Well, that might be crossing a line, though I have nothing to hide. I DO know that they can’t just search my vehicle without probable cause (saw that on a TV show once, so must be true :p). However, asking me for ID is pretty low key as far as I’m concerned, since I get asked for it several times a week at least, and for equally dippy reasons (I mean, I’m handsome and all, but I don’t really LOOK like I’m under 21 anymore…or even under 31…or, hell, under 41…but I draw the line at 51. I DEFINITELY look under 51…ish…)
ETA: But…I’d be very, VERY polite in turning them down, and if they pushed things I’d go along with the search. And be calling my lawyer the next day…
Search the vehicle? “No.”
(Makes mental note to self…) You know, when the kids were little, I thought I’d have plenty of time to tell them all of the things I wanted to…
I’m pretty spineless, so I would probably do the same thing too. All the more reason why I think it’s great she refused to cave in. The existence of loud-mouth rabble rousers is what will keep us from succumbing to fascism.
I plan to advise my children to cooperate with the police at all times unless they know, without a doubt, that the police is violating their rights.
Where do you draw the line between being a “loud-mouth rabble rouser” and just being an unpleasant, entitled bitch? If an identical encounter had happened in a different state, in which minor differences in law had meant that the temporary detainment pending ID was legal, would that change the moral statue of the woman’s actions?
The difference is irrelevant in the circumstances we’re talking about. Unpleasant, entitled bitches have the same rights as everyone else. The cops don’t get to police our personalities, regardless of how unpleasant some of them are.
Are kidding me? His post was perfectly logical. Someone’s username had unfortunate implications, so he mentioned them, and suggested to the person that they might want to change it. It actually shows him taking something seriously something that technically isn’t against the rules. It’s a great post.
Sure, some people thought he was stupid, but just as many agreed with them. Does that somehow prove they are bad with reason, too?
You want to say crap about Bricker’s reasoning skills, you have perfect evidence right here. He’s affirming the consequent. Because Crystal Mangrum did turn out to be lying in the Duke Lacrosse rape case, that somehow proves that any argument that she was lying is correct. The argument that racial statistics of rape were relevant in the case in question was in fact false, even if it did happen to lead to the same conclusion as what really happen. The premise was faulty, even if it did lead to the right conclusion.
It’s like saying tomorrow is Wednesday because the sky is purple.
After listening to the audio & reading the transcripts, I think she is a spoiled, entitled biotch. That said, people like her keep the cops honest, so I applaud her obnoxiousness.
Do you live in Italy? Because I thought you lived in the US. If you live in the US, perhaps you should consider moving to Italy; I think you’d like their criminal justice system a lot.
I can only answer for myself. It’s because, absent the law, there is no real justice issue to be had here. Assuming everything that happened was legal, there would be no justice issue. The only reason there is a justice issue at all is because the cops did not perform a legal action.
And, even then, the justice issue has to do with motivation. Did the cops just not realize the law, and make a mistake? Or did they know the law, and arrest her just to harass her? The latter is definitely unjust. But I just don’t know if it applies here.
I guess we could all make arguments on whether being required to identify yourself is itself an unjust law, but no such law exists in California, so that isn’t an issue here. (Personally I would say it isn’t, as there are cases where it is useful, but that doesn’t mean it can’t be used unjustly by a cop trying to harass someone.)
What exactly is the point of asking everyone they come in contact with for ID? Is it just simply fishing for fugitives? I’ve asked this question before but never received an answer, it just seems odd to me that if they aren’t going to arrest someone what the point is.
OMFG ROFLMFAO this is easily the funniest thing I have ever read on the Straight Dope Message Board. I am Let’s go to the quarry and throw stuff down thereing so hard right now that it’s hard to type properly. It took me like 4 minutes to fix the typos I keeept making because of the constant fits of loud guffaws.
No, LA police cannot detain possible suspects of misdemeanor crimes no longer in progress. There is no such thing, AFAIK, as a “legitimate interview”. If the encounter was consensual, i.e. not investigatory in nature, Miss Watts was free to go. If the encounter was compelled, i.e. involuntary, then Miss Watts cannot be compelled to possibly incriminate herself and thus is not required, in the state of California, to even identify herself.
You’re sort of right on this one, but you should also note that the fact that California has no Stop And Identify Law means that Miss Watts did not have to stop and identify herself.