Didn’t watch the whole video, but at the start, the guy seems to be politely refusing to answer questions, the cop is acting professionally and respecting his right to do so. Then the cop issues a perfectly reasonable lawful order to stick around while he completes his investigation, the guy disobeys it, and then all hell breaks loose.
It looks as though they eventually searched the guy and found some bad stuff. If he had stuck around, I’m guessing they would have decided that detaining and searching him was justified based on the statements of other witnesses, and the outcome would have been the same. If the guy didn’t think he was going to be able to talk his way out of the situation, then not further incriminating himself by answering questions without a lawyer present is exactly what he should be doing.
We seem to have wandered far afield here; the videos recently posted seem to depict assholes and/or mentally ill people who don’t obey cops, not people who have a ridiculous belief system according to which they actually don’t have to obey cops.
That sounds like SovCit idiocy. You don’t have a Constitutional right to board an airplane, any more than you have a Constitutional right to drive a car. I certainly don’t want to fly with fellow passengers who haven’t been searched, any more than I want to share the road with drivers who wrote their own licenses in crayon on the back of a losing lottery ticket.
The federal government just luuves to bypass Fourth Amendment issues by getting private parties to do their dirty work for them. See for example work place drug testing. I presume you think that the government shouldn’t be able to hire private detectives to perform warrantless searches and then claim that the police didn’t perform an illegal search. How is this any different?
And if the unique circumstances of air travel so indispensably require a surrender of one’s personal rights, maybe the Constitution ought to be formally amended to say so in so many words.
No, I’m saying that the airline security laws “guidelines” as they are currently set up are a legal sophistry. Abusive of the rights we supposedly are guaranteed.
Speaking of which, I’m fed up with judges who either are too ignorant to clearly explain or just don’t bother.
And most who do try to explain do a piss poor job of it.
So? I never limited my discussion to merely traffic stops. Guess the goalpost got moved over there now?
Except it’s a perfectly valid question to ask a cop when he is asking you questions. So you are wrong again.
Which is not only legal but the smart thing to do even if you haven’t been drinking.
Legal and smart again.
Are you sure you are not posting from North Korea? Or is that just your ideal police state?
I suggested it because he claims to have never seen a video of what I was talking about implying it doesn’t happen. Whether or not he watches it is immaterial to educating him as to those videos exist and do not always involve SovIdiots.
Call it the counter balance to Van Ballion’s channel.
That’s not the right to travel. RtT refers to being allowed to cross state lines unimpeded. Refer to Saenz as the landmark case in RtT.
I know. I was trying to ascertain exactly what “rights we supposedly are guaranteed” are being abused since there is no ‘right to fly in airplanes’ right.
No goalpost movement. The two situations are quite different. A traffic stop is conducted due to a suspected crime or traffic infraction. At some point the driver is entitled to know the reason for the stop, though not as a condition of producing the required documents. At a sobriety checkpoint, the driver is only required to answer “yes” or “no” to the question about drinking.
What am I “wrong” about? When asked “have you had anything to drink tonight?”, “am I free to go” is not an answer, it’s outright belligerence. These sorts of smartass tactics accomplish absolutely nothing except making the police officer’s job harder and more frustrating, which I guess is the point.
No, refusing to answer the question about drinking is not “smart”, it’s called “being an ass”. “Smart” is what I said earlier: don’t drink and drive, and if asked by police if you’ve been drinking, honestly and courteously say “no”.
No, I’m posting from a country where citizens generally obey the law and there is mutual respect between police and civilians, who generally aren’t troublemakers playing these sorts of pointless games simply to antagonize police officers who are just doing their job. Are you sure you’re not a SovCit yourself? Because you sure sound like one.
So you think people should give up their rights for the convenience of police?
True but I was talking and you were responding to any interaction with police. If a cop stops you on the street and begins to ask you question and you ask, “Am I free to go?” should the cop have to answer you yes or no?
So you disagree with absolutely every defense attorney out there. And again, I am an ass for invoking my rights? What totalitarian country are your legal views inspired by. You have the attitude of, “Fuck you rights when it inconveniences the police.” Another question, if I refuse to answer questions, should the police be allowed to arrest me for obstruction?
But few civil rights apparently.
No, I sound like an American that has rights and ain’t afraid to use them. And not only do I know the law better than SovIds, I apparently know it better than you re: the Bill of Rights.
Oh, another question wolfpup. A cop asks to search you, your car or your house. You don’t think you have anything to hide. Am I the asshole if I tell him no?
Talk about moving goalposts! There are certainly situations where silence is the best defense strategy, but I very much doubt that any defense attorney would advise that the best strategy when a police officer asks a driver if they’ve been drinking is to tell the officer to fuck right off.
No, actually more civil rights than the US has in practice. If the US actually had the civil rights it claims to have, George Floyd would still be alive and an orange authoritarian asshole wouldn’t be running the federal government and illegally deporting brown people to foreign dungeons. I live in a relatively peaceful society where citizens respect the police and the police respect citizens, who don’t go out of their way to antagonize them.
Generally, no, but it depends on the specific situation. If you’re aware of the circumstances of a crime and fail to disclose it, that may be not only obstruction but complicity.
Again, it depends on the circumstances. During the unprecedentedly massive deployment of law enforcement to track down the Boston bombers, citizens were more than willing to let police search their homes to makes sure they weren’t hiding there. I’d do the same. I’m fully aware of the necessity for a search warrant in most circumstances, but, apparently unlike you, my attitude is to help rather than hinder law enforcement in doing their jobs.
With that, I hope we can end this silly debate and go back to mocking SovCits. I’ll post any particularly amusing videos I find where SovCits are asserting their “rights”. Some of their court appearances, where they represent themselves, are almost as amusing as their antics during traffic stops!
That doesn’t contradict what I said, which I can attest through lived experience. Sadly, indigenous people have been treated horribly on both sides of the border. The salient question is where, proportionately, you find the largest number of civil rights violations. The other question is what the hell a driver refusing to answer a police officer’s question about whether or not they’ve been drinking does to support the cause of civil rights. Is a drunk driver refusing to acknowledge his drunkenness now the new Rosa Parks?
