REFUSING to talk to the police. STUPID.

[SFCRetired]

Elaboration for new readers, not contradiction.

1. Keep in mind that the person of who identity is demanded is not the person who gets to decide whether the cop has genuine reasonable articulable suspicion (RAS). It is the judge who gets to decide after the fact whether the cop had RAS.

2. The part about an explanation of your actions may be a holdover from times long past. Facially, demanding an explanation of your actions violates your 5A right against self-incrimination. Remember Professor Duane's explanation from the podium at Regent University Law School: "Even the truthful statements of an innocent witness can be used against him..." (See youtube video, formerly posted on Regent University's website).

Bottom line is check your own state's laws. In point #1, at least in Alabama, the officer must give you a reason for asking, otherwise you do not have to answer. Here is where you fall back on the old formula, "Why am I being detained? Am I free to go. You are correct in that point #2 does come from a much earlier time, however it is still in the Code of Alabama. There is no way in Hades I would answer that demand.

If you have any doubts, immediately ask for a lawyer and then, as another of our group stated, KYBMS. Once you have determined that you are, in fact, either being detained or are under arrest, the only other thing you should state, other than your name and address, is that you want an attorney.

 

[Liberty-or-Death]

your dialogue has been missed...

I hope you're speaking for yourself.

 

[redsox]

interaction with LEO?

I just moved from Fla to IA. Ive had exstensive interactions with LEO there and in other states. I NEVER allow cops in my home. I NEVER answer any questions( when home) without an attorney. If they stop me on the street I show them what they ask for but I am underno obligation to kowtow to them in ANY way- they are civil servants not gods. This culture of cop worxhip is disturbing- respect id\s earned -it doesnt cme with a badge and a stick. Peole forget- the cop did not give you your rights and even of he werent here youd still have them. They are no different than any other vendor that I pay for! do you think their wages come because of their good looks? grow up- I can protect myself fine plus their never around anyway. My question is -why are the firearms laws in Iowa so backwards? this state is 50 years behind the times- why is that?

 

[Grapeshot]

I just moved from Fla to IA. Ive had exstensive interactions with LEO there and in other states. I NEVER allow cops in my home. I NEVER answer any questions( when home) without an attorney. If they stop me on the street I show them what they ask for but I am underno obligation to kowtow to them in ANY way- they are civil servants not gods. This culture of cop worxhip is disturbing- respect id\s earned -it doesnt cme with a badge and a stick. Peole forget- the cop did not give you your rights and even of he werent here youd still have them. They are no different than any other vendor that I pay for! do you think their wages come because of their good looks? grow up- I can protect myself fine plus their never around anyway. My question is -why are the firearms laws in Iowa so backwards? this state is 50 years behind the times- why is that?

So much negativity.

Don't see Iowa as being so backwards - more a middle ot the road state working to improve.
http://www.opencarry.org/?page_id=228

 

[Citizen]

SNIP So much negativity.

Huh!?!?!

Since when did exercising rights become "negativity"?

Since when did exercising rights paid for in blood across centuries leave one open to criticism?

Lets try phrasing it from the positive angle:

I always exercise my right to refuse consent to police to enter my home without a warrant. I always exercise my right against self-incrimination and my right to counsel.

 

[travr6]

Huh!?!?!

Since when did exercising rights become "negativity"?

Since when did exercising rights paid for in blood across centuries leave one open to criticism?

Lets try phrasing it from the positive angle:

I always exercise my right to refuse consent to police to enter my home without a warrant. I always exercise my right against self-incrimination and my right to counsel.

And that is where the true problem lies. That exercising your rights are seen as negatives.

If you have done nothing wrong you have nothing to hide is the most ignorant and ill informed statement anyone can utter.

I am always polite but will never ever consent to searches and will never incriminate myself.

Respect is earned and you have not earned it merely by putting on a uniform.
If you approach me with respect I will return it in kind.

The police tend to escalate situations when there is no need. Not every situation needs to be taken control of.

 

[Citizen]

SNIP If you have done nothing wrong you have nothing to hide is the most ignorant and ill informed statement anyone can utter.

That was literally--no exaggeration--the rationale used by the High Commission* to justify punishing people with religious objections in Elizabethan England. If you were innocent of heresy, alternate doctrines, not attending church as required, etc., there was no reason you should be unwilling to swear the oath ex officio** promising to tell the truth, and answer the questions truthfully. If you refused to take the oath or answer questions, you were convicted pro-confesso (as though you had confessed.)

