This reminds me a bit of a conversation I was party to involving an ADA. She was asked about the impending legalization of marijuana, and said it was bad because it would stop cops from getting illegal guns off the streets. The theory was: Cop interacts with citizen, smells weed, searches the guy’s stuff, finds guns sometimes. If weed is legal, they can’t search the guy’s stuff.
What she didn’t appreciate is that things shouldn’t be illegal for the purpose of giving cops cause to search people for guns. So too with a cop’s belief that someone’s behavior is shady.
Acting shady isn’t illegal, and shouldn’t entirely by its lonesome be used as an excuse for an investigation.
In that case, ask her if it would then logically make sense to create a law that made it a crime to wear perfume, aftershave, or any product with a scent. Then, police could have lots of good opportunities to pull a bunch of people over and find guns and all kids of bad stuff. No? Sounds stupid? It is. And so is her argument.
And of course, the demeanor is determined by the police officer, who chooses to claim that it is a guilty one.
People really do commit crimes, sure, and the police should investigate those crimes. They shouldn’t be investigating random people they encounter to see if they’ve committed one.
Now, a small part of the problem is that citizens don’t always know their rights. They may not know what rights they have, and allow cops to violate those rights, or they may believe their rights extend further than they actually do, and find themselves having violated the law in trying to exercise what they in good faith believed to be their rights.
However, the much, much bigger problem is that cops don’t know the rights of the citizens that they are supposed to be protecting and serving. Or even worse, they know, and they just don’t care, and are willing to violate them, knowing that there is very little chance that they will receive even a slap on the wrist for assaulting and kidnapping arresting an innocent person.
It would make more sense for the person who is actually supposed to be trained in such encounters, the person who is initiating contact, to be knowledgeable and respectful of the rights of those they interact with. But that’d never happen, now would it? They’d much rather throw their “authority” around and terrorize anyone who would dare question it.
Boy - those are troubling videos. It is hard to imagine why cops go out of their way to CREATE situations when they don’t exist. You would think there were enough actual meaningful things they could be doing instead of hassling some guy w/ a cane in his back pocket, or picking an argument with an onlooker.
Here in IL, if you are in a public place the cops can ask for your name, address, and to explain your actions. I’m a lawyer, but not in criminal law. I am not 100% sure that you can refuse to give your name. I’m pretty confident that if you DO fail to give your name, a cop could arrest you. I do know that you do not need to show ID.
Boy, that cop in the first video was offensive - actually both of them. But when she stopped him on a clearly BS pretext, and then her smarmy pretend respect after he was handcuffed. Ugly stuff.
I really hope I am never in a position where I need to put my assumptions to the test, or to decide whether incurring the resulting hassle is worth declining to comply.
As an older white guy, I cannot imagine the frustration and anger persons of color must experience on a regular basis.
