Did Rosa Parks act like this fool when she was arrested?
The reality is that the police didn’t give a shit about her race. They were following up on a complaint, it’s completely in her imagination that the police showed up because a black woman was kissing a white man. I can practically hear the cop facepalming when she’s starts her rant about race and freedom.
Yes, but in this case, she DID have id and refused to produce it.
If only the people reading your posts were illiterate and couldn’t see what I wrote. (When dealing with you I do sometimes envy people who can’t read.)
He had suspicion that prostitution was taking place. Many prostitutes are repeat offenders. Therefore he has reasonable suspicion to believe a felony had occurred.
Yes. Also it’s not a crime to have ID and fail to produce it.
In honesty, my issue was less about getting credit. Bricker has certainly handled this with very good grace, but the fact was that he was fundamentally wrong in this particular matter.
Clearly, if only Rosa Parks had refused to tell the cops her name, integration would have happened much faster and Martin Luther King would have been our first seven-term president.
But STILL suspicious. Now, if I’m a cop and I get a complaint of a lewd act and I find two suspects that match a description, I might think she’s refusing to show her id because she doesn’t want to be cited. I might also think she’s refusing to sher her id because she knows she’s wanted for something.
In fact, they did not. This is what I am complaining about.
No, my point was that some people have a very low bar for behavior that they would engage in when requested to do so by police.
Is it also suspicious when people exercise their right to own guns?
Would it surprise you to learn that courts have addressed this argument already?
The fact that “many” prostitutes are repeat offenders does not legally create reasonable suspicion to conclude that the woman in front of him is, because it assumes the truth of what he’s trying to prove. He cannot assume she’s a prostitute and then reason that many prostitutes are repeat offenders – because he has no reasonable suspicion for prostitution in the first place.
No. Limited in that when the matter is a misdemeanor offense, and it has been completed prior to the involvement of the police, they are limited in their ability to detain a person and ask his or her identity (NB: not even reaching the point of demanding written ID, simply asking someone who they are).
Some circuit courts have ruled that there is a hard line between felony and misdemeanor on this point. Others have ruled that if the misdemeanor involved would present an ongoing threat to public safety, the police may conduct a Terry stop.
This was at best a completed misdemeanor that would not represent a threat to public safety.
Be careful, Bricker. I think some of these guys might be legal experts.
I bet you would.
But I’m speaking of what you have the power to do as a police officer. You certainly have every right to think these things. What you cannot do without reasonable suspicion of a felony is seize her to find out if you’re right in your thoughts.
It had been reported to him that a scantily-dressed woman was engaged in a sex act with a man of a different ethnicity in a public place. That’s reasonable suspicion for prostitution.
Which is still a fucking misdemeanor. Literally (depending on the act involved).
Yes, I was. No sugar-coating it. I was wrong.
What an own goal - and so late in the game!
Unless one of the people involved had a prior offense, then it’s a fucking felony.
Can I ask you how many cops or citizens would you expect to be cognizant of the fine legal points of circuit court rulings?
If I’m a cop, and someone refuses to show their id for a MISDEMEANOR, I might think they’re someone wanted for something more serious.