The officer will reply that your failure to provide them with ID itself represents a reasonable articulable suspicion of wrongdoing because an innocent, law-abiding citizen would have no issue with doing so. See section-22.
Please stop making my head hurt.
I’m sure they’ll say that, but I’m also almost certain that the courts have explicitly held that to be a load of bullshit.
I don’t disagree; cops should be required to tell you why you’re being detained. I also think it should not be required to provide name/address/DoB when detained, which is the law in Ohio, unfortunately. I was simply being factual in my post.
Sure, if I, a white middle class guy, walk in there with my lawyer, the court’s gonna throw it out.
Not everyone is as privileged, the Shirley Exception doesn’t cover as much as you surely think it should.
Of course, in this era of rampant identity theft, is it even safe to tell the police your name? What if you are unaware that someone has stolen your identity and is using it to engage in illegal activity that you have no knowledge of?
Maybe a good reason to withhold your name unless legally compelled. But if the officer has legal authority to compel you to ID yourself (because he has RAS), you don’t really have a choice.
As an Ohioan, I have to provide name/address/DoB if asked, and if legally detained. But as I mentioned above, I won’t do it if I am very confident the cop doesn’t have RAS. As an example, let’s say I am standing on a public sidewalk and peacefully filming a police station. A cop comes out and asks why I am filming. I don’t answer and instead ask him, “Am I being detained?” He says, “Yes, because I want to know what you’re doing.” In this situation, I am extremely confident the detainment is illegal, and hence I will not provide my name/address/DoB.
Cops regularly detain people when they don’t have RAS. It is illegal for them to do so, yet they are never arrested or indicted for it. This is something that needs to change.
There are a number of videos on the AuditTheAudit channel (on YouTube) in which “first amendment auditors” do exactly as you describe. In cases where the police overstep their authority and violate rights, these auditors make it a point to pursue a lawsuit against the police department, often obtaining a substantial settlement. Sucks for the city’s budget, but if it makes them hammer on their cops to pay more attention the civil rights of the people they interact with, then it’s a good thing.
And also goes to say that if you don’t have video, you don’t have rights.
Taze and shoot, taze and shoot. It’s all these guys know. A guy on two stumps…they couldn’t find another way to subdue him? They had to shoot him 8 times??
Hell, I think I could have subdued him with a push broom.
If I cost my employer $300,000 by not following proper procedure (and the law), I would be looking for alternative employment pronto. I bet this guy is still working in law enforcement.
My day just went significantly more south after that story.
“I was in fear for my life because I thought he would poke me with his stumps.”
Cry Minnie that was – something. We should get our cities to hire some officers from the keystone academy, in order to get some competence on our streets.
From that story:
“The officers have been placed on leave for a few days and will undergo psychiatric evaluations.”
I’ve never heard of a psychiatric evaluation of the cops after they shoot someone. Maybe this one was really really hard on them.
According to TV shows, it happens all the time. Don’t you remember scenes of the hero talking to a shrink who needs to “clear him for duty”?
Oh yes, I suppose you’re correct. I think the word “evaluation” threw me.
I saw that this morning. It’ll be interesting to see how it turns out. We have two contradicting stories and a yet to be released body cam video.
So far as I know, the family hasn’t disputed what led up to that moment. Joe and his dad were cleaning out a deceased family member’s apartment at 2 in the morning when neighbors called the police thinking it was burglars. The cops get there and Joe flees, ignoring their commands, and attempts to drive away when he’s shot.
The cops say he “almost struck an officer”, Dad says “that [vehicle] was not pointed at them”. Who’s right?
Will the body cams show him deliberately trying to hit them? Driving in the opposite direction? Something in between?
For the sake of not having to spend the next 6 months listening to everyone debate it if it’s something in between, I hope it’s one extreme or the other.
Having said that, I’m assuming that it was entirely fine for them to be there and that Joe had, or assumed he had, a warrant out and would rather take his chances running rather than interacting with the police. But that gets into much bigger issues outside the scope of this thread.
Driving through grass slowly enough for an officer to get in front of him?
After he was shot, he ran into a wall with the engine revving. Shooting him didn’t stop the van, so it couldn’t have been necessary to stop the van from hitting someone.
I’m curious as to why he ran, too. Maybe he had a warrant and panicked, or maybe the cops came in aggressively and violently, and he panicked because of that. I don’t think that either justifies the shooting, but the latter makes the cops the instigators.
I’d be up for a dedicated thread, but it may be better to wait for some more details so that there is actually anything to talk about other than speculation. This is somewhat local to me, so I have a bit of added interest.