I know. He posted that while I was writing mine. I didn’t preview.
Plus, he didn’t apologize for calling me a motherfucker, so tell him to chill out too.
Psst. Just between you and me, look at post #276, that’s two posts above you’re quote.
You’re constitutional arguments, or lack there of, are still a mark of idiocy, though.
Do we know that you aren’t one? 
OK OK OK. Hey Monkey, chill out, OK?
Dude, I’m chilled. Just enjoying the pit a bit.
Should I stop poking the bear?
Nah. I didn’t really mean that. Well, maybe I did.
You are correct, Cinnamon. If one is walking down the street eating an ice cream cone and is stopped by an LEO demanding ID, one has every right to be upset, protest, etc. It will probably mean you’ll still end up arrested, but you’ll have a much better case if you don’t assault the officer, and should luckily have the case dismissed and if really lucky, have the officer penalized.
If, however, in the same situation, the officer says it is illegal to eat ice cream cones on the north side of the street in Stupidtown, USA and the officer is going to write a citation, one now knows the reason for a request for ID, and refusal to show will still get one thrown in the pokey, only this time the case is in the officer’s favor.
About the only thing gonzomax got right is that a LEO can make your life difficult is s/he wants to be an ass about anything, and that a private citizen has little, if any, immediate recourse.
I disagree. “Slammed in door” would be consistent with bruises, possibly scrapes, and at the extreme, MAYBE lacerations. That seems extremely unlikely unless the door was being held shut with great force, in which case he wouldn’t have been able to get his hand out of the door at all. But “cuts”? uh uh. “Stuck through a glass window” would be consistent with cuts and scratches. All I can say is, my reasoning is consistent with the third-party eyewitness account. Yours isn’t. Why are we arguing about this anyway? My original point was that Monkey’s scenario:
just doesn’t wash. First, we have a witness who contradicts this. Second, why should we believe that the cop told the truth about getting slammed in the door, but then lied about breaking the glass with a foreign object, when we have 2 other people who say he broke in? If we believe he lied about one thing, why wouldn’t we believe he lied about the other thing? Even without the witness, that scenario smells like bullshit. With the witness, it cements it.
Dress up a pig and call it Mathilda if that makes you happy.
What does a vigorous cross-examination do but suggest to the jury that what the officer has testified to on direct isn’t entirely accurate?
Even if I believed the officer was truthful, it was an appropriate exercise of my job to cast doubt on his version of events, to deliberately confuse him, to try to make the jury see him as less than certain about what he just said. THAT is vigorous cross-examination.
Huh? I never said you couldn’t be injured by a wooden door. It would be a different type of injury, though.
It’s not USUALLY a random thing. In most cases there are honest-to-goodness reasons to ask for your ID. Decent cops aren’t going to just wander up to you and ask you for your ID as you go for your evening stroll, most of them are just too busy to deal with it, but when you encounter them, and when they ask you for your ID, as you said, a prudent person follows the law. Doing so ensures we won’t be having a thread about you.
Oh fer the love of… you can be cut by a wooden door slamming on your arm/hand/dick whatever. It can cut you similar to the way glass can. Oy.
Here’s a story of a doper who was arrested for nothing other than failure to identify. Motherfuckers 
FWIW, he was in a park that was closed, but didn’t know that it was closed (the probable cause, which he was unaware of breaking any law…sound familiar?) and was not cited for failure to identify after ultimately complying with the request to identify after being cuffed (sound like a better scenario?)
Bricker, I asked, “You do see the difference between nailing down the truth through intense questioning and portraying someone as a liar, don’t you?”
You didn’t answer directly, but what you did say leads me to believe you do not appreciate the difference. That’s enough for me on the topic.
Why don’t you do it and post a picture. :rolleyes:
Did you even think about that before you wrote it? Willfully just means “on purpose”, as opposed to accidentally. It’s pretty clear that they didn’t just accidentally slam the door in the cop’s face.
Note that it said all the charges, which include resisting arrest and assault of a police officer.
Wrongo. My experiences are as stated. I have been to peace marches when police brought out clubs and started cracking heads. I have seen a lot of cop abuse in my life. I know what they are capable of. For most of my life I have had lots of police as friends and baseball team mates. I have been in on conversations that would make your skin crawl.
We’ve been down that road, John. Posts 267, 270, 273, 277. When I first checked vetbridge’s link it had been wiped clean. It has since been put back.
Slamming a door is not illegal. What has to be proven as “willful” is that they intended to obstruct the LEO from carrying out his duties.
Officer threatens to give citation. Citizen about to receive said citation slams door. How is that not willful?
It’s a simple question.
Slamming the door is illegal if it obstructs the LEO from carrying out his duties.
What the fuck do you think a laceration is?
Doors often have metal flashing and metal strike plates on the inside. Growing up with a brother, I’ve gotten cuts from having my hand slammed in a door and one of my brother’s friends put his hands through a plate glass windows which lead to a nice near death experience on his ride to the hospital. Christ, of all the lame things to nitpick in this fucked up thread…