This is what you quoted him on:
He was not saying being in the rain and not giving ID was not suspicious. He was clearly talking about posters in this thread that claim he chose to respond and could have walked away had he chose to. That’s why I said that him not bringing up being a rock star and looking at houses was not leaving out pertinent information. It has nothing to do with Snowboarder Bo having a hard time believing Dylan could have just walked away.
Feelings don’t enter into it. Dylan was free to leave at any time, and did not have to answer any questions beyond giving identifying information. He was not obligated to get into the car, and he was not obligated to answer further questions. He had the right to refuse to do either.
I suppose it has to do with whether or not you are afraid of the police. I am not. You may be. That’s too bad, because the police are neither your inferiors nor your bosses. You are equals. ISTM that an attitude neither domineering nor defensive works out better in most cases.
YMMV.
Regards,
Shodan
Given what police typically see, I suspect that a scruffy old man wandering through yards in the rain ang giving seemingly delusional answers is going to seem to them like a schizophrenic or Alzheimer’s patient who’s off his meds and lost. Remember too that Dylan’s voice is nearly incomprehensible under the best of circumstances.
I’m not a police officer, but it wouldn’t surprise me if standard procedure called for a bit more inquiry to try to determine if the person was a danger to himself.
Is this true? I was pretty sure (in California, at least) you could be ticketed for being in public without ID.
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?
The police asked him to get in the car to go to another location to produce ID. Whether or not you believe Mr. Dylan should have known his rights is irrelevant. He should not have been asked to be removed from his present location and produce proof that he is who he says he is.
Good for you…and irrelevant.
In what way are we equal to police that’s relevant to the thread? We are not equal in what we can request from people and what orders the public must comply with, so how is your statement that we’re equal relevant?
Is this an opinion or a statement?
I’m with IANS here, police can use their power of persuasion, but they can’t force someone to get into their car without consequences. Dylan, and anyone in this situation can refuse to get in the car, and unless things progress further the cops pretty much have to leave it at that. You may feel pressured to get in the car, but you are not being forced. The fact that people may not know the difference isn’t directly the responsibility of the police.
Basically, they asked, he agreed, end of story. There’s nothing wrong with the police asking as long as it is voluntary. And there’s nothing here that indicates it was anything other than voluntary.
I will try to sum it up for you.
Most of the people that say this was wrong keep saying the police don’t have the right to stop people for walking in the rain. They are correct. It just has nothing to do with this discussion. The police were responding to a call about a suspicious individual in the neighborhood. They were obligated to question the individual. After questioning the individual (we’ll call him Bob), it was determined that nothing illegal was going on. However, the sum of the circumstances (walking in the rain to go house hunting (unusual, not illegal), claiming to be a famous rock star (doesn’t look the part), but can’t prove it, etc.) was enough that a reasonable police officer would want to investigate a little more. So, without arresting him, or detaining or seizing or kidnapping him, and with his cooperation, Bob was taken to another location where his story could be verified. What is wrong with any of that?
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. Imagine the ridicule that would have been showered on them.
So, I guess I have a question to the posters that think this was an outrageous abuse of individual rights - how should the police have confirmed the identity of this individual?
First of all, "OK Bob, why don’t you get in the car and we’ll drive to the hotel and go verify this?’ " does not sound like an invitation, but being told by a police officer to get in the car and produce some ID.
Second, there is something wrong with police officers asking people to get in their cruiser and go to a place where they can produce identification for reasons already discussed.
They weren’t obligated and they weren’t obligated to continue questioning him after he replied he was looking at houses and take him to produce ID.
Again, he shouldn’t have been asked what his name was and he didn’t claim to be a famous rock star. He was asked his name and he gave it.
He didn’t have a story that needed to be verified as there was no reason to suspect criminal activity based on it. Also, proving you are who you say you are does not mean your story has been verified.
No one claimed an outrageous abuse of anything. Are you saying had Mr. Dylan refused the ride to produce ID he should have been forced to do so to prove he wasn’t a mentally ill man?
If you are alleging that the police should never ask anyone any questions, then you are merely mistaken. You are confusing what is legally necessary to justify an arrest with what is legally necessary to ask a question. The police can ask you questions. You can refuse to answer them (apart from giving them your name and other identifying information.) And if you don’t want to talk to them, you can just walk away.
Whether or not you believe this is not important. If the police come up to you and say, “Who are you?” you respond “My name is Shodan”. If he asks “what are you doing?” you ignore it. If he says “how about if you get in the car?” you say “No” and keep walking. If he puts his hand on your arm, you say “go away, I am not answering any questions”.
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. And the police may not compel us to answer. If the police offer me a ride, I can decline without consequence.
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. And the police may not take any steps to compel me to answer.
That’s how it works.
Nonetheless, this is what it is - an invitation, and may be refused.
No, there is nothing wrong with asking. Just as there is nothing wrong with refusing.
Regards,
Shodan
I have heard of Long Branch due mostly to the “Haunted Castle” ads that used to air on television. Apparently the castle has closed. The spook is probably looking for a new place.
