Controversial encounters between law-enforcement and civilians - the omnibus thread #2

These Buffalo cops have avoided an indictment, thanks to a grand jury.

Not just cops…white cops.

Soooooooo many bad apples:

More proof that cops can be far worse than the criminals they are ‘protecting’ us from.

Also, anybody catch “The Trials Of Gabriel Fernandez” on Netflix? Where L.A. County Sheriff’s deputies were called to residence multiple times and never actually bothered to check on the child. One deputy told the boyfriend that he would come back and ‘scare’ the child into not making false complaints.

And when the child died and his horrific abuse that lasted 8 months and was very noticeable to everyone who laid eyes on him, the L.A. Sheriff’s office stonewalled the DA’s investigation to hide that fact that they had received numerous 911 calls and showed up to the apartment as much as 12 hours later on each call and never bothered to look at the child. They took the boyfriend’s and the mom’s word about the condition of the child.

Boyfriend was given death sentence for murder with special circumstance of torture. Mother pled out and just got life in prison.

4 workers at Child Protective Services were arrested and charged with dereliction and falsifying documents, but charges were eventually dropped.

But no one at the Sheriff’s Office was even reprimanded.

You can’t even walk home while Black:

"PLANO, Texas (AP) — A misdemeanor charge has been dropped against a Black man who was arrested last week for walking home on a street during a snowstorm in Texas.

Rodney Reese, 18, was arrested Feb. 16 in Plano and charged with being a pedestrian in the roadway, news outlets reported.

Police said officers received a call about a Black man seen stumbling along in the middle of the snowy street wearing a short-sleeved shirt and were sent to perform a wellness check."

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/charge-dropped-against-black-man-walking-on-icy-texas-street/ar-BB1dTMfT?ocid=BingNews

Lest we forget, it happens so much that the Supreme Court had to chime in:

Edward Lawson was a law-abiding black man with suitable knowledge of the U.S. Constitution. Lawson was frequently subjected to police questioning and harassment in San Diego County, California, where he lived when as a pedestrian he walked in so-called “white neighborhoods.” He was detained or arrested approximately 15 times by the San Diego Police within 18 months, was prosecuted twice, and was convicted once (the second charge was dismissed).

Conclusion:
Using the construction of the California appellate court in Solomon, the Court held that the law was unconstitutionally vague because it gave excessive discretion to the police (in the absence of probable cause to arrest) whether to stop and interrogate a suspect or leave him alone.[3] The Court hinted that the California statute compromised the constitutional right to freedom of movement

Because of this, police are allowed to ask your name but you are under no obligation to provide proof, as in ID, unless you’re under arrest. And not providing ID is not pc for arrest.

What about Hiibel v. Sixth?

It seems to say that you have to provide a name on a Terry stop, which is less than an arrest. Not saying I agree with it, or even that I understand it correctly, just that’s what I heard from an internet lawyer.

From that article…

if the statute first requires reasonable suspicion of criminal involvement, and does not violate the Fifth Amendment if there is no allegation that their names could have caused an incrimination.

They can’t just ask for ID. In a Terry stop there has to be reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. Walking in a neighborhood is not reasonable suspicion.
And I would argue that Hiibel does not require proof just that the suspect is required to answer “truthfully” when asked their name.

Btw, the police can and will ask for ID, you are just not obligated to provide it unless under arrest.

Correct: AFAIK in Nevada, you must tell the police who you are. You aren’t under any obligation to provide your full legal name or any ID but you must answer truthfully. If they find out later that you lied, you could be charged for it.

What if you just kept your mouth shut? They can ask you questions until their faces match the color of their uniforms, but if you say nothing, what can they do?

Abuse their authority and get away with it?

In the US, if you are being arrested you have to affirmatively say something along the lines of “I will not answer questions” or “I invoke my right to remain silent” if you want to not answer questions. Otherwise you can be charged with obstruction of justice or something.

In Nevada, you must identify yourself to law enforcement during a valid Terry stop. That’s what the Hiibel case was all about, was our so-called “stop and identify” law:

Oh no; what a surprise:

San Francisco:

Or something.

If you don’t explicitly invoke your right to silence, police can continue to question you, and if you then (even after a matter of hours) decide to answer, they can use your statement against you in court. Also, under some circumstances, a prosecutor can use mere silence to suggest that you’ve been dishonest, but they can’t do that if you explicitly invoke your right to silence, or your right against self-incrimination.

I can do pretty good gibberish. I wonder how the police would cope with that.

I can do pretty good gibberish. I wonder how the police would cope with that./<

Use it against you. Duh.
(they’ve been known to make shit up and lie)

Wow; they couldn’t foresee that he might not be honest with them? That he might do something terrible? Seriously? This was not foreseeable?

A guy charged with human trafficking and sexual assault (on underage girls, no less) was somehow deemed “trustworthy and not a threat”? WTF? :unamused:

What if he had been black? :face_with_raised_eyebrow:

He would never have got the job.