightenment that preceeded them. And the Bill of Rights, which itself derives from over 800 years of English and European advancement--hard-won, sometimes bloody advancement--of rights.
Nope. Its the cops who should be cooperating by recognizing and respecting rights. Including not taking investigatory action unreasonablyor compulsory action without knowing what authority they have to do so.
McX wrote:
Refusing consent is cooperating to the fullest extent required by law and good citizenship.
Why anyone would define cooperation as giving the police what they want is beyond me.
Lets look a little more. By cooperating to the extent of politely refusing consent, I am not non-cooperating by being rude, running away, ignoring him, telling him to shove his request (which are usually demands) up his (bleep).Criminalsevennot-cooperate by just shooting their (bleep).
Just by standing there and politely, verbally refusing consent, I am in fact cooperating. To the fullest extent required by law and good citizenship. Its not the cop, and what he is used to doing, that defines acceptable cooperation. Or, to include an idea that one cop wrote here recently, its not "good police work" that defines acceptable cooperation.
Which is just another way of saying the appropriate level of cooperation was defined long ago by the founding documents and the philosophical essays from the Enlightenment that preceeded them. And the Bill of Rights, which itself derives from over 800 years of English and European advancement--hard-won, sometimes bloody advancement--of rights.
Nope. Its the cops who should be cooperating by recognizing and respecting rights. Including not taking investigatory action unreasonablyor compulsory action without knowing what authority they have to do so.
M
McX
Guest
imported post
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
imported post
McX wrote:
Refusing to cooperative gives the impression...? How did they come to have that impression? To think that is a proper way to view a refusal?Its animpression at odds with Founding Principles. I believe there are even a few court cases running around that mere refusing consent, mere exercising rights cannot be construed to imply guilt or suspicion. That anybody views refusing consent as suspicious is exactly the reason to educate them on citizenship and Founding Principles.
Police are trained...? Why does their training not include some of the points I've made just recently? Why does their training not include the idea that it was long ago established that letting some criminals escape prosecution was better than an unrestricted government? Many criminals affect only the people they contact. Bad government affects every person within its sphere of influence.
McX wrote:
Refusing to cooperative gives the impression...? How did they come to have that impression? To think that is a proper way to view a refusal?Its animpression at odds with Founding Principles. I believe there are even a few court cases running around that mere refusing consent, mere exercising rights cannot be construed to imply guilt or suspicion. That anybody views refusing consent as suspicious is exactly the reason to educate them on citizenship and Founding Principles.
Police are trained...? Why does their training not include some of the points I've made just recently? Why does their training not include the idea that it was long ago established that letting some criminals escape prosecution was better than an unrestricted government? Many criminals affect only the people they contact. Bad government affects every person within its sphere of influence.
IanB
Regular Member
imported post
McX wrote:
McX wrote:
LEO's are more than welcome to speak to me about my pistol. I have had several discussions to date, none of them were bad. But here's the trick, the LEO's knew their boundaries, never made demands of me, and everything was friendly. Where I am having an issue with what you wrote is the idea that we, the OC'ers owe something to the police, like surrendering our ID's on demand. Police need probable cause to demand ID in Virginia.
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
imported post
McX wrote:
However, even the statist SupremeCourt limited that. The opinion basically says that the LEO must first have reasonable articulable suspicion (RAS) of a crime. Meaning only during a legal detention/Terry Stop.
And there must be a state statute, or perhaps local ordinance, requiring the suspect to identify himself (stop-and-identify statute). And, based on that opinion and two others (Brown v Texas, Kolender v Lawson), the identification requirement cannot include demand for an ID document. Which leaves only verbal identification. Again, only when there is alsoRAS and a state statute requiring the person to identify himself.
This is a 5th Amendment issue. Hiibel is a 5th Amendment case.
I strongly disagree with Hiibel. Identification should notbe compulsory during a Terry Stop. That last lines of Hiibel foresee the possibility of a time that a person could be tied to a crime (self-incrimination) by being forced to give his name.Guess what. It happened. To a member right here on OCDO. The police and prosecutor, having obtained his ID from his wallet during a Terry Stop, are now going back after the fact and getting creative with the law to prosecute him for violating a school zone. Something they did not think of at the time of the stop. Something they are able to do only because they identified him during the stop.
Another reason I disagree with Hiibel is because formerly your 5th Amendment right to silence was perfect. Now, you have to worry whether you are in a jurisdiction that has a stop-and-identify statute, and whether the cop really has RAS. And since you can't possibly know with total certainty that he does not have RAS, you have to assume he does and give your name, or risk being charged for violating a stop-and-identify statute or ordinance.
And, if you were brought up to think you have a perfect right to silence, now changed, and stand on what you think is your perfect right to silence, you can now be charged and convicted for obstruction if the other elements are present. Something like this has already happened to one young fella in regard to the 4th Amendment. He had been taught in school that police can only enter your home with a warrant. No warrant, no entry. Cops showed up. Noisy party. 911 caller told the cops it sounded like somebody was being beaten. Cops wanted in, without telling him why. He refused, blocking the door with his body. They threw him into the yard and charged him with obstruction.
We've passed the point where the average citizen can know his rights without hours of study.
Hiibel: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-5554.ZO.html
Kolender: http://supreme.justia.com/us/461/352/case.html
Brown: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0443_0047_ZO.html
McX wrote:
The US Supreme Court agreed: Hiibel vs 6th Judicial District Court.
However, even the statist SupremeCourt limited that. The opinion basically says that the LEO must first have reasonable articulable suspicion (RAS) of a crime. Meaning only during a legal detention/Terry Stop.
