TheAgitator.com
Jones County, MS Police Respond to Motorhome Diaries Arrests
Tuesday, May 19th, 2009The local paper prints the following response:
According to Jones County Sheriff Alex Hodge, Peter Eyre and Jason Talley of New Hampshire and Adam Mueller of Laurel were arrested during a routine traffic stop on Interstate 59. He said deputies gave the suspects numerous opportunities to identify themselves, but they refused to do so.
Uncertain of who or what they were dealing with, Hodge said deputies arrested the suspects and subsequent investigation revealed the individuals had an agenda which included not complying with orders given by authorities. They were discovered to be motorhomediaries.com activists…
“We have a job to do and we will do it,” explained Hodge. “We are not here to promote or condemn anyone’s agenda.
“Our job is to provide protection and service to our citizens. When our deputy was confronted with these men who refused to identify themselves; he had no idea what their plans were.”
Eyre, 28, was arrested for possession of beer in a dry county and an unknown offense; Mueller, 26, was arrested for disorderly conduct and disobeying a police officer; and Talley, 34, was arrested for disorderly conduct, disobeying a police officer, and resisting arrest. All three suspects were transported to the Jones County Adult Detention Center.
“I am proud of our deputies handling of this traffic stop,” said Hodge. “I have demonstrated my willingness to admit when we are wrong. However, in this case, they handled themselves in a proper and professional manner.”
The three were detained, cuffed, arrested, and jailed. Talley was pepper-sprayed. And it still isn’t clear exactly what actual crimes any of them committed.
You can read Jason, Pete, and Adam’s account of the incident here.
For some, freedom means liberty and it flows from the Universe. For others, freedom is a privilege handed out by government.
There is no talking to these people…their assumptions are too ingrained in the system of power.
By all means, please hire lawyers, sue their asses, repeat.
Those poor naive yankees, clearly the cops were pissed that the guys were filming them. They don’t like to be held accountable because of course, they aren’t accountable.
See? He was just a-keepin’ his county safe!
‘Cause the good lawd knows that if these here agitatin’ sum bitches got ta’ thinkin’ they wuz welcome hearabouts, they might be stoppin’ and talkin’ to the locals. Fillin’ their heads with all kind a damn fool ideas.
… a banjo strums in the distance…
Of course, everything he said there was total bullshit. They made a bogus fishing expedition stop then used intimidation to ratchet it up to an illegal search of the vehicle, breaking many constitutional guarantees of freedom in the process.
Sheriff Alex Hodge? Bite my crank!
So not handing over your ID is a jail-able offense?
nobahdi “So not handing over your ID is a jail-able offense?”
In America today everything is a jail-able offense.
Bob -
wrong stereotype. The cops were black.
Which is not to say there are no excellent black banjo players. The Chocolate Drops in particular are very good.
So he actually says the real reason for arresting them was failure to ID themselves. That should be a big help when the suit hits the fan.
I always say when police question you shut up and wait for a lawyer, maybe more cops should listen to me.
This situation is repeated countless times each day I am sure. Most people just comply and do what they are ordered to by the police. So when a small minority actually decides to make use of their Constitutional rights – they get hammered down. Any response that is not total submission is usually handled with violence and charges are written up as “Resisting Arrest” or “Obstruction”. I do hope this group gets their day in court and does not settle. It’s a shame that more people don’t stand up for their rights.
The cops were not ‘confronted’ by anyone. They pulled the RV over without cause. No mention there about why they were pulled over. No mention of that lying drug dog either.
Their agenda included not following orders? They did not seek out a situation where they could not follow orders. It was brought to them. Without cause. And near as I can tell, they followed every lawful order that they were given.
What the cop meant to say was, “These freaking yankees wanted us to follow the law and respect their rights. We set them straight on that shit!”
Here’s something I don’t get. In our uber-wired and connected world, you can get practically any info you want instantly. Even without an internet connection, I suspect most state and local penal codes could fit onto a moderately sized thumb drive, if properly formated. Why shouldn’t the police have to show you the law you are alledged to have broken on a PDA, like a sony reader or something? Yes, I know that wouldn’t stop them from using catch-alls like “resisting arrest”, but it seems like it at least might cut down on the completely fabricated reasons we often read of.
Any news on whether they were able to recover the deleted video from the camera?
/Jay
Chance#9 “Why shouldn’t the police have to show you the law you are alledged to have broken on a PDA, like a sony reader or something? Yes, I know that wouldn’t stop them from using catch-alls like “resisting arrest”, but it seems like it at least might cut down on the completely fabricated reasons we often read of.”
Very well said! I guess this isn’t ever done because legislators don’t care and are afraid to come off looking like the anti law and order candidate.
(#9) Chance and (#11) JS:
The most probably reason is that the cops would then be put in a position where they are debating interpretations of the law on the side of the road. I really doubt that the DA and the politicians want the cops to be doing that. It might give the citizen more openings to get the case dismissed on technical grounds.
JS – the irony being that what Chance described is law and order…
“Jail-able offense” is no longer a useful phrase, as every American (and probably elsewhere, too) is subject to arrest at any time, for any reason, real or imagined.
There is no list of things you can do or not do to ensure you are not arrested. If an enforcer of the state wants to kidnap you, that’s exactly what happens, and your only recourse is to beg other enforcers of the state to pretty please don’t do it again, and possibly receive some stolen money to shut up.
“When our deputy was confronted with these men who refused to identify themselves; he had no idea what their plans were.”
Oh, the horror.
My mom used to say, “It all comes out in the wash.” I can assure you this will, too.
From the article, “He [Sheriff] said deputies gave the suspects numerous opportunities to identify themselves, but they refused to do so.” So what exactly were they “suspects” of? No probable cause existed.
“…they handled themselves in a proper and professional manner.” The officers deleted video evidence of their unprofessional and violent conduct.
Funny. I grew up in a dry county. It meant you couldn’t buy booze there, not that you couldn’t possess it. Is this another made-up charge or is Mississippi really still stuck in the 20’s?
Coincidentally, I’m sure, all the counties around ours had significantly nicer roads than ours.
“Our job is to provide protection and service to our citizens. When our deputy was confronted with these men who refused to identify themselves; he had no idea what their plans were.”
1. The deputy wasn’t confronted with these men, the deputy confronted these men.
2. Is there a law in MS requiring identification to be given upon request? I seriously don’t know either way.
3. Is there a law in MS requiring citizens to reveal their plans to an officer. Can the sheriff show that they gave any indication that their unrevealed plans were anything but benign.
Finally, is there any standard for what constitutes a lawful order? Shouldn’t there be some burden on the police to show that an order was lawful before someone can be charged with violating it?
Brandon,
I echo those sentiments. In the dry places I’ve lived, “dry” simply meant that liquor and wine stores couldn’t obtain business licenses. Liquor and wine were sold by the drink and gas stations and convenience stores sold beer. “Dry” sure as hell didn’t mean you couldn’t possess alcohol.
I think much of this comes from ‘preventive policing’.L.E.O.’s are taught to prevent ‘crime’ now a days.This has brought us female cops dressed as hookers,grown men pretending to be 13 year old girls on line,a cop trying to sell sell drugs to judge Andrew Napalitano on the court house steps ,and pulling people over for minor or non existent violations to look for drugs,alcohol and guns.The concept of harm and imminent danger for police actionare no longer employed.
John#18 “Finally, is there any standard for what constitutes a lawful order? Shouldn’t there be some burden on the police to show that an order was lawful before someone can be charged with violating it?”
This is the excuse they use to arrest you for whatever they want to. And of course judges just accept it and let them get away with it. Pretty much anything a cop tells you to do is a “lawful order”
#9 | Chance- niiiiiiiiice. I like it!
“He said deputies gave the suspects numerous opportunities to identify themselves, but they refused to do so.”
Were they even suspected of having committed a crime, or is this just how the police refer to everyone now? Just them vs. a world filled with “suspects”.
We should lobby our favorite camera companies and ask them to start installing optional password protection for pictures and film. Of course, this doesn’t keep the pigthugs from smashing the camera outright or destroying the SD card, but it is another layer of protection against their tyranny.
The Motorhome Diaries provided by Radley in an earlier blog entry indicated that when the driver of the MARV was ordered out of the RV by the Sheriff’s Deputy, that “Pete did so, license in hand…..”
The suspects version of events would indicate that at least the DRIVER did show his driver’s license to the Deputy.
The remaining passengers when asked for I.D., may simply state their NAME and City/State of residence, to identify themselves. Passengers in a motor vehicle are not required to carry an I.D.
No passengers except for AIRLINE passengers transitting through TSA airport GESTAPO security checkpoints are required to carry Photo I.D.
I would hope and expect that these three individuals will sue the Jones County Sheriff’s Office for deprivation of their civil rights.
#8 Chris in AL sums it up quite nicely.
“Our job is to provide protection and service to our citizens. When our deputy was confronted with these men who refused to identify themselves; he had no idea what their plans were.”
By this reasoning, anybody can be arrested.
“By this reasoning, anybody can be arrested.”
its true, anybody CAN be arrested, at anytime for anything.
“I think much of this comes from ‘preventive policing’.L.E.O.’s are taught to prevent ‘crime’ now a days.This has brought us female cops dressed as hookers,grown men pretending to be 13 year old girls on line,a cop trying to sell sell drugs to judge Andrew Napalitano on the court house steps ,and pulling people over for minor or non existent violations to look for drugs,alcohol and guns.”
Thank you, thank you. Living abroad and coming back to see
how police in this country have become a cancer.
They were pulled over for New Hampshire plates. Maybe the Barneys thought “Live Free or Die” was a threat?
Would someone do me a favor and post a link to the site that gives instructions on how to handle stops and search requests?
