Yes, but where are the specific, articulable facts that would let the police believe that this was a second offense?
“Kidnapping”? Wow.
[QUOTE=ACLU of Northern California]
•DO give your name and the information on your drivers’ license. If you don’t, you may be arrested…
•DO show an ID…
•DON’T disrespect a police officer. Although you have a Constitutional First Amendment right to do so, it could lead to your arrest.
•DON’T refuse to give your name, you could be arrested.
•DON’T run away or physically resist a “pat-down” or search…
[/QUOTE]
Would you say that the ACLU are of the opinion that “you have no rights whatsoever”?
She got angry before the cops overstepped their authority. When they simply showed up on the scene to investigate a complaint of two people committing a lewd act, she was angrily accusing them of being racists, threatening them with her publicist and demanding that they talk to her daddy on the phone.
As a complete aside, nothing to do with the cops or any subsequent actions by anyone… but how freaky to you have to be getting it on to have people in an office building, in a big fucking city saying “man, we need to call the cops”?
That she refused to identify herself when asked.
Another fail at trying to convince yourself that you’re not actually defending the party that acted contrary to law here.
Just accept it. You’re defending the lawbreakers. And this is because deference to authority is more important to you than deference to the law.
I can see that smapti deserves his reputation as a petit facho. It is very literally this type of person that allowed the jews to go to their deaths, the stasis and the nkvd to have their terror.
That’s not true in the least. An arrest needs only probable cause; a conviction needs proof beyond a reasonable doubt of each and every element of the offense.
That’s not specific and the courts would not consider this valid as reasonable suspicion.
In his pit thread he freely admits this.
I’ve yet to hear a serious answer to what law they allegedly broke. Although it would be great fun to see Miss Watts show up at the courthouse and demand to sue the police department for kidnapping her.
It specifically indicates that the suspect has something to hide, such as a previous arrest that would make the alleged crime a felony.
Because clearly, the Jews would have been just fine if only they had refused to show ID.
DO get down on your knees and start slobbing if a police officer asks for a blowie.
This is patently fucking false. You’re simply lying now.
And I thought the person who constantly compared handshakes to rape was off-kilter.
Well then, do feel free to define the specific statute under which a police officer can be arrested for asking someone their name.
No it doesn’t. This is an inaccurate statement with regards to the law.
What legitimate reason does a law-abiding person have to hide their identity from a police officer investigating a crime? None.
The 4th Amendment to the Constitution. This is a serious answer.