Am I being detained? Am I free to go?

Nonsense.

Criminal threatening (or threatening behavior) is the crime of intentionally or knowingly putting another person in fear of imminent bodily injury. A cop asking questions that create fear of harm is illegal. If a cop does this, while not in the course of a lawful investigation, our hypothetical situation of just asking somebody on the street questions, it’s a serious crime. It’s also very repulsive.

“You want me to take you downtown?” How would you like to spend the night in jail? You think those perverts in there are going to like your sweet ass? What if I jam this night stick up your ass? You think you will like that? Huh? Huh? You think I won’t?"

That is actually a nice example. The sexual ones I don’t even want to type out.

Now start weaseling out of the issue. I clearly stated there are questions that are illegal for a police officer to ask.

Oh sure you can also weasel by saying those would be illegal for anyone else. Not true.

The best way to solve this debate:

Loach, just go ahead and ask fx mastermind the hypothesized questions. We’ll wait to see if you get in legal trouble.

If you do, he’s right. If you don’t, you are right.
My money’s on you.

But those aren’t “questions”, those are threats. And yeah, if I walked up to a random person and asked, “You want me to jam this nightstick up your ass? You think you’ll like that?”, I am breaking the law, even though I’m not a cop. I’m clearly threatening them. It is against the law to threaten people, even when you make your threats Jeopardy style, in the form of a question.

If I were at a sex club and asked the same question to a guy in leather chaps–they’re assless leather chaps because all chaps are assless, that’s what makes them chaps and not pants–then those questions wouldn’t be threatening.

It doesn’t matter if a cop asks these questions that are really threats, or if you do, or if I do. They’re equally assault. Various jurisdictions may give a different name to the crime, or define it slightly differently, but every jurisdiction in the United States has some close variation of this law. To give you an idea of why this is illegal, let me point you here:

I don’t think we are supposed to bet except in GD. And then only once. Or something. I lost interest in that thread.

Now you are getting the idea. It can’t just be questions. It has to rise to the level of threats or harassment for it to be illegal. See those are actual crimes you can look up. Find me something else if you can. There are 50 states and I don’t know the laws in each one. So I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt. I’m sure you will be able to find a cite from somewhere.

Also note that a cop threatening someone with harm, even in the course of a lawful investigation, is also illegal.

Note that “Drop the gun or I’ll shoot,” doesn’t count as a threat. If you’re waving around a gun and a cop has the legal right to use deadly force against you to stop the threat, then he’s not threatening you, he’s giving you a chance to save yourself from deadly force by complying. If a cop doesn’t have the legal right to use deadly force against you, then yes, threatening to shoot you in that case would be assault, and would be, you know, illegal, since assault is illegal even when a cop does it. Even if he phrased his threat to shoot you in the form of a question.

Absolutely correct. If a cop were to accost someone and ask them those questions, it would be an example of an illegal act,

But – in that circumstance, remember what I said:

In that circumstance, a reasonable person would NOT feel free to disregard the officer and go about his business.

That’s why the caveat is there. An officer seizes someone, and ends a consensual encounter, when he uses acts or words or both to indicate that the person is not free to leave.

Remember that line? As long as the person is free to disregard those inquiries and go about his business

[moderator note]
FXMastermind, if you wish to debate about what questions police can legally ask, please feel free to start a Great Debates thread about it. This, however, is General Questions, and the subject is the questions “Am I being detained?” and “Am I free to go?”

Everyone else that’s participating in this massive sidetrack is welcome to join FXMastermind in a GD thread or start one of your own, but don’t keep it going here.
[/moderator note]

I am trying to classify the moderators post.

Threat?
Strong suggestion?
Warning?
Warning to beware of his next post?
A simple explanation of the local laws?
Trying to shift the work to C Dex?
Simple reminder of where the thread is located?

So many question.

I be cornfussed… :confused:

BROWN dealt with a NON suspicion seizure. Hiibel cites Brown and clarifies the Constitutional distinction.

Also, in State v. Robinette 1, which the SC decided and remanded (Ohio v. Robinette), they ruled the 4th M does not require an officer tell a detainee they are “free to go” before dismissing them.

Robinette 1, also cites Royer;

In Florida v. Royer (1983), 460 U.S. 491, 103 S.Ct. 1319, 75 L.Ed.2d 229, the Supreme Court held that the minimal intrusion of simple questioning of a person not in custody does not constitute a “seizure” requiring Fourth Amendment protection. Specifically, the court in Royer stated:

“[L]aw enforcement officers do not violate the Fourth Amendment by merely approaching an individual on the street or in another public place, by asking him if he is willing to answer some questions, by putting questions to him if the person is willing to listen, or by offering in evidence in a criminal prosecution his voluntary answers to such questions.” Id. at 497-498, 103 S.Ct. at 1324, 75 L.Ed.2d at 236.

“The person approached, however, need not answer any question put to him; indeed, he may decline to listen to the questions at all and may go on his way. He may not be detained even momentarily without reasonable, objective grounds for doing so; and his refusal to listen or answer does not, without more, furnish those grounds.” (Citations omitted.) Id. at 497-498, 103 S.Ct. at 1324, 75 L.Ed.2d at 236.

That was my point. Sorry if I wasn’t clear.

If a police officer just wants to have a conversation with you, you’re not required to stop and talk with him. But if a police officer tells you he wants to talk to you, then you have to stop and wait. So asking him if you’re free to go clears up whether he’s asking you or he’s telling you to stop and talk.

It’s sort of like the difference between me telling you to stop being off topic, and a Mod telling you.

No, it’s more like anybody being able to post to a thread. It isn’t illegal for posters, and also not illegal for mods. Same for civilians and cops - civilians can ask questions when they want to, and cops can do the same. Not illegal for either. No one can be forced to post to a thread. No one can be forced to answer questions from a cop.

See how it works? What you said earlier about it being illegal is wrong.

Regards,
Shodan

No, not under the 8th, as they say, but refusal under Hiibel or any law of similar import/catchphrase, may get you arrested.

The question is about being “free to go”, in regards to the police. If a Mod tells you to stop (restrains your actions) it is completely different than if a regular poster says it.

A citizen may feel more compelled to answer a police officer’s question than that of an ordinary citizen, but he is under no more legal obligation to do so. That’s the point.

No, this thread is about being “free to go”, not questions.

In a situation where an officer detains somebody, legally, like as a witness at a crime scene or accident, asking “Am I free to go?”, or “Am I under arrest” is sort of a dick move. It forces an ordinary situation into a hostile interaction.

It can actually be considered a crime, depending on the cop.

Please stop making things up in GQ. You have made that claim numerous times and failed to support it at all.

It’s very straightforward. It means (a) this is not Great Debates, and (b) this thread is about being detained, not about what questions someone is legally allowed to ask.

The requested action is to put this thread back on its rails, and if you wish to continue the side discussion, take it to an appropriate thread in an appropriate forum.