This seems as good a time as any to brush up on my scripts for asserting my rights.
Why shouldn’t the police have to show you the law you are alledged to have broken on a PDA, like a sony reader or something?
Because then they’d have to understand the laws they enforce. Then they’d realize that there’s too many laws on the books and things might actually change. It’s much easier to arrest now, figure out what to charge with later.
Really? I thought the cops were clear about what they’re charged with.
Oh, you mean actual “crimes”? Yeah, I guess information is pretty sparse on that front…
Paranoiastrksdp, I have wondered for a long time now why some digital camcorders and digital cameras are not equipped with wifi or some sort of air-card mini USB slot, via which all images are automatically and continuously uploaded to some ftp site or other archive.
I first thought of this because it seems paparazzi (and other celebrity fans) would eat this kind of feature up, because it seems things like this are happening all the time:
““They passed the camera to Jude, who then looked through our photos.
“The bodyguard later gave the camera back to us and, to our disappointment, they had deleted our pictures of Jude and Kimberly.””
It would, of course, be far more useful when dealing with situations like this recent one:
“Police delete London tourists’ photos ‘to prevent terrorism’”
Jah, papers please?
Gauleiter for the NSDAP and Jones County Sheriff Alex Hodge is entirely correct! In these dangerous times we must all be vigilant against the saboteurs, defeatists, and others who would love nothing more than to stop the march of National Socialism.
Fortunately, the logic of Fascism is sound and the power of National Socialism unassailable! These incompetent terrorists were quickly apprehended by our elite Storm Troopers and are being properly punished as I write this memorandum. These saboteurs will no longer pose any threat to our glorious State.
Long Live National Socialism! A thousand years for our American Empire!
I’m not sure cops should have to explain their every action and prove, on the spot, that there is a law supporting their every action. I can understand the need for the cops to wield some authority the reason for which may not be readily apparent to everyone they encounter. But, regardless of whether they have to prove it on the spot, their actions should be based on laws and not pulled out of their asses.
These stories always seem to have one thing in common. The cops behave as if what they do is always ok because they are “the authorities”. They behave that nothing they do is off limits and that the public should be content in the knowledge that they will eventually be allowed to go free if they are innocent (ie: the cops can’t pin anything on them).
And, for the most part, that perspective is so rarely challenged that for them to concern themselves with it is about the same as worrying about being hit by an asteroid.
Remember in “The Hunt for Red October” one of the Russians looked forward to traveling from state to state in the USA in an RV.
…without papers.
A nation of sheep shall be ruled by pigs.
Dave Krueger “And, for the most part, that perspective is so rarely challenged that for them to concern themselves with it is about the same as worrying about being hit by an asteroid.”
Thats what is so sad. Normal people, for all practical purposes, can’t do much to challenge that perspective, only our gutless judges and lawmakers can challenge it and they refuse to do so. There is simply no accountability for cops in this country.
It’s “Jones” County. We have a Jackson County, but that’s about 75 miles away from where this incident took place.
Forgive me for bringing Wikipedia into this but Mississippi apparently does not have a Stop and Identify statute.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_Identify_statutes
Not sure what that means for someone driving an automobile, but at least the MARV passengers were absolutely within their rights to refuse to provide papers.
I’m seeing a doubling down by the LEOs here.
A Supreme Court case several years ago settled the issue of mandatory producing of ID to a LEO on request. It was a Nevada case.
If a LEO asks you for ID and you do not produce it, you are subject to arrest, charge and prosecution under the U.S. Constitution.
Don’t like it? Try voting.
Bwaaaahahahahaha!
#9 Chance-
All the money that could be used for PDAs and the like is used to buy assault weapons, tanks, armour, grenades and other paramilitary gear and weaponry.
The deputy “had no idea what their plans were”?
Well, he’s got NO IDEA what MY plans are either! Come and get me you motherfuckers!!!!
What the hell is a “routine traffic stop”? In my state, I would assume it means a DWI checkpoint or a seatbelt check. In those I’ve been through, I was NEVER asked for ID. (”Been drinkin’?” “Nope.” “Have a nice evening.”) Anything else would have to be non-routine and require probable cause. Then the ID should come out. Where did this sheriff go to cop school, the KGB academy?
Not exactly, Cynical. From epic.org:
“Hiibel appealed the case to the United States Supreme Court, which granted certiorari on October 20, 2003. Oral argument was held on March 22, 2004. The Supreme Court issued its opinion on June 21, 2004, holding that Nev. Rev. Stat. § 171.123(3) is constitutional under both the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion noted, however, ‘[a]s we understand it, the statute does not require a suspect to give the officer a driver’s license or any other document. Provided that the suspect either states his name or communicates it to the office by other means — a choice, we assume, that the suspect may make — the statute is satisfied and no violation occurs.’”
So, depending on where you are, the requirement to identify yourself may simply mean stating who you are, not producing documents to prove it.
Let’s inject a note of reality into what happens next.
The prosecuting D.A., if it comes to trial, will attempt to wear out the Defendants with delay and delay, knowing they must come a great distance (1,500 – 2,000) miles for any hearing or trial. The local judge will probably fully cooperate with the D.A. in the stall and delay game.
Remember, this case will be heard by a local judge, in all likelihood a judge appointed by the local ruling power establishment to protect their power and privileges.
The D.A. will come from the same milieu, as do the LEO’s. It’s called “The System” in small town Amerika. Our prisons are full of unfortunate people who’ve collided with “The System”.
Even with competent defense attorneys, the jury will be local-yokels who probably think these young men, after reading the pre-trial publicity in the local Laurel newspaper, are smart-aleck misfits, back-talking and sassing their dutiful, hard-working County LEO’s who they probably know personally.
Won’t show the Goobermint Agents your I.D.?
Guilty as Charged on all Counts, your honor.
Got a rope?
Exactly Bill! I covered this the other day, you are never required to show papers as a passenger, or while in a public place.
Bronwyn the link is:
http://www.motorists.org/blog/roadblock-rights-card/
Down load the wallet sized and keep it handy.
Geez, Whim. It’s almost as if us citizens are going to have to join the mob in order to get protection from the cops. I mean, doesn’t the mob pay off these thugs so they will be left alone? Anyone not making regular payments is probably considered fair game…
Has anyone heard why they searched MARV. The charged offenses were not probable cause.
Looking at the photo, the distance from MARV, search incident to arrest would not apply anymore either.
So, let me see if I understand this. You absolutely positively do NOT have to provide an ID document to a cop if you are merely a passenger in the car.
So, in the end, you’re perfectly within your rights to refuse to provide ID and the satisfaction that gives you should counterbalance the pain you suffer when they beat the crap out of your for “resisting arrest” for some bogus charge they had to cook up to justify all the bruises.
“A Supreme Court case several years ago settled the issue of mandatory producing of ID to a LEO on request. It was a Nevada case.
If a LEO asks you for ID and you do not produce it, you are subject to arrest, charge and prosecution under the U.S. Constitution.”
No, go read the case, and then come back and post. The Nevada case stated that stop and identify statutes are not illegal, per se, and that if your state happens to have one, then you must obey. Generally, outside of driving a vehicle, you do not have to have ID, as there is no legal requirement to have a drivers license or any other ID card. You may need to state your name and address in stop/identify states, but that is it.
IMHO, the cops are screwed badly on this one.
The part of them being given numerous chances to identify themselves is a nail in the coffin. Not identifying yourself is not a violation of the law, and arresting them for not doing so can be an expensive mistake.
Not knowing their agenda is not PC/RAS, and you can’t arrest someone because you don’t know their agenda.
The whole “we didn’t know who they are, so we arrested them” bit can get expensive.
These guys are done, stick a fork in em.
Any sort of suspicion or PC needs to be followed by “of illegal act X”
These guys some some out of state plates, figured they were moving drugs, trumped up a reason to hassle them and pull them over, and then when they couldn’t find anything they trumped up a reason to arrest them.
The only “lawful orders” are those given in the military to other soldiers. Cops generally can’t just order you around, right face, left face, and so forth.
Too many posters here apparently haven’t bothered to read the RV occupant’s own postings on the matter; some stating that the LEO pulled them over for completely no reason.
From their own blog:
Officer Atkins noted that he had pulled over MARV because he could not read the tags (temp tags from NH).
There’s the cause…
The Jones County officials certainly did some things that weren’t necessary – especially the pepper spray. But beyond that, the RV gang could have diffused the entire situation by not refusing to give names and jumping around with a camera to document abuses that hadn’t even occurred yet.
It reminds me of grade school, when a kid kept putting his fingers 1/4 inch from my face and saying “I’M NOT TOUCHING YOU.” Perhaps he wasn’t, but after being warned a few times to stop – he got punched.
I’m certainly in for a few thumbs-down from some of the crowd here (especially the Anarchists, you guys are such fun), but if so then you’ve missed the point entirely. I don’t think what the cops did was ok, but RV guys could have easily done a couple of things that wouldn’t have resulted in pepper spray, handcuffs, and a visit to the county jail.
People that go looking for trouble generally find it; if a dog starts growling when you smile at it, you’re a fool to try tickling his belly.
#54 After the trio exercised their Constitutional right to refuse a search of MARV, the cops remained convinced that the motor home was full of dope. After all, and according to their drug warrior training, why else would a 20-something dude be driving a motor home with temporary tags up I-59 in rural Mississippi?
They called in deputy dawg, who turned in a critically acclaimed performance by alerting on demand. The guys cooperated with the search, as required by law.
According to the trio’s account of the incident, one of the cops said, “If I have to rip this door off I’m going to get into this RV one way or the other.”
