# Bob Dylan seized **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 16, 2009, 11:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bob-dylan-seized/506617 "2009-08-16T11:14:44Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2009, 12:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bob-dylan-seized/506617/81 "2009-08-18T00:59:45Z")
> [@smurfslappa](#): > > … and it’s not every day you get someone telling you they’re a famous person … Well probably it is every day that some scruffy looking old guy wandering around looking out of place tells some cop that. It’s just not very often true. ---
**Author:** ![Tom\_Tildrum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e95f7d/32.png) [@Tom\_Tildrum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tom_Tildrum)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2009, 1:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bob-dylan-seized/506617/82 "2009-08-18T01:05:24Z")
Fantome, do you think an senior citizen with Alzheimer’s who wanders away from care should be permitted/required to keep wandering until he finds his own way home? Or can the police help him? ---
**Author:** ![Fantome](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e9c0ed/32.png) [@Fantome](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fantome)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2009, 1:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bob-dylan-seized/506617/83 "2009-08-18T01:19:19Z")
> [@Telemark](#): > > I didn’t see anything in her response that indicated she thought it was apparent that he was a threat to himself or others. Why did you make that leap? I said “since it’s apparent to her that he _could_ be a danger to himself or others”. She said this: > [@](#): > > As someone else pointed out upthread, what if Bob was actually Tom, a mentally ill person claiming to be Bob Dylan?According to some of the posters, the police should have just said, “Thank you for identifying yourself Mr. Dylan. Have a nice day.” And left. And what if some harm came to Tom and it came out later that the police had talked to him but let him go because he claimed he was Bob Dylan? ``` Since she and others believe the police would be to blame if they let him go without producing ID and he produced harm to himself or others, I'm curious if they would have been okay with the police not forcing him to get in the car and produce ID at another location or detaining him at the station. Especially since some of the people saying he could have just walked away also think he could have been a danger because he said his name was Bob Dylan when asked (and it was "abnormal" to be in the rain, he was dressed "shabbily", etc.).. ``` > [@](#): > > If a cop determines that someone is a danger to himself or others, would you object to that person being taken into custody? Of course not. Why are you asking me this? > [@Tom\_Tildrum](#): > > Fantome, do you think an senior citizen with Alzheimer’s who wanders away from care should be permitted/required to keep wandering until he finds his own way home? Or can the police help him? Unless I feel there’s a good reason for me to keep expressing my views on this matter, I think I’m done here. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2009, 1:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bob-dylan-seized/506617/84 "2009-08-18T13:16:56Z")
> [@Henrichek](#): > > Is it really a requirement to be able to identify yourself? Yes. You don’t have to produce documentation, but you do have to give your name. The rest of the stuff **Fantome** is spouting is merely wrong. > [@Shodan](#): > > If I decline and the police compel me to accept the ride, then I am under arrest. I still do not have to answer any questions. > [@Fantome](#): > > Yes, you do. [No I don’t.](http://www.mirandarights.org/righttoremainsilent.html) It is often better to acquire even a cursory understanding of a topic before expressing an opinion about it. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![IAmNotSpartacus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/cc9497/32.png) [@IAmNotSpartacus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IAmNotSpartacus)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2009, 2:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bob-dylan-seized/506617/85 "2009-08-18T14:52:36Z")
I think the confusion came from **Fantome** espousing his/her own opinions as factual. ---
**Author:** ![Fantome](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e9c0ed/32.png) [@Fantome](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fantome)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2009, 3:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bob-dylan-seized/506617/86 "2009-08-18T15:18:58Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > No I don’t. > > It is often better to acquire even a cursory understanding of a topic before expressing an opinion about it. Yes, you do. You said: > [@](#): > > and have an absolute right to refuse to answer any questions the poilce may wish to pose, for any reason or no reason. As you already admitted to, this is incorrect. You must give your name and address. > [@](#): > > The rest of the stuff **Fantome** is spouting is merely wrong. Really? Then why don’t you rebut me on this?: > [@Shodan](#): > > And the police may not take any steps to compel me to answer. > [@Fantome](#): > > Yes, they may. Interrogations and use of scare tactics including lying to you about what will happen to you if you don’t comply are completely within their rights. You think you were right and I wasn’t? You’re wrong. Want me to produce evidence or would you like to start by producing a reputable cite that police officers can’t compel you to answer questions? ---
**Author:** ![Telemark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/telemark/32/372_2.png) [@Telemark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Telemark)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2009, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bob-dylan-seized/506617/87 "2009-08-18T16:27:31Z")
> [@](#): > > And the police may not take any steps to compel me to answer. > [@](#): > > Yes, they may. Interrogations and use of scare tactics including lying to you about what will happen to you if you don’t comply are completely within their rights. All you have to do is lawyer up. Nothing they say can compel you to answer questions. Scare tactics don’t compel you to do anything. No matter how you spin this, the police can’t compel you to answer their questions. And some laws do require you to identify yourself. Beyond that, you’re not required to say anything. True, this means you have to answer _one_ question, but it’s the exception that proves the rule. There’s an explicit exception that you have to answer, all others questions you don’t. So you have one a minor debating point but the main issue remains; you don’t have to answer the police questions unless you want to. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2009, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bob-dylan-seized/506617/88 "2009-08-18T16:45:38Z")