No more cabs home in the rain for me. I’ll just drop a dime on myself and start looking at houses.
Oh brother. :rolleyes:
I strongly recommend anyone reading the above recommendation on how to deal with police officers not follow them. You’re likely to be manhandled, handcuffed and brought to the police station and possibly charged with resisting arrest. Yes, even if you weren’t being arrested, you can be charged with resisting arrest when behaving the way Shodan recommends.
This contradicts what you wrote in the same post:
So what are you talking about? How are we equal to the police in any way relevant to this thread? You realize in most locales we can’t carry an unconcealed handgun, right? We can’t pull people cops over and request licence, registration and insurance, right? We can’t refuse to not put our hands behind our backs when the police tell us to, right? You realize I can go on and on with examples of how we’re not equal, right? How are we equal and how is it relevant? Having the right to refuse certain requests in no way makes us equal.
Yes, you do.
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.
“Would you like a ride back to your hotel” is an invitation. I don’t take your word that an invitation was given and I don’t believe most reasonable people not wanting to get in trouble for not cooperating with the police would believe it was an invitation.
Without legal consequence. That doesn’t mean the officer is not taking advantage of the unspoken threat that something will happen if you don’t do as he says. Otherwise he’d keep his hands to himself.
Or at least how it is supposed to work. And did work this time. If Mr. Dylan was unclear if he was being asked or ordered to come in the car he could have asked. Such as - is that a request or an order? - am I under arrest? He, OTOH, may have appreciated having bummed a ride back to the hotel.
Just out of curiosity though, what if he did say “No, I’d rather not.” and began walking away and … the officer Tasered him. How many posters across the blogosphere would be claiming that he had it coming for refusing a police directive?
Again, for your compare and contrast, is the case of the officer Tasering a soccer Mom in front of her kids after having stopped her, apparently mistakenly having thought she was on a cell phone while driving, and then claiming that she was going 5 mph over the speed limit after it was clear she had not been. Apparently she got of the car when he requested that she not do so and after she went back in he yanked her out and Tasered her.
In this Taser case we have the dash cam that pretty much damns the cop, but without it I have little doubt that an officer who did that Tasering and made up a speeding charge would also have claimed that she was making threatening gestures and was “disturbing the peace” and deserved to be arrested and Tasered for his and her safety. As it is many blame her for the crime of having been stupid enough to get out of her car and pointing out that the officer was mistaken. If Mr. Dylan had said “No, thank you” and an officer reacted like the traffic cop who stopped this woman, who knows what story of his threatening behavior we may have heard.
Nothing was done wrong here; this went as it should have gone. But other stories in the news, like the one I linked, like the Gates one (specifically the fact that the arresting officer fabricated information, according to all citizens who were involved, particularly the woman who called it in), makes me wonder … how often do cops just make shit up? Mr. Dylan would have been in his legal rights, Shodan, to have said “No.” and keep walking even if the officer placed his hand on his arm (up to the point he was given a clear order to stop and placed under arrest) and a good cop might know it and respect it. And maybe a majority of cops are good cops. But not all of them and they have all the power and the judge and jury and public even will generally believe their version of how what happened went down unless there is videotape evidence to contradict it.
May not legally and may do so anyway and get away with it almost anytime they do are different things.
Is it really a requirement to be able to identify yourself?
As mentioned, that’s exactly what it is, an invitation. You might feel some sense of threat but as stated it’s merely be assertive. The cop has the right to ask, you can stand by your rights and refuse. The cops don’t have a lot of recourse after that, assuming they are following the law. Yes, there are bad cops, but these didn’t do anything wrong in this situation.
There was no force. He was asked, he agreed. If someone was doing something that allowed for an arrest or detention (trespassing, threatening) that’s a different situation. But it didn’t happen in this case and there’s no point harping on the hypothetical here.
I’m not harping on a hypothetical. I asked oboelady if he should have been forced. She claimed “that a reasonable police officer would want to investigate a little more” after what she believes were suspicious enough circumstances. I’m asking her if she believes they should have left him alone if he refused to get in the car since it’s apparent to her that he could be a danger to himself or others or if he should have been forced to go to another place with the police and produce ID.
Sorry, you’re right, I took that a little out of context.
I can’t speak for oboelady but there are ways to investigate someone that fall between forcing him into a car and driving away. 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?
If a cop determines that someone is a danger to himself or others, would you object to that person being taken into custody?
He’s under the impression that the police state is coming, or something along those lines. This entire thread is a bunch of crock. Bob Dylan’s rights were in no way violated. He pleasantly agreed to go on the ride with the cops. The cops were simply doing their job by responding to a call from a concerned resident who saw a stranger wandering around in their neighborhood, wearing sweat pants and a raincoat which probably concealed his face like a good criminal would. The cop didn’t recognize Bob Dylan and it’s not every day you get someone telling you they’re a famous person on tour with Willie Nelson. I mean, really? How often does that happen?
Give the cops a damn break. It’s hard out there on the streets and you never know what kind of people you’ll run into.