I hope that among the FOIA requests that result from this silliness, we’ll see one that allows us to develop stats on the accuracy of Jones County’s deputy dawgs.
The Fourth Amendment is about as useful as dog crap if it can be routinely and whimsically circumvented by a trained animal.
Hey I emailed the author of the Story the Following:
The deputies did not need for the individuals in the RV to step out if his concern was the temporary tag. His issue would have been with the driver only, and the driver did produce a valid license before even being requested, #57. A quick check on the ol computer or through dispatch would have told Deputy Dumbass that the vehicle was legit and not stolen, and that all was in order. The driver was profiled (no shirt, tats, etc) and drugs were suspected from that and that alone. The police failed here. The guys did not go looking for trouble, Deputy Dipshit and his band of Passsive-aggressive thugs caused the issue by violating the boys’ rights.
I’m with #50 and #56. In that case, the cop was responding to a report that a man driving a car like Hibels had assaulted a woman. Hibel was with a woman by the side of the road, and refused to provide any identification (e.g., even his name). This is very different to the Jones County case…the driver provided his license, and the other people were arrested for failing to produce a driver’s license. There is no requirement for passengers to produce a drivers license.
Moreover, the requirement for identification etc in Hibel proceeded because there was a reasonable suspicion that Hibel had assaulted the woman. This was not the case here, the passengers were not reasonably suspected of a crime or any disturbance of the peace. They were just travelling in a car that happened to be stopped.
That’s precisely how the mafia got it’s start in many locations; either selling protection the police didn’t offer, or selling protection from the police themselves.
#57: the right to search must be related to the suspicion. Here, the driver had unclear tags. If he had found that the driver was wanted for a crime, or if he had seen the passengers smoking pot, or an open container of beer, there would be reason to question the passengers.
Here, the problem was unclear tags: this should have been cleared up in seconds by a check of his license etc. And it was. The right to detain or question the passengers, or search the RV does not flow from merely because you stop a car.
Sorry, bad grammar…. “If the COP had found”
#61. Exactly. The Sicilian mafia and the yakuza in Japan both owe their start and their persistence to failures of the formal authorities. Similarly, Afghans originally supported the Taliban because they were less corrupt and violent than the warlords.
As for #57,
Of course. They could have immediately fallen to their knees and begged for mercy from their owners, and they probably would have been on their way in just a few minutes. They forgot that they, in fact, were not the owners of their body. They were then reminded exactly who was.
“Moreover, the requirement for identification etc in Hibel proceeded because there was a reasonable suspicion that Hibel had assaulted the woman. This was not the case here, the passengers were not reasonably suspected of a crime or any disturbance of the peace.”
No, you aren’t getting it either. Suspicion of a crime doesn’t matter as much as a legal as in statutory law requirement on the books that REQUIRES you to show ID to the cops upon request.
In NY, a cop can walk up to you and ask that you identify yourself and if you don’t identify yourself, it is potentially a crime. In Texas, they can not, they can walk up to you, ask that you identify yourself, and you can flip them the bird and walk off.
Thorn @ 57: You’re an idiot. The number of downs doesn’t reflect anarchistic tendencies, it’s a measure of how wrong you are.
The officer had grounds for one thing only: to check the tags. He did. They came back clean. At that point the officer had one and only one legal option: let the RV go. Period. He had no grounds to make any requests, no grounds to search the vehicle, nada, nothing. Even Deputy Dawg doesn’t count because the RV should not have been detained to await the arrival of the incompetent quadraped.
A friend of mine won an auto search case some years back. His client (who had been pulled over because he “fit the description” of a man who assaulted an officer) was cleared at roadside by the assaulted officer, who said “that’s not him” and drove off. The officer who pulled over the client then proceeded to search the car and found contraband. At trial, his evidence as to when he was going to release the client was “when I was sure that he hadn’t done anything wrong”. At least the other cop had the decency and professionalism to admit that “that was the worst testimony I’ve ever seen in my life”.
As for the “I’m not touching yoooou” example, that speaks for itself: as far as you’re concerned officers are to be held to the standard of a pissed-off grade schooler who lashes out when provoked. Just great.
@57 Thorn
Sorry Thorn, but the ‘we couldn’t read your tags’ is itself an abuse. They use it all the time in the South. They can say that no matter how perfectly clear and legible your tag is. It is the cop’s way of pulling over anyone they like. This guy spotted an RV, pulled up behind it, say the New Hampshire tags and decided to fuck with these guys.
And they had no reason to search. In fact, the cops themselves said it was punishment for exercising their rights. The cop said, if you don’t cooperate, I’ll call in the K9 unit to search your vehicle.
See, that clearly indicates that the guys were not acting like they were on drugs. That is probable cause and the threat is not necessary.
They were not even charged with a tag violation. If their tag was unreadable, why weren’t they ticketed for an improperly displayed or unreadable tag, which is a ticketable offense? Because the cops lied about that part, just like they lied about their dog ‘hitting’ on the vehicle. Cops are dirty liars.
And we are not supposed to HAVE to diffuse situations with cops to avoid getting pepper-sprayed. Goddam man, people like you are part of the problem. Cops have too much power and the only way it is ever going to change is by people like this making the pigs show themselves for what they. The power hungry 4th graders you refer to, just with a badge and a gun. You say you had the balls to punch that kid? So what happened to them?
Shorter thorn: don’t exercise your rights, especially in front of police officers.
Take a hike dolt.
Just a dumb question:
These guys were driving on an interstate highway. If I legally purchase beer in County A, and I am driving to “wet” County C on an interstate highway which runs through “dry” County B, can “dry” County B arrest me? I’m not bringing beer “to” the dry County. I’m just driving through on an interstate.
Didn’t a similar question come up with, say, gun possession in Mass? If I’m on an interstate driving from my home in Virginia to a hunting trip in Maine, and my gun (in a locked case with no ammo) is in my car, Mass cannot arrest me for having an “illegal” gun in Mass, right?
You are incorrect. According to Hiibel, the request to identify must be in connection to an active investigation.
Also, no state in the country currently requires you to show ID to identify yourself. Giving your name is sufficient.
@66 — actually, that’s not quite right.
According to this list of “stop-and-identify” statutes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_Identify_statutes), most (on a cursory glance) only authorize the officer to demand your identity if he already believes you have committed, or are about to commit a crime. (Others, FYI, are tied to the loitering statute). See, e.g.:
Alabama: “may stop any person abroad in a public place whom he reasonably suspects is committing, has committed or is about to commit a felony or other public offense”
Colorado:”who he reasonably suspects is committing, has committed, or is about to commit a crime ”
Louisiana: “whom he reasonably suspects is committing, has committed, or is about to commit an offense”
New Hampshire: “whom he has reason to suspect is committing, has committed or is about to commit a crime”
Chris,
With due respect, people like my aren’t part of the problem.
People like me vote for the guy they truly agree with, and not for the candidate least like Satan; people like me didn’t vote for Obama just because they hated Bush or Sarah Palin. People like me were giving Ron Paul $100 every month. People like me are actively outspoken about issues, call/write legislators when crucial state issues arise. We mark “Libertarian” on the voter card – not Independent, because we don’t want Reps/Dems to even consider us a possibility.
People like me also have some common sense about time & place, when it comes to taking on an establishment. If you think you know some cops, there’s more than one way to get some type of action started… but I assure you, calling them pigs as they walk down the street is the worst way to go about it.
Do you have the legal right to run around with a video camera at a police rally, wearing a Pigs Suck! t-shirt and photographing the cops? Sure. Good idea? No. You won’t look “free”, you won’t look “activist-like” – you look like a moron, just like the Baptists with the “God Hates Fags” signs that protest military funerals.
Here’s 2 scenarios for you:
1. Cops pull over RV. Occupants completely cooperate in the spirit the cops were asking for; give names, comply with request for basic search. After the stop is done and no citations given, politely offer the police some quality literature, business card, etc on the point of the RV tour. Point out that you aren’t out to hate cops; you’re just trying to help improve your country. Maybe the cops decline. But maybe in the end, the cops meet a car full of libertarians that didn’t live up to the “they just wanna make pot legal” generalization. Either way, you’ve had the chance to improve cop’s opinions of people that hold your political beliefs.
2. Cops pull over RV, and occupants behave as they did. We already see what happens in this case.
People like me try to find a way to stop government intrusion into our lives WITHOUT looking like a child screaming for another lollipop at the county fair.
Cops have too much power? Many times they do, agreed. But change that with legislation, not on the road-side. Similar to paying your taxes: If you don’t like paying taxes, change the law. Bitching at the IRS will just make your audit more painful.
thorn
Spleen beat me to the “submit” button.
However, “Also, no state in the country currently requires you to show ID to identify yourself. Giving your name is sufficient.” — incorrect:
Colorado Rev. Stat:
16-3-103 – Stopping of suspect.
“… may require him to give his name and address, identification if available, and an explanation of his actions.”
http://www.dvmen.org/dv-176.htm#16-3-103
The real anarchists in this situation are the cops. If a cop cannot articulate probable cause to believe that a person committed some particular act which is, in fact, illegal, the cop has no business arresting the person. A cop who arrests someone for doing something he doesn’t think is legal but which actually is, should not be let off the hook. After all, “ignorance of the law is no excuse”.
Given that cops in some areas routinely make demands for which they have no authority, I see no basis for a reasonable person to believe prima facie that an order from a cop is legitimate unless the cop can articulate the basis for his authority. Requiring cops to do so as a matter of course would make life safer for all honest people.
Thorn, you missed #3,
1. Cops pull over RV. Occupants completely cooperate in the spirit the cops were asking for; give names, comply with request for basic search. Cops find beer and guns properly secured. Cops arrest occupants of the vehicle for having beer in a dry county and possessing the firearms. In the case of the Motorhomes Diary crew, the first offense listed is questionable, and the second is almost certainly bullshit, yet those were among the reasons for being arrested.