Seems to me that everyone is missing the fact that this story is pretty damn funny. 😃 I mean, if Bob hadn’t told the truth and identified himself as “Bob Dylan, famous celebrity” the cops would probably have concluded that there was nothing amiss. It is the _disconnect_ between ‘old dude wandering in the rain’ and the claim he’s really Bob Dylan that raised the cop’s suspicions that he was either nuts or up to no good. Old Bob’s a clever guy, I’m pretty sure he understood exactly what was going on and got a chuckle out of being stopped by the cops for claiming to be himself. 🆒 ---
**Author:** ![Fantome](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e9c0ed/32.png) [@Fantome](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fantome)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2009, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bob-dylan-seized/506617/89 "2009-08-18T17:27:46Z")
> [@Telemark](#): > > All you have to do is lawyer up. Nothing they say can compel you to answer questions. Scare tactics don’t compel you to do anything. No matter how you spin this, the police can’t compel you to answer their questions. You’re the one that’s spinning this, not me. As you quoted, Shodan said “And the police may not take any steps to compel me to answer.” Yes, they may take those steps. They do it all the time and it’s perfectly legal. He was wrong and you’re trying to spin what it is he said and why I said he was incorrect. Telling me that scare tactics don’t compel me (how do you know?) is not a point Shodan nor I made. Or was that a collective “you” and you’re saying scare tactics don’t compel anyone to do anything? That’s also wrong. You accused me of spinning and then spun what that debate point was about. Nice. > [@](#): > > So you have one a minor debating point but the main issue remains; you don’t have to answer the police questions unless you want to. Shodan said, _“It’s relevant because I (and Mr. Dylan) are citizens of the United States, and have an absolute right to refuse to answer any questions the poilce may wish to pose, for any reason or no reason.”_ This is wrong. You can downplay it all you like by calling my rebuttal “a minor debating point” if you like, but it’s the point i wanted to make- and I’m right. Not answering “any questions the poilce may wish to pose, for any reason or no reason” can get you in trouble as remaining silent for all questions is not a right we have (not sure if this is true in all states). Feel free to spin anything else I said all you like. I’m done here. ---
**Author:** ![Telemark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/telemark/32/372_2.png) [@Telemark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Telemark)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2009, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bob-dylan-seized/506617/90 "2009-08-18T17:45:22Z")
You’re changing the meaning of compel. They can ask, they can pressure, but they cannot compel. I understand your point but I disagree. I think we’ll have to agree to disagree on this one. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2009, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bob-dylan-seized/506617/91 "2009-08-18T19:49:22Z")
> [@](#): > > I’ve skimmed this story and read many of the posts in this thread. Can someone sum up for me whether he was trespassing or in violation of some law, and if not, why the police feel any need (or right) to detain someone who is not breaking any laws? > > If it was merely for being “suspicious”-looking, that seems to grant the police wide and vaguely-defined powers to arrest people they don’t like; how can that stand up in American courts? I can’t see if anyone’s answered this but Dylan had walked on to somebody’s lawn, which is trespassing. It was the owner of that house who called the police and told them there was a strange looking man on her property. ---
**Author:** ![Telemark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/telemark/32/372_2.png) [@Telemark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Telemark)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2009, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bob-dylan-seized/506617/92 "2009-08-18T20:01:44Z")
> [@Sailboat](#): > > If it was merely for being “suspicious”-looking, that seems to grant the police wide and vaguely-defined powers to arrest people they don’t like; how can that stand up in American courts? No one was arrested in this case, and no one can be arrested for simply looking suspicious. The police don’t have powers to arrest people without cause. They do have the right to talk to people and investigate, which is what happened here. ---
**Author:** ![glowacks](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/glowacks/32/5548_2.png) [@glowacks](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/glowacks)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2009, 2:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bob-dylan-seized/506617/93 "2009-08-19T02:21:50Z")
As was noted above, the fact that Dylan identified himself correctly was what made the situation even stranger. If he had given a name and purpose that was at all reasonable he’d have probably been let go. The response he gave changed the officer’s impression from “criminal” to “mental illness case” and attempted to get the man somewhere he could be treated. No mention was made of what would have happened if he hadn’t taken the ride immediately - but I’m guessing it would have been more questions from the officer designed to get him to display even more signs of delusion. The fact is that if someone is out in the rain without identification and claims to be a music star, it is an extreme longshot that he is who he says he is - even if that artist is in town! - because of the comparatively extreme