By that logic, intruders could come into your home and as long as they don’t do anything, you have nothing to make a fuss about. Don’t call the cops and complain because what harm is their presence causing you, huh?
Strangers can also hound you on the street for money or blow jobs, and as long as they don’t damage you enough to merit an expensive lawsuit, then they’re actions are a non-issue, right?
What color is the sky in this black and white world of yours?
Trespass is a minor offence normally, yes. What’s your point? If you left the door open and haven’t asked them to leave, I doubt the police would be that interested. Of course, you could just shoot them and be done with it.
Again, yes, unless it reaches the level of criminal harassment or worse. Are you confused between criminal and civil issues again? A crime isn’t prosecuted because of harm to an individual, but harm to the state, so the value of the harm is irrelevant.
Black right now, it’s late evening here. But hey, it’s nice that you’ve shown how well you can make idiotic presumptions once again.
(post shortened)
That settles it. It seems that the residents of LA don’t care enough about the inconvenience to challenge the issue. From a real world standpoint, if I’m ever questioned by one of Los Angeles finest (the police, not the hookers - hehehe), I will verbally give them my name and move on down the road.
Thank god that we all know this now.
I commend you for the forceful stance you have asserted on this position!
So it comes down to “poor people don’t need as many rights as rich people.”
If the police are allowed to flagrantly disregard the law and it’s “no issue”, why shouldn’t I get away with shoplifting a pack of gum?
You almost certainly would, unless you’re seen doing it by someone that matters. No shop is going to, should they do a stockcheck and see that they’re down one pack of gum, do the necessary investigation to find out who stole it. For that matter, many supermarket employees are instructed not to confront shoplifters, but to call management to deal with it.
The police aren’t allowed to violate the law, any more than you’re allowed to steal gum. But if the person who’s rights were violated can’t be bothered to sue, or the shopkeeper can’t be bothered to watch days of video, then contact the police, then the harm done to them is minor enough not to worry about.
Now if you feel otherwise - if you feel that the police violating people’s rights in this fashion is a serious issue - then help fund legal challenges to them. Donate to the ACLU and tell them that you think they should do this. Or, if you don’t do this, question why.
Just leaving these here.
So, you missed the part about making people’s lives worse? No-one suffers noticeable harm because someone steals a pack of gum, or because a police officer demands ID in slightly the wrong circumstances.
Which isn’t to say that someone actually caught doing either thing should be entirely ignored. If (and it’s still “if”) the police illegally demanded ID in this case, the appropriate response is to offer Ms Watts an apology and retrain the police. If someone’s caught pocketing a pack of gum, the appropriate response is to ask them to pay for the item they “mistakenly” took.
And if I’m wrong, and the harm is substantial, then the courts and the police should be taking appropriate action. I wouldn’t have a problem in either case - although I would continue to suggest that the law should be changed to require one to provide the police with ID on request.
So you are in favor of the government issuing every person mandatory ID papers? And you are also in favor of a law that would make it illegal to not have those papers on you? That’s what I’m getting from your posts.
Thank you.
That would certainly be the easiest way to achieve it, but if people wouldn’t accept that, a system where they provide (and pay for) their own acceptable ID would work. Or a system where people have a certain amount of time to present themselves to a police station with ID, such as the UK does with driving licenses.
Being required to identify yourself to the police is the issue, not the specific form that takes. I simply don’t see that as an unreasonable burden in a democracy, with a court system that can and does provide damages to those mistreated by the police. But if introducing such a system increases calls for more accountability for the police, that would be a win/win in my book.
What law? There is a law against shoplifting. As opposed to a court ruling from a case (U.S. v Grigg) originating in Nampa, Idaho where the 9th Circuit tossed the conviction of a convicted felon for illegal possession of a firearm because the justices didn’t believe that police should ask for identification based on the lack of a public safety issue (for the loud radio).
Your stupidity is awesome. Thanks for being so amusing!
You should also go tell the cops that they do not need to apprise anyone of their rights, since Miranda was just a ruling emanating out of a case in Phoenix.
Don’t stop giving us Doorhinge’s Legal Thinks, clown!
Hahaha. You’re the one who previously whined about Grigg not being a law. Remember when you said, “Grigg isn’t a law, weak or otherwise.” I do.
You seem to be almost completely ignorant of how the US legal, judicial and legislative systems work. It’s hilarious reading your posts; your outrage only ramps up my laughter. 
Hahahaha. What outrage are you referring to? Your own? Was there a particular post that you wanted to discuss or are you just telling people to get off your lawn?
Awesome! Yes, it’s not a law. I’m not sure that you fully grasp why, given what you wrote, though. Do you think that court decisions are laws? Conversely, do you think that court decisions do not obligate people to comply with them in some fashion?
What do you think? Perhaps more fundamentally, how do you think? Your idiocy fascinates me.
Isn’t it remarkable? I don’t usually get to interact with people who are so dumb.
Hahahaha. How many posts did it take for you to finally realize that I was questioning why the LAPD was ignoring the Grigg ruling?