So asking for ID is morally equivalent to the Holocaust.
Noted.
It is clear that in his mind that there is no limit and all actions of anything called authority are justified.
Petit facho justement.
But if she had shown her ID, there wouldn’t have been a day in court. There wouldn’t have been any opportunity to address their behavior. How would that go? “They insisted on seeing my ID. I told them I didn’t want to, but showed them anyway to avoid the hassle”. Cops just say “We just asked. She showed us. Nothing improper”.
There is no polite, entirely non-confrontational way to expose this kind of behavior. Which doesn’t mean it’s wrong to play along to stay safe–I wouldn’t blame anyone who does. But the only way to expose an implied threat is to make them make that threat explicit.
So you now appear to agree that Hiibel applies in California.
Let’s return to the question of the stop being justified.
Do you agree that U.S. v. Grigg applies in California?
Again the distortions. Interesting your replying habits.
No, blind justifications of authoritiarian action is the kind of habit that leads to this.
So it is not the id asking that is equivalent, it is you personally that is equivalent of the quislings that sent millions to their deaths.
And it’s not just him, either! That’s the crazy thing.
God help us if there ever comes a time when all three branches of the U.S. government get overridden with people like Smapti et al. It won’t just be a dystopia. It’ll be deja vu all over again.
I agree. The cop gave you no choice in the matter and living is better than dying. But the cop’s actions were wrong. Where they not? And they’ll have proven to be wrong by the court? So ought not the police be prevented from committing wrongful acts before they decide to carry them out?
And so we go around in circles again.
You’re the only one going in circles, because you’re unable to admit that the detainment was unlawful. Bricker has helpfully shown the court cases that determine that such a detainment is not lawful.
Bolding mine.
What an interesting thing to say, my friend. If what she did was so universally unadvisable, the race of your daughter shouldn’t even be on your mind. Yet it is. Why is that?
Seems like if it were not for people exercising their rights like Watts did, people would not be properly educated about what our rights actually are. Even the board’s resident lawyer was ignorant. I shudder to think how many defendents were not properly represented because their counsel made the same error that Bricker did in interpreting the law, and now those folks are sitting behind bars because of it.
Damn right she did the right thing. She’s done her part to educate the masses, which is a lot more than you and the unCleverbot Smapti can say.
Except that such a detainment is lawful.
So it’s insisting that people should obey the law that’s morally equivalent to the Holocaust.
Noted.
No it’s not. There are circumstances during an investigation in which a cop can and cannot lawfully detain someone. Watts’ detainment fell into the unlawful category, due to the lack of reasonable suspicion for a felony, among other things.
The presence of reasonable suspicion for a felony, or lack thereof, ceased to be relevant when she refused to identify herself.
You can file complaints for minor unlawful cop behavior with local review boards or, if you’re really that determined, you can file a lawsuit. The ACLU pretty much exists for that type of stuff. My overall point is, if you’re in a threatening encounter, the immediate goal is to get out of it, not in deeper.
I agree with this 100%. To require someone to be polite when they are standing up against authority is to ignore the human element here. Unlike some in this thread, I could care less if her refusal to show ID was based on self-preservation as opposed to some advanced knowledge of the law. Self-preservation is why we have rights to begin with, and if she was confident the cops had no reason to suspect of her prostitution, then she was within her rights to call their bluff by not submitting to them.
These kind of checks and balances force cops to think twice before they insert themselves into the lives of ordinary citizens.
Wrong, as Bricker has noted and cited.
Some people seem hellbent on finding themselves a hill to die on.
Like yourself, in defending unlawful behavior by cops.
Dropping the word “unlawful” into every single post doesn’t make it so.