And there must be a state statute, or perhaps local ordinance, requiring the suspect to identify himself (stop-and-identify statute). And, based on that opinion and two others (Brown v Texas, Kolender v Lawson), the identification requirement cannot include demand for an ID document. Which leaves only verbal identification. Again, only when there is alsoRAS and a state statute requiring the person to identify himself.
This is a 5th Amendment issue. Hiibel is a 5th Amendment case.
I strongly disagree with Hiibel. Identification should notbe compulsory during a Terry Stop. That last lines of Hiibel foresee the possibility of a time that a person could be tied to a crime (self-incrimination) by being forced to give his name.Guess what. It happened. To a member right here on OCDO. The police and prosecutor, having obtained his ID from his wallet during a Terry Stop, are now going back after the fact and getting creative with the law to prosecute him for violating a school zone. Something they did not think of at the time of the stop. Something they are able to do only because they identified him during the stop.
Another reason I disagree with Hiibel is because formerly your 5th Amendment right to silence was perfect. Now, you have to worry whether you are in a jurisdiction that has a stop-and-identify statute, and whether the cop really has RAS. And since you can't possibly know with total certainty that he does not have RAS, you have to assume he does and give your name, or risk being charged for violating a stop-and-identify statute or ordinance.
And, if you were brought up to think you have a perfect right to silence, now changed, and stand on what you think is your perfect right to silence, you can now be charged and convicted for obstruction if the other elements are present. Something like this has already happened to one young fella in regard to the 4th Amendment. He had been taught in school that police can only enter your home with a warrant. No warrant, no entry. Cops showed up. Noisy party. 911 caller told the cops it sounded like somebody was being beaten. Cops wanted in, without telling him why. He refused, blocking the door with his body. They threw him into the yard and charged him with obstruction.
We've passed the point where the average citizen can know his rights without hours of study.
Hiibel: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-5554.ZO.html
Kolender: http://supreme.justia.com/us/461/352/case.html
Brown: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0443_0047_ZO.html
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
imported post
nakedshoplifter wrote:
nakedshoplifter wrote:
Huh!?!?!
IanB
Regular Member
imported post
Note the above word "demand". They can ask for it ALL day long till they turn blue, but absent PC they may not demand/require ID from a citizen.
http://www.oag.state.va.us/Opinions/2002opns/02-082.pdf
Note the above word "demand". They can ask for it ALL day long till they turn blue, but absent PC they may not demand/require ID from a citizen.
http://www.oag.state.va.us/Opinions/2002opns/02-082.pdf
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
imported post
nakedshoplifter wrote:
nakedshoplifter wrote:
I don't see where they can demand it even with PC, much less RAS. The only thing I see is that they can demand it of a motorist they stop for a traffic violation.
IanB
Regular Member
imported post
So you're saying the police must have something better than PC to demand ID? Like what? remember, RAS is a lower standard than PC.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
I would think that if the police have the PC to SEIZE you then they need to know who the heck you are.
So you're saying the police must have something better than PC to demand ID? Like what? remember, RAS is a lower standard than PC.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
I would think that if the police have the PC to SEIZE you then they need to know who the heck you are.
suntzu
Regular Member
imported post
McX wrote:
1. Your job is not to do their job for them.
2. You have absolutely no obligation to answer the majority of questions they ask, unless it is directly required of you by law. Refusing to answer their questions, when you have absolutely no legal reason to do so is not a crime, it is merely the free exercise of your rights--just like OC'ing is. And a citizen who refuses to answer any questions not required by law should inform the leo that you are well versed in your rights and you intend on exercising them to the full.
3. Just because you refuse to answer their questions does not mean you have something to hide--except your privacy. And protecting your privacy is reason enough to not cooperate in a fishing expedition. Anytime the police want to talk to you--more likely than not, they are looking to see if you can give them a reason to arrest you--they love to go on groundless fishing expeditions, especially with people who exercise their rights.
as a closing thought--remember, the less you tell them, the less they have to use against you.
McX wrote:
My thoughts on this subject:
1. Your job is not to do their job for them.
2. You have absolutely no obligation to answer the majority of questions they ask, unless it is directly required of you by law. Refusing to answer their questions, when you have absolutely no legal reason to do so is not a crime, it is merely the free exercise of your rights--just like OC'ing is. And a citizen who refuses to answer any questions not required by law should inform the leo that you are well versed in your rights and you intend on exercising them to the full.
3. Just because you refuse to answer their questions does not mean you have something to hide--except your privacy. And protecting your privacy is reason enough to not cooperate in a fishing expedition. Anytime the police want to talk to you--more likely than not, they are looking to see if you can give them a reason to arrest you--they love to go on groundless fishing expeditions, especially with people who exercise their rights.
as a closing thought--remember, the less you tell them, the less they have to use against you.
longwatch
Founder's Club Member - Moderator
imported post
Did somebody say former moderator? Oh nevermind.
Did somebody say former moderator? Oh nevermind.
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
imported post
nakedshoplifter wrote:
Oh. I get what you are saying now. It would be kinda moot. If you are being arrested, they are going to find your ID or something to ID you in your wallet during the search-incident-to-arrest.
nakedshoplifter wrote:
Oh. I get what you are saying now. It would be kinda moot. If you are being arrested, they are going to find your ID or something to ID you in your wallet during the search-incident-to-arrest.
suntzu
Regular Member
imported post
McX wrote:
McX wrote:
it absolutely is the same thing--well along the same lines anyway.