Screwed up my last post, but you get the point.
#73 Thorn: You have no idea how the MHD crew behaved during the situation yet you are asserting you do. The MHD Crew were polite and respectful and complied only with the officers’ lawful orders. I’ve talked to Adam Mueller who was a passenger. The officer did not ask him to identify himself, they asked him to produce identification, a request he didn’t have to comply with. Another deputy told him to turn off the camera, also an unlawful order.
Kinda missing the point, aren’t you Thorn?
The MHD guys obeyed the law and exercised their rights to the letter. The police did not obey the law. Why do you find the first part troubling and the second part not? You can give all the money you want to Ron Paul but it doesn’t change the fact that you are a police misconduct apologist.
it doesn’t change the fact that you are a police misconduct apologist.
That’s truly funny. Two days ago, some police on a gun forum were calling me a “troll who obviously hates cops” because they didn’t like what I was saying either. ;)
Wiki: “New York’s “stop-and-identify” law[19] apparently allows a police officer to demand that a suspect identify himself but does not require the suspect to do so, and its “obstructing” law[20] apparently requires physical rather than simply verbal obstruction.”
So no punishment if you do not say shit.
Why didn’t these idiots just give them the id and consent to the search? They would have been on their way, no problem, no hassle, no arrest. But they had to get “smart” with the cop. We all know how that ends.
Idiots.
thorn at 80:
So you’re clued out on two different threads to the point of annoying people with your stupidity? Colour me surprised. All you’ve done is show yourself to be that breed of troll who’s dickish in different ways on different sites and threads.
I note that you have done zero to address the substantive criticisms of your points, which further confirms you as a troll.
@ Seeker:
At what point have I given you the idea that I have no problem with the Jones Co LEO? Pls, point out the sentence(s) and I’ll either restate it in a better manner, or explain it better.
It’s patently OBVIOUS the cops went over the line, and I’ve stated that more than once. People seem to think because I’m not screaming for lawsuits, I think the RV guys were completely in the wrong – or at the least, that the cops had every reason to pull out the pepperspray.
Which means you’re completely missing my point. Which once again is: There’s often a better way to deal with LEO’s than reciting dogma from a ACLU pamphlet.
Some people just prefer direct confrontation, pull out cameras, and then sing Tracey Chapman from the back seat of a police car… and then wonder how they could possibly be suspected of having drugs hidden somewhere. ;)
Seeker,
I’ve been reading this website for 2-3 years, nearly every day. I come here because I enjoy Radley’s postings and agree with most of his politics. I find the conversations stimulating, even if I don’t agree with all of the opinions.
You can play the Appeal to Popularity fallacy all you like, or paint me as a troll. But then, that’s the sort of profiling the Jones Co officers were doing, wasn’t it…? The other thread i mentioned, on another site? I was making a point that perhaps the cops had NOT been justified in shooting a kid… sry if you think that’s a point not worth making.
I would never willingly give the cops permission to search my car. It’s during the search that they plant the drugs.
I have a scenario for you Thorn.
John has his door pounded on while eating dinner, he opens the door, and an officer walks in saying I need to see your papers. John quickly complies, the officer looks over his papers they all look good so he leaves. The next day John goes to town, and an officer stops him demanding his papers, again John quickly complies. The officer looks his papers over, and is satisfied again, and allows him to go on his way. This goes on for years, and every body just complies with the officers demands all the time. In fact no ever says to them this is bullshit, I will not stand for it.
Thats what you were saying right.
Let me be the first to welcome you to the Western Colonies Of England’s King George III.
No, Mack. That’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying that (using your example), I’d rather change the law by having hearings with city council than from a jail cell.
Thorn: “Some people just prefer direct confrontation, pull out cameras, and then sing Tracey Chapman from the back seat of a police car… and then wonder how they could possibly be suspected of having drugs hidden somewhere.”
Do you know what probable cause is?
If you do, how can pulling out a camera make anyone think that a person has drugs? How does that action say ahh they have a camera there must be drugs.
Thorn that example was a couple hundred years ago and it took a war to change things so the British could not demand your papers of you anytime they pleased.
I’m familiar with the American Revolution, and it had little to do with demands for paper.
Nonetheless, are you advocating we all grab firearms and march to Mississippi?
Another reason to add to the long list of reasons why I will not enter your country. You started out with the most wonderful geography and the best possible concept for a country and are turning it into a shithole. We Canadians started with some of the worst territory, worst weather, and a completely stupid form of government basically stretching the British system out of shape to fit our huge country, and ended up with one of the best places in the world to live. Go figure.
“Another reason to add to the long list of reasons why I will not enter your country. You started out with the most wonderful geography and the best possible concept for a country and are turning it into a shithole. We Canadians started with some of the worst territory, worst weather, and a completely stupid form of government basically stretching the British system out of shape to fit our huge country, and ended up with one of the best places in the world to live. Go figure.”
But you also produced the monstrosity known as Celine Dion, so lets call this one a wash.
Spleen beat me to the “submit” button.
#75:
Operative words in the law:
…who he reasonably suspects is committing, has committed, or is about to commit a crime…
There was no probable cause here. This was a random stop because they were from out of state.
Or how about another scenario?
Driver: Oink oink, pig! Anybody else smell bacon?
Cop: Very funny. Now, I pulled you over because I couldn’t read your tags. License and registration please so I can check this all out?
(Driver hands documentation over.)
(Cop goes back to his car and checks everything out and finds that everything checks out.)
Cop: Alright, everything looks like it is in order. Please be safe.
Driver: Ahhh… f*** you a**hole. Thanks for pulling us over for nothing We’re outta here.
(Driver and cop leave scene.)
…
…
(Nothing else happens.)
Insane, right? That would never happen. Of course, it’s how the cop should handle such an occasion. It’s not against the law to be a dick. It may not be the best idea, but this we must remember: Police are paid to protect us. If there is no proof that you’ve harmed anybody then you should be free to go about your way. I don’t pay these people to harass me (force me to pull over and waste my time) when I’ve done nothing wrong. Of course, they can pull people over if they aren’t sure if the car is registered and legal. I pay them for that service. But they should be governed by law, which does not state that you can’t call them pigs or curse at them or even be irritated at them, as long as you don’t show aggression as if you will be retaliating in some way.
I know this is way too ranty, but I really wish cops could be this professional in such a situation–let alone instances such as these guys where they were courteous while fairly exercising their rights.
thorn keeps saying something about “changing the law”, but there is NO law.
That’s the point. What law are you going to change? The one that says passengers have to show a driver’s license? Or the one that says you have to consent to a search of your property no matter what? The law that says you can’t videotape someone with a badge?
Which laws are you talking about man?
From #94:
“… Police are paid to protect us.”
Tragically, that misconception is a large part of the problem. They’re not paid to protect us, they’re paid to produce results that make their department look good.
What those cops were doing was farming for arrests to boost their department’s bottom line. We’re all just potential arrestees to them.
Bob:
“Tragically, that misconception is a large part of the problem.”
You’re right, but it’s the cops misconception of their duty as opposed to the rest of us. We pay them to protect our rights, and that is a vast and difficult job, which I don’t envy responsibility of anywhere from the people who make the laws all the way down to the enforcement of them. But I’d certainly like my voice heard, which it clearly isn’t, by and large.
@#70
T, your question reminded me of a story from a few years ago. Sorry for the crappy formatting but it’s the only link I could find quickly. Short answer: Yes. There are protections in place should you find yourself transporting a firearm through an anti-gun jurisdiction:
http://www.ngpc.state.ne.us/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=print_topic;f=1;t=014479
Hard to believe a similar protection doesn’t/wouldn’t exist for the transportation of alcohol through a dry jurisdiction.
FFS, Marcus.
When it’s a thread-by-thread response – not realtime, not a chat room – sometimes one has to generalize. Speaking GENERALLY, i would rather change the law.
But if you’d like a specific answer to that actual question? Fine. I’d like things like Probable Cause to not be a fluid legal situation, subject to officers’ observations and barely more than gut feelings.
Fact is, I freaking guarantee you the deputies thought they had probable cause. (Note to fellow readers: I haven’t said *I* think they did. Don’t misquote me later.) The deputies “felt” something was amiss, and therefore brought in a dog. The deputy “felt” that one passenger wasn’t cooperating as expected (refused to put hands on the vehicle) and therefore got sprayed. The deputies “felt” that not providing ID + out of state temp tag + camera + whatever else was probable cause to continue, and continue what they were doing.
Fact is, it wasn’t probable cause – but depending on the judge, the county, and the state – the court might just be ok with that, and nothing will happen. I’d like to stay OUT of jail, and try to change such situations… not get pepper sprayed and sit on concrete for 10 hours.
“Fact is, it wasn’t probable cause – but depending on the judge, the county, and the state – the court might just be ok with that, and nothing will happen. I’d like to stay OUT of jail, and try to change such situations… not get pepper sprayed and sit on concrete for 10 hours.”
We’re still in the US. If that couldn’t get appealed then our federal government is broken even on such a simple issue. What you seem to be missing is all of the cases where people do absolutely nothing wrong (including this case) but are then framed by cops (Kathryn Johnston, etc.). That’s why we have the laws to protect us from unjust searches. Cops could steal our stuff or plant stuff on us. It happens more than you could imagine, and that’s why our rights are so important. Innocent men and women are put away every day by bad people. With great power comes great responsibility, so let’s hold them to that from the bottom to the top.