*You've heard of the Star Chamber Court? The Court of Star Chamber was the queen's (Elizabeth) Privy Council (personal council of trusted Lords) who donned the function of judges. This morning they met and advised the queen on some policy point as the Privy Council. This afternoon they assembled in another place to hear or decide a case, at which point they were the Star Chamber Court. Its really that simple. Same guys, different role. The High Commission was the church arm. Its full name was High Commission for Ecclesiastical Causes. When the state and church were essentially one and the same--the British monarch was the head of the church--deviation from church policy or doctrine was also an offense against the crown. Initially, your case was investigated by the High Commission. If you dug in your heels, it might be removed to the Star Chamber Court. That was because there was a big wrangle over whether the High Commission could punish. However, there was no question whether the Star Chamber could sentence to punishment--it definitely could. Under Archbishop William Laud the High Commission and Star Chamber Court became nearly indistinguishable, perpetrating numerous, grievous human rights violations.

**Oath ex officio. It was an oath administered to a religious suspect prior to questioning. You swore to answer all questions truthfully. The backround being a deep religious belief that violating an oath would result in eternal damnation. You swore this oath before even knowing of which religious violations you were suspected. It is called ex officio because it was administered by a church official stepping out of his office and into the role of investigator.

 

[color of law]

Elaboration for new readers, not contradiction.

1. Keep in mind that the person of who identity is demanded is not the person who gets to decide whether the cop has genuine reasonable articulable suspicion (RAS). It is the judge who gets to decide after the fact whether the cop had RAS.

And what USSC case says that?

 

[Citizen]

And what USSC case says that?

The grand daddy of them all, Terry v Ohio.[SUP]1[/SUP] "...Each case of this sort will, of course, have to be decided on its own facts..." See Section V, the very last paragraph. SCOTUS set it up so the courts would have lots of business in coming decades. Since then, appellate courts have been churning out reams and reams of decisions on whether this or that set of circumstances amounted to reasonable suspicion.

In Virginia, in Commonwealth vs Hill, the state court of appeals expressly said an individual may not resist an illegal detention, meaning the detainee did not get to decide whether the cop had genuine RAS. While other states may differ, I have never seen a federal case that validated a power of an individual to resist or walk away from a groundless detention on his own say-so. You can sue after the fact, but you don't get to decide during the encounter itself.

1. Terry v Ohio: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/392/1

 

[Dave_pro2a]

Op needs new title, "Talking to the police is stupid!"

 

[Freedom1Man]

Op needs new title, "Talking to the police is stupid!"

Yes.

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

 

[F350]

So much negativity.

Don't see Iowa as being so backwards - more a middle ot the road state working to improve.
http://www.opencarry.org/?page_id=228

You ever liver there for 5 years???

I have; and I RESENT the hell out of a bunch-a corn pickers having such a HUGE role in selecting our presidents!!!!!!

 

[papa bear]

So much negativity.

Don't see Iowa as being so backwards - more a middle ot the road state working to improve.
http://www.opencarry.org/?page_id=228

If I am mistaking. Iowa is one of the state that takes away your civil rights. You are denied your Rights and are subject to government permission to be licensed to even look at a fire arm

I see.it as VERY backward and bigoted

 

[Grapeshot]

If I am mistaking. Iowa is one of the state that takes away your civil rights. You are denied your Rights and are subject to government permission to be licensed to even look at a fire arm

I see.it as VERY backward and bigoted

"Iowa is not a traditional open carry state, but no permit is required to open carry except when in vehicles or when inside city limits. Open carry in cities is legal with an Iowa permit to carry weapons which allows open or concealed carry."
http://www.opencarry.org/?page_id=228

 

[sudden valley gunner]

The grand daddy of them all, Terry v Ohio.[SUP]1[/SUP] "...Each case of this sort will, of course, have to be decided on its own facts..." See Section V, the very last paragraph. SCOTUS set it up so the courts would have lots of business in coming decades. Since then, appellate courts have been churning out reams and reams of decisions on whether this or that set of circumstances amounted to reasonable suspicion.

In Virginia, in Commonwealth vs Hill, the state court of appeals expressly said an individual may not resist an illegal detention, meaning the detainee did not get to decide whether the cop had genuine RAS. While other states may differ, I have never seen a federal case that validated a power of an individual to resist or walk away from a groundless detention on his own say-so. You can sue after the fact, but you don't get to decide during the encounter itself.

1. Terry v Ohio: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/392/1

Which all flies in the face of the document that is supposed to restrict them, and they are supposed to have a warrant issued by a judge.