It’s like some kind of weird fetish compels him to argue for expansive police powers. Repeatedly. Erroneously - I mean, in clearly demonstratively incorrect fashion. Across multiple threads over weeks and weeks.
It’s really, really fascinating.
Which “detainment” do you think you’re even talking about?
The cops are allowed to investigate; but they are not allowed to detain in these circumstances. They acted unlawfully.
You’re the one talking about fetishes and blowjobs every couple posts, not me.
The detainment of Watts.
Which circumstances do you even think you’re talking about?
The law is clear; if they have the right to investigate, they have the right to demand identification and to detain in order to determine identity.
It’s become more clear that Smapti is not really about obeying the law – obeying the law is clearly secondary to obeying authority, according to Smapti.
In this case, the cops clearly acted unlawfully, and yet he still persists in defending them.
Please cite the law that gives them this authority.
Everyone is arguing fine legal points. All of those could’ve been determined IN COURT. The main issue is Watts doing the absolute wrong thing by giving the cops a hard time. As soon as the bf showed them her id, the whole incident was over. Had he not, the cop likely would’ve called for backup and arrested her. Upon which if she had resisted further or even if some hothead cop simply PERCEIVED she resisted further, she gets hurt.
It is wholly irresponsible for anyone to argue she did the right thing. I wouldn’t advise my black daughter to do what she did. I doubt anyone here defending her would either.
You speak of the two as if they were not the same.
Cite?
This is factually incorrect. Cops do not have the right to detain anyone who refuses to offer identification in the course of an investigation. They only have the right to detain someone if they are witnessed by the cops in the act of committing a misdemeanor or felony, or if they have reasonable suspicion that they have committed a felony. Reasonable suspicion that the suspect committed a misdemeanor in the past is not enough to allow a lawful detainment. In this case the officers only had reasonable suspicion of a misdemeanor, but no reasonable suspicion of a felony.
They are different. In some situations, the authorities act contrary to law. This is one of those circumstances. The courts have laid out under what circumstances someone can be detained, and the circumstances of Watts’ detainment do not qualify, so they acted unlawfully.
Cite?
No. The Supreme Court construed the Fourth Amendment in Hiibel, and that portion of the decision does not rest on a stop-and-identify law.
The Hiibel decision has been quoted with approval many times by California courts. For example, People v. Richard, (Cal App 2009):
Answer: Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial Dist. ; People v Richard; as quoted above.
Now this guy is clearly just trolling.
Of course, the stop was justified at its inception, so none of this matters anyway.
The ONLY alternative to taking your grievances to court is a violent altercation. A cop is not likely to back down from your legal arguments. In this case, the cop only backed down when his request was complied with. So to answer your question, would I be ok with the cavity search? No. Am I willing to kill or die in resistance of it? Also, no.
No, the stop was not justified. You fail again.
You have an interesting habit of responding with exagerations. But in fact if one knows the history of how the identification records and papers were used in the round ups of Jews in the France and the other occupied territories - and the horrible role played by persons like yourself in attitude, who just obeyed the authorities and produced the paperwork, then yes. It is for this reason to this day in the France there is such great sensitivities about collecting the personal data of this nature.
It is the same history with the other totalitarian systems, like the stasi and the nkvd. It is indeed people like you in attitude that sent millions to their deaths.
I get what you’re saying… but it puts all power and authority in police hands. An average person walking down the street minding his/her own business must therefore submit to any line of inquiry a police officer decides to single him/her out for without just cause.
This seems to encourage hothead cop behaviour rather than discourage it.