To answer youru question, thorne:
Your position is best understood using Orwell’s take on pacifism: it is impossible to take that subjective position without objectively aiding the other side. To take the position that “well, there’s better ways of going about it” when the first, second and third most important things are “the people with the badges and guns have to respect your rights” is grabbing entirely the wrong end of the stick.
The issue is not whether your average citizen can convince a cop to obey the law and respect his rights. the question is how do we stop cops from disobeying the law and ignoring people’s rights. Everything else is a detour into victim-blaming.
The world is changed by revolutionaries, not politicians hugging in City Hall. Same issue I had with Tea Parties action item being “run for local office”.
Thorn you may want to read up on the Stamp Act if you think papers had nothing to do with the revolution.
Here is a hint the Stamp Act had nothing to do with postage. Take a look
http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/related/stampact.htm
http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/index.htm
Thorn: I entirely agree that the MD people could have averted the pepper-spraying and arrest by showing their bellies to the alpha males and refusing to stand on their rights. Thanks for confirming that the filth are not bound by the laws they claim to enforce, but must be appeased like mad, vicious dogs.
“Cops have too much power? Many times they do, agreed. But change that with legislation, not on the road-side. Similar to paying your taxes: If you don’t like paying taxes, change the law.”
Apparently you haven’t read this thread very closely. The law doesn’t NEED to be changed, because it was already on the side of the MD people and the filth were BREAKING it. As at least two people have pointed out, Mississippi doesn’t have a “stop and identify” law. Therefore the passengers were not legally obligated to provide ID. And in most jurisdictions, absent probable cause of some specified crime, police have no right to search a vehicle.
So we’re back to your original point: It doesn’t matter a GOOD GODDAMN what the law is, because the police are outside of it. Appease them like the vicious dogs they are, or they’ll fucking KILL you.
Which is pretty good advice, from a realistic perspective. You should deal with cops the same way you’d deal with any other heavily armed, unaccountable, and volatile thug you encounter: bow to superior force for the time being, and pray to Almighty God for a chance to get even in the future.
When my wife and I bought our house 13 years ago, it sat next door to the city’s very quiet, very orderly public high school in Columbus, MS. Since that time, the city school board built a football stadium across the street (original proposed price? 42.5 million, after overruns and additions? $4.5 million), with a steady rise in delinquency rates at the school, rising dropout rate, a falling accreditation level (started at level 3 and fell to a level 2 last year), dropping enrollment and rising violent crime, including assaults on teachers and students, guns and drugs.
For the last six years, I have been going into the student parking lot, after football and basketball games at the school and picking up the beer and whiskey bottles left from after-game parties in the lot, well within eyesight of school security (oops, they’re calling themselves school “police” now), who are all men and apparently have been more concerned with talking up young girls than in doing their jobs.
In spite of the fact that state law bans alcohol and tobacco from public school property, the sheer amount of left over trash and alcohol containers is staggering most of the time. It is also embarrassing to the residents of the neighborhood, which has mostly been, for years, retired military couples. I have expressed my concern repeatedly to the school board, mayor and city council that our business and industrial recruitment efforts suffer every time location scouts come to town and want to see our only public high school, but see piles of garbage and beer and whiskey bottles. Not to mention the legal liability if there is a serious accident due to non-enforcement of the “no alcohol” rule.
So every Saturday night, after all vehicles have left the lot, for six years I have photographing the trash, picking it up and taking it home before any visitors can see it on Sunday morning.
So now we have a new school “police chief” and new orders from the city and the school board on how to handle me and my cameras and my trash habit.
You can see photos at
http://ctalks.net/index.php?showforum=157 and a video confrontation with the chief at
http://www.mycolumbus.net/files/parkinglotpolice.wmv
Kevin Carson “Which is pretty good advice, from a realistic perspective. You should deal with cops the same way you’d deal with any other heavily armed, unaccountable, and volatile thug you encounter: bow to superior force for the time being, and pray to Almighty God for a chance to get even in the future.”
Thats the sad bottom line. Right now we need to educate as many people as we can that we live in a police state. Hell, half the people in this country actually believed we were attacked on 9/11 because they hate our freedom! The police state has come by such subtle degrees that most Americans don’t even realize it. This is why Radley’s work here is so important. This needs to get out.
Right now we need to educate as many people as we can that we live in a police state.
Strangely, I can’t think of a single time in at least the past week that I thought to myself, “Damnit, there goes that Govt Official stamping his jackboots all over my rights again.”
I didn’t get pulled over in traffic for no reason. No police knocked on the door to see how many guns I’ve got in the house. No one called demanding i list the websites I’d visited, and curiously no piles of books were burning downtown.
As far as I’m aware, none of my neighbors were arrested after attending mass, or going to the temple. I did spend some time at a bar, but afterwards wasn’t picked up and interrogated to determine if anyone else at the bar was a terrorist.
The morality patrol didn’t come by and arrest my roommate for being gay, and none of the other minorities I work with were arrested on suspicion of being… erm.. minorities? No one came by the TV station where I work and demanding we air party propaganda instead of “CSI: NY”.
Perhaps I was just lucky this week. ;)
That’s because the Tea Parties aren’t about changing anything, they’re about getting people voting R again. It’s the GOP’s way of saying, “Aww, come back baby. I only beat you because I love you.”
They promise this time they’ve really changed and they’ll never expand the State again.
Thorn#105- Neither did most people in the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany on any given day. Ask not for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee. In other words if it is happening to somebody its potentially happening to us all.
JS,
If you think the United States – at any point in history, including today – is a police state that has a resembling Nazi Germany or the USSR, then you seriously need to read some history books.
The Gestapo didn’t just go after homosexuals, jews, roma, and the like. At every point, they had the authority to enforce party law upon anyone, including blond german citizens that didn’t agree with Hitler’s agenda.
And the USSR? I have a friend who is a Russian Jew, whose family left for America 15-20 years ago. Believe me, he knew what a police state was… and he’s not living in one now.
If the point comes that America truly IS such a place, I’ll be more than happy to fight in the streets. But using hyperbole to describe what a police state is dilutes the historical reality.
But it had to start somewhere didn’t it? They didn’t just wake up a full blown police state, they got there by subtle degrees. We used to respect our police, live in fear of them. We are getting there by subtle degrees.
I must have missed the episodes of cops where people with drugs pull out video cameras. Your argument that they woulda/coulda/shoulda done things differently goes both ways. As a police officer, when someone whips out a video camera, that should mean that you do things by the book, not that you pepper spray them and delete the footage.
Very soon, the police tactic of siezing video equipment to erase evidence of their wrongdoing will no longer work because people will be piping the video to a remote location. What are the cops going to do then? Truly, your only protection against the police is some type of audio or video survielance, there is nothing else.
I stand corrected, generally you have to be a suspect in a criminal investigation. You also do not have to show ID, per se name and address and sufficient.
According to the MHD website, they were not read their miranda rights at any point during the stop, arrest, or booking.
“#112 | Andrew | May 20th, 2009 at 3:47 am
According to the MHD website, they were not read their miranda rights at any point during the stop, arrest, or booking.”
Not really an issue. It only has to be given before being questioned. Right or wrong, the courts have held that traffic stops don’t rise to the level of questioning. In most cases, other than providing a name and address where required, the best thing to do around cops is to say nothing at all.
I have reached the point where, if I am traveling and get hungry, I will NOT go into a restaurant that has cop cars in the parking lot. This is especially true if I am traveling out of state in my own vehicle. Why risk the hassle?
And for those who have commented that we are not like Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union, hear this. I went to school with the offspring of folks who survived Germany’s experiment with the New World Order. Other kids had, themselves, escaped Hungary during the 1957 uprising. They all are now commenting about how everything is pointing in the direction of a full-blown police state. The cops don’t have tanks and grenades just for drug raids.
Do I have a solution? Unfortunately, no.
As far as police being required to show you the law you’re alleged to have broken, I agree – in a free market in protection, most of the agencies would probably provide that routinely. In the state monopoly of the police, that kind of requirement would never sell in most states.
I’ll mention again, that newspapers really should do this too – have you ever seen an article discussing a newly passed law, that provides a link to the Thomas.gov text of the bill, and the list of who voted ?
Do we live in a police state? If not, how close do we come to it? Years ago, our city commissioned a study by a prestigious LE advisory group (OSS). The study, which included a year of on-site remedial help, was finally published, but it was only given to local press, the mayor and members of the city council. If citizens wanted to see the report, we were told we would have to make an appointment to read it at city hall, no photographing or copying permitted.
I got an “illegal” copy from someone, scanned it and put it on the internet (here—>)
http://www.mycolumbus.net/audit/start.html
There were locals who wanted me arrested, tried to have my web site taken down, reported me to the FBI, state attorney general and the FCC.
Read the report. Miranda? Didn’t exist and still isn’t read to people detained or arrested. Evidence control, sexual harassment of women, corruption, favoritism, nepotism, coercion, the list goes on and on. Read the responses to public survey questionnaires and interviews with private citizens. We hired a chief to solve the problems and the city council and mayor ran him off. The problems still plague the city PD and the public every day. Police state? Even police states have better control of their forces than what some towns and cities in the US have.
“Very soon, the police tactic of siezing video equipment…” will be written into law so cops and the state have full protection. Then, they’ll stomp on your hippie ass.
Regarding video recording of interactions with police:
Why do you think that the police want those handy U.S. Army Cell Phone Jammers?
To prevent the citizenry’s cell phone cameras from telecasting their bad behavior…….
I have been reading all of this with interest. I characterize myself as a pretty average, moderate guy. I generally don’t fear cops, but have had my rights trampled a bit when I was younger. And, Thorn, running about looking for trouble. I was just a young white guy who the police thought needed looking into. Of course, I have never had any charges brought against me because I wasn’t doing anything wrong.