likelihood of such a situation. However, I don’t think that’s what some people are discussing; they are concerned with the fact that Dylan was even stopped and questioned for doing things that might be moderately suspicious. It is certainly reasonable to believe that someone should be blatantly attempting or preparing for a crime before the police begin to intervene. However, it seems to me that it is perfectly reasonable for a police officer to confront anyone acting out of the ordinary if they have been called for the express purpose of confronting that person! Perhaps the police department shouldn’t have dispatched a car based on the report of someone suspiciously looking at homes, and perhaps that’s where the problem lies. But as long as there isn’t a history of someone calling the police over minor issues, a dispatcher is going to take such a report somewhat seriously. Or perhaps we should not let people call the police to report suspicious activity, because they’ll possibly report some innocent activity. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2009, 2:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bob-dylan-seized/506617/94 "2009-08-19T02:38:55Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > This isn’t a cop [tasering a “soccer Mom”](http://news10now.com/content/top_stories/479824/soccer-mom-tasered/?RegionCookie=1013) after having apparently lied to her about having seen her with a cell phone and having clocked her going 5 mph over the speed limit, or even like in the Gates case where the officer’s version of events conflicts with both the arrested individual’s version and other witnesses versions, including the person who called in the “suspicious event”. This officer was polite, made requests, and Dylan willingly complied. On the scale of offense this is a non-event. Agree. ---
**Author:** ![ivan\_astikov](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/58f4c7/32.png) [@ivan\_astikov](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ivan_astikov)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2009, 1:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bob-dylan-seized/506617/95 "2009-08-21T13:46:13Z")
> [@IAmNotSpartacus](#): > > The fuck? Are you suggesting his rights were in some way violated? Exactly which of his rights were violated, and how? His right to get soaked to the bone in a downpour without having to explain himself and provide ID. Did the officer check to see if Bob was carrying any suspicious objects, like a jemmy or lock-picking device? Say he’d said he was Joe Blow and had no id? Would he have been driven home to allow him to verify who he was? No! Bob was only driven to his tour bus so the officer/s could cover their ass! ---
**Author:** ![ivan\_astikov](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/58f4c7/32.png) [@ivan\_astikov](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ivan_astikov)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2009, 1:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bob-dylan-seized/506617/96 "2009-08-21T13:57:23Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > I can’t see if anyone’s answered this but Dylan had walked on to somebody’s lawn, which is trespassing. So, if a house has a “For Sale” sign on it, and you decide to give it a quick check out before contacting the estate agent, you are trespassing? Are you sure about that? ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2009, 2:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bob-dylan-seized/506617/97 "2009-08-21T14:03:37Z")
> [@ivan\_astikov](#): > > So, if a house has a “For Sale” sign on it, and you decide to give it a quick check out before contacting the estate agent, you are trespassing? Are you sure about that? I suspect that you are, though most people wouldn’t care if it was obvious you were just checking the place out as a potential buyer. If people thought you were casing the place to steal the furniture, on the other hand … ---
**Author:** ![ivan\_astikov](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/58f4c7/32.png) [@ivan\_astikov](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ivan_astikov)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2009, 2:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bob-dylan-seized/506617/98 "2009-08-21T14:45:29Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > I suspect that you are, though most people wouldn’t care if it was obvious you were just checking the place out as a potential buyer. If people thought you were casing the place to steal the furniture, on the other hand … Possible… but if the people in your neighbourhood are the type that thinks a person stood on someones lawn - in broad daylight - in the pouring rain, is somehow threatening, I doubt a removal truck would be missed, and strangers loading someone’s furniture on it. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2009, 2:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bob-dylan-seized/506617/99 "2009-08-21T14:49:16Z")
> [@ivan\_astikov](#): > > Possible… but if the people in your neighbourhood are the type that thinks a person stood on someones lawn in the pouring rain is somehow threatening, I doubt a removal truck would be missed, and strangers loading someone’s furniture on it. To be perfectly honest, I’d find it very wierd and creepy if someone was standing on my lawn (or a neighbours) in the pouring rain without any visibly obvious reason. I would not call the cops, but I’d definitely keep an eye on him, or ask him what he’s up to. ---
**Author:** ![ivan\_astikov](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/58f4c7/32.png) [@ivan\_astikov](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ivan_astikov)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2009, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bob-dylan-seized/506617/100 "2009-08-21T15:17:40Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > To be perfectly honest, I’d find it very wierd and creepy if someone was standing on my lawn (or a neighbours) in the pouring rain without any visibly obvious reason. I would not call the cops, but I’d definitely keep an eye on him, or ask him what he’s up to. Same here, but I certainly wouldn’t think of calling the cops without doing that, or if he _looked_ quite menacing, I’d keep an eye on them and see if they did anything to warrant calling the cops. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bob-dylan-seized/506617.md?page=4)