Now that I am in my mid-thirties, have an advanced degree, have a respectable job, married, etc. I am never harassed by the cops. But, you know what, these stories scare the hell out of me. And here is my point: sure these guys could have done some things to make it easier on them, but there is NOTHING they could have done to avoid their rights being trampled.
Thorn, you have characterized these guys as looking for trouble and other pejorative statements. That is actually not true. They were driving. Period. They were even respectful to the police, from what I can tell. But being respectful is different from bowing to authorities every whim. I will state again, there is nothing they could have done to avoid their rights being trampled.
Thorn, go ahead and change the law through writing legislatures (what law? the police were acting outside the law!)and kindly letting the police know what your rights were AFTER you have given them up. Those things will do nothing to affect this situation. It takes revolutionaries like these guys. If they had done the things you suggested, they would have lost some liberty (I won’t use the oft quoted Franklin line here), and the incident would have never received the attention it has gotten. They could have gotten badge numbers and complained. You know what that is? Paperwork. Nothing more. It would do nothing to affect change.
Police state? Well, it is happening by degrees. Rights erode little by little. Sure, were are not Nazi Germany, but things are headed in the wrong direction. And this has nothing to do with changing the laws. It is about changing culture and actions speak louder than words. Maybe this isn’t the action you would have taken. Fine. It probably isn’t the way I would have handled it either. But, I applaud them. I wish I could be as brave. I believe what they did is right and will help their cause. We will see what the outcome is as things progress.
The American Revolution has been invoked in these comments. Would you be the one giving stump speeches and handing out pamphlets? Or would you have grabbed a musket when the shit hit the fan? Extreme example, sure. Something to think about though.
One last point… What has occurred has sparked discussion in many circles, including here. That alone is something positive. Their tactics will be questioned, but their rights will not be.
What no one I have seen has commented on is that
the Motorhome trio were de facto journalists, by
virtue of the fact that they were on a country-wide
Guevarian boondoggle and belonging to a political group that opposes big Governement, expecting to have a run-in or two
with these types of “authorities.”
Journalists not allowed to film their encounters?
Doesn’t seem right.
The cops here come across as ignorant as much as tyrannical
or fastidious.
How did they benefit? They did not.
To quote Norman Mailer, “stupidity is for nothing, not even itself.”
Caving in to the whims of cops who behave badly in order to avoid ruffling their sensitive egos is precisely why we have cops behaving badly in the first place. The problem isn’t the fact that a few people give the cops a hard time over it. The problem is that there aren’t enough people giving the cops a hard time over it.
Day two ;)
Jesse,
I’d like to thank you on being one of the sadly FEW people that have articulated a great response on the points at hand, instead of questioning my motives, resolve, and character. Your closing was quite right – that it’s just being discussed so much is a positive thing.
On to the rest…
And here is my point: sure these guys could have done some things to make it easier on them, but there is NOTHING they could have done to avoid their rights being trampled.
I agree. From the beginning, my point was only that there was certainly an easy way to avoid being handcuffed, sprayed, jailed, and towed.
They could have gotten badge numbers and complained. You know what that is? Paperwork. Nothing more. It would do nothing to affect change.
On this, I disagree – based on personal experience. When I was much younger, I once had a run-in with 2 police while my band was practicing in an industrial area. (noise complaint). The particulars aren’t important; suffice to say the officers went far over the line in their orders and their approach. However unfair we felt they were being, we completely complied. The next day I called the station and spoke with a watch commander. I don’t know if the officers were spoken to, but I do know in the next 2 years we never had another LEO visit.
In Cincinnati, we had a citizen being harrassed by police for open carrying. He cooperated beyond what was constitutionally required, and this worked in his favor when the matter came to light in the media. After calls and such were made at the county prosecutor level, their office actually sent a memo to the police telling them to cut it out – open carry was perfectly legal. As far as I’m aware, no such arrest has happened since that time in Cincinnati.
As to “I wasn’t there, I don’t know how the RV guys acted”… no, I wasn’t. But I’ve seen Pete’s approach in other situations, and I can make some educated guesses.
Honestly? No, I don’t agree with Pete’s tactics. I don’t like people running around, baiting cops and hoping to catch it all on video, making it harder for mainstream Libertarians to look more like a serious party and less like the nutjobs that riot every time the G6 have a meeting. Just as mainstream Republicans don’t like people putting up billboards with bloody fetuses, and mainstream Democrats tire of Sarah Palin jokes instead of serious discourse.
I was aware of who Peter Eyre was BEFORE this happened. I’ve seen his YouTube channel… I’ve seen the clip when he filmed himself callling police on his iPhone to report that a police car was illegally curb parking, walking up to the motorcycle cop saying “Officers, I’m Open Carrying!” and then going on and on about how injust it was that the cop wouldn’t give the other cop a ticket.
I don’t know about you, but personally there have been times that a cop DIDN’T give me a ticket for some violation. Cops are allowed discretion on warning vs ignore vs citation – not only for citizens, but fellow cops. Personally, I’d rather they have discretion than give every citizen a citation every time they’re pulled.
Pete apparently thinks it’s fun. It’s not clever, and I don’t find it especially admirable nor revolutionary. It’s just being antagonistic, and any 5 yr old can do that.
I’ve seen the bad Hugo Weaving impersonation – at least, I’m assuming that’s Pete under the V mask doing a bad Brit accent. Sry, that was a snarky comment… but since I typed it, I’ll leave it.
The American Revolution has been invoked in these comments. Would you be the one giving stump speeches and handing out pamphlets? Or would you have grabbed a musket when the shit hit the fan?
I’ve got a few muskets, and if one day there are stormtroopers regularly marching down the streets, pulling families out of houses and torching their belongs – I’ll be ready to use a gun, and hand one to you as well. But at present, we still have legal/peaceful means to change the country so for now I’ll give stump speeches.
thorn
“I’d like to thank you on being one of the sadly FEW people that have articulated a great response on the points at hand, instead of questioning my motives, resolve, and character.”
Are you going to address any of my points or suggestions, starting with post #96? Is that scenario that far fetched? It seems that you are failing to see the cops as the hired servicemen they are, enlisted to administer our desired services, instead of some independent entity enforcing a higher level of authority.
“I’ve got a few muskets, and if one day there are stormtroopers regularly marching down the streets, pulling families out of houses and torching their belongs – I’ll be ready to use a gun, and hand one to you as well. But at present, we still have legal/peaceful means to change the country so for now I’ll give stump speeches.”
By the way, at that point it would certainly be way too late. Any resistance would be futile.
And it may be paranoia, but if the government decides that guns for civilians should only be limited to handguns it will be handguns versus tanks. That is not going to cut it…
Danny,
Are you going to address any of my points or suggestions, starting with post #96?
I don’t know what you’re referring to specifically, so I’ll go with your point about how you’ve got a perfect legal right to curse up a storm at cops during a traffic stop.
Depending on the situation, the context, and what you specifically say, there are certainly limits on what you can say to police and avoid charges of disorderly conduct. The 1A does protect free speech, but it doesn’t protect threatening speech. If you’re pulled over and your first words are “F— You, Jerkoff Pig!” then the LEO may find this threatening and haul you in. He’ll have legal precedent to back him up, too.
And it may be paranoia, but if the government decides that guns for civilians should only be limited to handguns it will be handguns versus tanks. That is not going to cut it…
One doesn’t attack the -tanks- with handguns.
Thorn,
You are completely wrong. Why? Because it is these “children” who help ensure your rights. Yes, they aren’t lick spittles trying to avoid getting on the shit end of the stick with the law, but that shouldn’t mean jail….for anyone.
You should be able to video tape police officers. No discussion. Some of the worst abuses of police power have been uncovered this way.
As I said, your view is one of: don’t exercise your rights, especially around police officers. Why? It might annoy them and lead to the situation we have now. Problem is they are RIGHTS. We are supposed to be allowed to exercise them all the time without fear of coercion from the State.
You shouldn’t have to produce your papers everywhere you go simply because a police officer thinks you should. This isn’t a police state, and if you are just walking down the street minding your own business, you shouldn’t be arrested for forgetting your wallet at home.
You shouldn’t get detained without reason simply for officer safety. This happens alot. They assume you are carrying a weapon, dangerous, etc. and handcuff you sometimes even point a gun at you. If you are non-threatening and are minding your own business you should not be handcuffed, pepper sprayed or anything of the like.
In this case, if what we’ve read is even half true it sounds very much like the cops escalated this encounter beyond reasonableness. When a cop sees a person with a video camera they should tolerate it, they might not like, but tough that is the law. And I’ll point out all these cops probably had dashboard cams themselves. What? They can video tape us, but we can’t tape them? Sorry, that is NOT how the law works. And watch, I bet the video that was shot will be destroyed. That’s tampering with evidence and criminal defense, its happened before. What happens to cops? Nada. What would happen to me, Jesse or even you? Charges, loss of wealth, chances of lost income and even lost freedom.
So go right ahead and continue to bow and scrap before the cops. But be thankful that some don’t always follow your lead and respectfully stand up for their rights…and yours.
Oh, and baiting…that is what the one defense lawyer did with Dr. West a few posts down. He baited him with a false scenario to show how Dr. West’s methods were seriously flawed. Even if these officers were baited they should be professionals and not take the bait. If this is what happened they failed and either need more training or firing.
By the way,
If true this is almost surely a ticketable offense. I know it is here in California. Just one small example of how there is one rule for us and another rule for LEOs, after all they are more than mere citizens.
@#100
Scott,
Thanks for the link, I will read it soon.
I want to re-phrase my question at #71: Can one get busted for possession of a beer on an interstate highway in a dry county?
As I understand the fact set in this particular case, I think the answer is no. States and Counties may not “regulate” interstate commerce.
If beer is purchased legally in “wet” Acme County, Mississippi and the purchaser is using the interstate to drive said beer to “wet” Charlie County, Tenn, it is not legal for “dry” Beta County, Mississippi to arrest the purchaser as he travels through Beta County, Mississippi on an interstate highway to his “wet” Charlie County destination in a different state.
If the courts permit such an arrest, the courts would be allowing state/local “regulation” of interstate commerce. That is, I think, unconstitutional.
Thorn,
There is also this from Allison Gibbs the woman who helped get the MHD guys out of jail,
You think, given what you’ve read so far that this is reasonable? ATF? WTF? Sounds like an attempt at intimidation.
Yep. Probably pure bullshit, too. Cops are basically lazy. I doubt that the ATF would wish to be bothered by some backwoods hicks interested in proving who’s boss to a couple of motorists.
“this is almost surely a ticketable offense. I know it is here in California.”
What isn’t? ;)
“If you’re pulled over and your first words are “F— You, Jerkoff Pig!” then the LEO may find this threatening and haul you in.”
I wouldn’t find that threatening. As I said, if they show aggression, sure. But words do not equal aggression. Now, if they make threats, even conditional (”If I weren’t late for work, I’d kick your ass right now!”) then I’m totally cool with hauling the idiot off. But “F— You, Jerkoff Pig!” is not a threat or an offer. It’s just steam. And quite worthless. But certainly NOT actionable by police.
Rights?
You don’t have any rights when a policeman with a gun, a billyclub, a taser, pepperspray, anabolic steroids, and a bad attitude has you stopped beside the road.
You are owned.
What those young men in Mississippi experienced is what we may call:
OBEDIANCE TRAINING.
Dogs receive it all the time……..
Take some time to watch “Cops” on TV, if you can stomach it for long.
Watch an unresisting but probably somewhat hesitant, confused, drunk, or non-instantly-compliant suspect get tackled and body-slammed by a 200 lb. policeman into the concrete or asphalt.
Watch the suspect twisted into a pretzel with a knee in their spine, and a foot on their neck as several officers roughly handcuff the suspect. For “everyone’s” safety.
Right.
I wonder how many serious injuries are gratuitously inflicted by our state and local police every year on suspects.
Thousands??
Neck injuries? Spinal injuries? Head injuries? Orthopedic injuries?
There are even many, many deaths inflicted in these usually unnecessary violent confrontations. Many.
The Supreme Court of Montana doesn’t agree with you…
Earlier this month, the Montana Supreme Court ruled that Robinson’s conviction for disorderly conduct will stand because the comments he made to a deputy were in fact likely to result in a violent response, thus constituting “fighting words.”
At the time of the 2000 encounter, Deputy David McGinnis was sitting in his marked Missoula County Sheriffs patrol unit at a red light. As he watched a stream of pedestrians pass in the crosswalk in front of him, he noticed a man -— Robinson —- glaring at him. Moments later, the man greeted him with a loud, “Fucking pig!” and kept walking.
As startled pedestrians quickly distanced themselves from Robinson, Deputy McGinnis parked his patrol car and approached him to let him know that he “had his attention” and to see if he “wanted to talk about something.” Robinson, apparently not interested in further discussion, loudly replied, “Fuck off, Asshole!” and earned himself an arrest for disturbing the peace.
The State of Montana charged Robinson in Justice Court with “disorderly conduct by disturbing the peace by using threatening and profane language.” Robinson responded with a motion to dismiss the charge arguing that his statements to Deputy McGinnis were protected under the First Amendment. The Justice Court denied the motion and Robinson entered into a plea agreement with the State that levied a $100 fine, half of which was suspended, and 10 days in Missoula County jail, all of which was suspended.
http://www.policeone.com/legal/articles/75958-Court-confirms-cursing-at-cops-can-constitute-crime/
First of all, I couldn’t care less about legal precedent. Cursing is not a threat. If somebody’s having a bad day and they do something rude, and you lightly confront them about it, that also may likely result in a violent response, but that doesn’t mean that the confrontation is any form of verbal assault. Recall Radley’s story about they douche bag that put caffeinated coffee in the decaffeinated pot? Should Radley’s confrontation with that man constitute fighting words and therefore be disorderly conduct? Confrontation was necessary. And I’d argue Radley had the right to kick that guy’s ass, but I’d be okay if that wouldn’t hold up in court. Sometimes personal justice is simply worth it. But the confrontation that took place was not at all inappropriate.
Robinson was clearly not threatening the officer. Did he at any point try to MAKE the officer “Fuck off”? No. Did he threaten anybody? No. Screw that case as precedent. The case should have been dismissed, but it’s probably not worth this guy’s time or money to appeal. Oh, and profane language should be protected speech.
I think that covers all of your points. Next?
First of all, I couldn’t care less about legal precedent.
Courts don’t particularly care what you think about it, Danny… nor what I think. The police don’t care what we think about it.
The reality is that in certain circumstances, what you say can get your ass thrown in jail in some jurisdictions. In such places, either get such laws changed, or keep your profanity to yourself… because claiming “profane language should be protected speech” won’t always get too far as a legal defense.
Problem; that was SC in Montana, not Miss. Even the appellate courts are different jurisdictions, so until and unless the case hits the SCOTUS, Montana decisions have no effect in MS. and there are sufficient contradictory rulings on the appellate level to put the Montana decision in serious doubt at the SCOTUS level. Constitutional Free speech vs. state censorship under color of authority. The state will lose.
The Right to Be Profane: South Dakota Supreme Court Upholds Right to Swear At Police
http://jonathanturley.org/2009/01/04/the-right-to-be-profane-south-dakota-supreme-court-upholds-right-to-swear-at-police/
Thom, quite true. But as long as we’re using California for examples on outdoor urination, New York for “stop and identify law”, then there’s no reason we should leave Montana out of the mix. ;)
Nor South Dakota then, right?
Oh, of course. :)
“…because claiming “profane language should be protected speech” won’t always get too far as a legal defense.”
It should in Federal courts. I only say “should” because it all depends on the people interpreting it. I’d really really really hope that federal courts would understand that profane speech is protected, but that doesn’t make it so.
Oh, and:
“The reality is that in certain circumstances, what you do or don’t say can get your ass thrown in jail – or, ya know, killed– in some jurisdictions. In such places,
either get such laws changed, or keep your profanity to yourself…you’re FUCKED!”FTFY
(Again referencing Kathryn Jonston’s case where police break in, shoot her dead, don’t find drugs, realize it’s the wrong house, then plant drugs to justify their fault.)
Thorn, you said:
[i]Strangely, I can’t think of a single time in at least the past week that I thought to myself, “Damnit, there goes that Govt Official stamping his jackboots all over my rights again.”
I didn’t get pulled over in traffic for no reason. No police knocked on the door to see how many guns I’ve got in the house. No one called demanding i list the websites I’d visited, and curiously no piles of books were burning downtown. [/i]
Thorn, ask Cheye Calvo about police officials stomping all over his rights. We are all put at more risk than needed, so that the powers that be can “protect us”. Police have been stepping over the line in a lot of jurisdictions, all under the guise of keeping our communities safe – when it puts individuals in more danger.
Just because you are a law-abiding citizen doesn’t mean something tragic won’t happen at your house. You shouldn’t have to wait for a pile of burning books to see that.
“Strangely, I can’t think of a single time in at least the past week that I thought to myself, “Damnit, there goes that Govt Official stamping his jackboots all over my rights again.”
I didn’t get pulled over in traffic for no reason. No police knocked on the door to see how many guns I’ve got in the house. No one called demanding i list the websites I’d visited, and curiously no piles of books were burning downtown. ”
Unfortunately, that’s the same way many people think, that as long as its not them or their family that’s been sexually or physically abused by LE, then all’s right with the world.
Read this one and then get back to me.
http://ctalks.net/index.php?showtopic=11571&view=findpost&p=114331
The suspect was just that, a suspect, not convicted. He was squatting and hiding out in an empty house, no occupied home invasion. He was unarmed. He had skipped bond on the bonding company owned by the mayor’s longtime girlfriend (they have a child together and were one time partners in the company) and she was about to be forced to cough up $10K if he wasn’t found.
Read the true account. The state LE agency that investigated cleared the officer who shot the suspect, but settlement talks between the family and the city are on-again, off-again. The understanding among citizens is that, since both the shooter and the suspect were both African-American, no DoJ complaint was filed and will not be filed. As I said, read the entire thing and then get back to me about that jackboot. Ever had a family member get into trouble? Ever had one stopped by LE at night and alone? How about a neighbor? How far does your caring for others stretch? How far will it have to go to reach somebody who you might care about? Whoever said that by that time, it wil be too late was 100% right.
“They were driving. Period. They were even respectful to the police, from what I can tell. But being respectful is different from bowing to authorities every whim. ”
Why is everone operating on this assumption. These are the guys who started Bureaucrash which specializes in being embarassingly obnoxious. I’m convinced they’re statist spies sent to reinforce negative libertarian stereotypes.
Are the police in the wrong? It appears so, in some pretty serious ways. Were these three being insufferable pricks? It’s very likely.
On the police state question. If you’re middle class and white, it may very well be getting worse. If you’re not, it’s a hell of lot better today than 20 or 40 years ago.
I’m not trying to hog the topic, but you also stated, “No one called demanding i list the websites I’d visited…”
They don’t have to.
‘Deep packet inspection’ could become the target of legislation”
http://www.betanews.com/article/Deep-packet-inspection-could-become-the-target-of-legislation/1240611260
This technology has already been used by AT&T, Comcast, Roadrunner and other. Did they get your permission?
http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/ISPs-Employ-New-Tracking-Ad-Technology-90008
A hint, do you think the same is not happening with cell phone traffic, VoIP phones and legacy landlines now? We all know what carnivore was…or is, to be precise. You won’t be asked about your communications content or habits, there’s no need. “They” already know.
whim #27 it sounds like to me that they did not state their name or address or anything they just refused to identify themselves to the cops would it not be easier for everyone if they just gave their name and address like the officer asked
One of the few good things about your benighted evil country is the bill of rights, especially the fourth and fifth amendments. Having browsed the comments above I get the impression that many of you do not think it is a good idea to assert those rights.
Tyranny is in place when the authorities can investigate people because they don’t like them or don’t like their politics without having to have some reason for suspicion that they may have actually done something wrong. This allows selective enforcement of the law. Those that are in good standing with the powers that be have de facto immunity and are not troubled by silly laws and have no motive to advocate for change of those laws. Meanwhile authority can use the same laws to make miserable those that they don’t like.
Your criminal justice authorities hate the fourth amendment because it stands in the way of their enforcing the laws against drugs, paedophilia, terrorism, witchcraft, heresy etc as they would like to do, by targeting and searching the people they already know are responsible but against which they actually have no evidence. There is a campaign to kill the fourth amendment firstly by taking cases to the right wing SCOTUS to narrow the scope as much as possible but secondly by convincing people that it is not a good idea, even offensive to assert this right. If enough people believe that they do not have the right to refuse a search or are intimidated into agreeing to requests from overbearing cops then the right is null and void.
This is why some people such as those in the RV have to refuse the illegal requests even though it will mean that they will be arrested for offensive behaviour, assaulting police and resisting arrest. This is the only way to invoke the law to discipline the thug cops by forcing them to prosecute and defending all the way. Of course given that they are dealing with Southern trash redneck goons they will probably spend a lot of money on defense and still get convicted. But at least they will have drawn attention to the contempt that the righteous have for the fourth amendment and may prompt some action to protect it.
Realize that when it becomes obvious that only people who know that they are guilty of something are asserting the fourth amendment rights the pressure will be on to abolish it.
The fourth amendment protects the guilty but that is the cost of protecting the innocent from arbitrary search and seizure.
Is it terrible that I’m really happy for these guys? They set out to learn & talk about abuses of liberty. They found a few cops in MS to help them. They stood up for their rights (whether nicely or as assholes is irrelevant) and had them soundly trampled. (As fortune had it, none sustained permanent injuries or death, no drugs were planted, & they even made it out of jail within the day!) They now have some options on lawsuits, and enough attention from sufficiently angry freedom-loving types that they can probably afford the suits. In effect, they just got what they wanted, yes? For that, I’m happy for them.
Am I glad that this happened? No.
Should it have happened? Absolutely not.
Am I surprised? No.
Could they have gotten out of this with no trouble by acquiescing? Probably.
Should they have? (This seems to be the real question of debate between Thorn and, well, everyone else.) Not my place to judge. That’s an individual choice, and I’m not them. There’s a way I’d LIKE for them to have responded, but I believe that each should have the liberty to make that decision for himself, rather than have their choices dictated by me or, well, anyone.
Danny,
Far too often in this thread, I’m getting slammed left and right when attempting to illustrate by generalization (as above, when Mack was trying to school me on the fact that the Stamp Act somehow had something to do with showing your Driver’s License).
Given that, I’m not even going to attempt discussing the events in Mississippi by using Kathryn Jonnston’s case as a comparison.
“Given that, I’m not even going to attempt discussing the events in Mississippi by using Kathryn Jonnston’s case as a comparison.”
Government agents at any level can screw us over at a whim with little or no consequences. That’s why we are supposed to have rights. To protect every single individual from this unjust treatment. It doesn’t mean it prevents it from happen, but there are deterrents/punishments for the crimes, which is essentially the best we can do.
What you are really missing in your quote above, is that we are talking about freedoms guaranteed at the Federal level. Meaning no matter where you are, you are free to sit at home and do absolutely nothing and you should not be threatened by, above all, federal agents.
People should not fear their government. Government should fear their people.
Rights are rights are rights. Our agreement with government is no different from a business relationship, can you agree with me on that? They are breaching their contract with us and should be held accountable, no matter what level you have to go to in order to make that happen. Freedom of speech is the part of the contract that dictates any non-threatening speech as unpunishable. Of course, we’ve already drifted far from that, but the principle still stands and I wish we could get back to that.
Government agents at any level can screw us over at a whim with little or no consequences.
Are you aware that all three officers that fired on Kathryn Johnston went to prison?
“Are you aware that all three officers that fired on Kathryn Johnston went to prison?”
Thank god for that!
How are Corey Maye and Ryan Frederick doing? They’re alive, sure, but one may lose a total of 10 years of his life in jail and the other one has life? It’s taking a whole hell of a lot of work just to get somebody to review what the hell went wrong, let alone punishing the people with the terrible oversight in these policies. Of course, the cops in the Maye and Frederick cases thought they were going after criminals, so it’s not entirely their fault, but when they lie and use illegal methods to justify these raids (Frederick) somebody had it coming to them. Sadly Frederick was the one punished.
And this is one prominent case. Take a look at the CATO botched raid map here to see who else got killed after doing nothing wrong, or all of the nonviolent offenders that have been raided. I can’t see why you wouldn’t be convinced that our constitutional rights being ignored, be they the fourth or the first, is not a big deal.
Did I mention the fact that Columbus is the small town that has been embarrassed nationally at least four times, twice on the TV news magazine, 48 Hours (”Ghosts of Mississippi”) at
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/06/26/48hours/main209570.shtml
On a rebroadcast and update to the original, the show included the fact that our city police chief had been caught using Crime Stoppers Tip Line money to pay his mistress, the City prosecutor shown in the piece had been fired by the city council after the televised show and none of the murders had been solved.
The husband behind the Liz Dill murder was never convicted, the PD was exposed for covering up numerous instances of sexual harassment by city police officers (threatened young women into having sex in the front seats of city police cars while their partners kept watch outside) and a video that was shown on CNN and Oprah, where three city PD officers taped beating an inebriated man who had fallen through a plate glass store window and passed out on the business floor. The video plainly showed two officers holding the man upright by his arms, while the third officer delivers karate kicks to the man’s back.
The mayor, city council and police chief made every effort to confiscate the video, but the original was immediately sent to the store’s home office and was leaked to the news networks.
This is the DoJ page on the case;
http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/Pre_96/December95/611.txt.html
There are more cases from here, so taxpayers in our city are well aware of what can happen when the public decides to leave the interpretation of their Constitutional rights up to whatever public servants happen to be on the scene at the moment.
Nope, I’ll leave it up to the SCOTUS to make that call, not the sexually frustrated hound dog who happens to stop my wife or my daughter on a lonely stretch of road at night, with no witnesses.
If you feel you can, have at it, but I wonder how the rest of your family would care for that?
There you go, because thorn never experiences it anymore, it doesn’t matter anymore. That was one heck of a call to that watch commander.
Of course, boring logic choppers such as myself would note that this is an unrepresentative sample.
Wrote the person who is interested in generalities. Yes, sure those specific officers got caught and punished. Nevermind that it took one of their informants running to the FBI, that the local department was already in cover-up mode, and that in several other cases little or nothing has happened to the officers who use too much force (Calvo, Culosi, etc.).
And I’ll reiterate once more, even if these guys were baiting the cops, so what? Aren’t cops supposed to be “professionals” who are “highly trained” to deal with a variety of difficult situations? Or are they thugs who become needlessly aggressive at the slightest indication of someone not deferring to their authority? Your answer is apparently that the latter is fine. After all, if they didn’t bait the cops, why they’d be fine. And nevermind that video taping a police officer doing his job is nowhere illegal.
While you’re honing your skills in logic, perhaps you can add “debate points in the context they were given” to your skillset.
While you’re honing your debate skills, try addressing points, or at least being more specific about what is being neglected. You can tell me or anybody else that we suck at debating, but until you present an argument as to why we suck at it, you clearly suck at debating.
See what I did there?
Yes, but I’m not sure it’s what you intended to do. ;)
I had an argument. Your post directly before mine had no details. I understand the usefulness of brevity, but it’s not that persuasive when you are already (seemingly) so far behind in the argument. You need to elaborate, not be snippy.
Honestly, you haven’t peeved me at all. And I don’t think I’ve annoyed you any more than anybody else who isn’t well received in any forum. Just in case you thought the spirit of my posts were anywhere near combative.
5 Alabama police officers fired over beating caught on camera
Charles, I’ll say it before anyone else does (and I DO NOT MEAN THIS- just preempting the believers in street judge justice);
He deserved what he got.
He was unconscious, so no harm, no foul.
What’s the problem?
Way to go guys!!
Taught him a lesson he won’t forget.
They should have killed him.
Have I forgotten anything?
Thorn, I think you’re forgetting that you have the right to be a dick to the cops. They are professionals, and I personally wouldn’t be a jerk to them – some family member are retired PD – but good cops understand public service, that you are seeing people at their worst, not their best, and you are in service to these people. Defending them, protecting them.
Just like every customer service agent across the country (and these days, the world), as a cop you have to deal with some people who are dicks. If you pull over a bunch of puckish kids and they give you a hard time you don’t get to pepper spray and threaten them just because you have a badge.
Good cops keep their cool. What a different experience it would have been for the MD crew to say they taped an officer who pulled them over down south, and the cop was totally professional, surprising them all, even after seeing all those ‘radical’ bumperstickers.
Exactly. Back in the 70s, when we did our training for military base security, part of that was shock training for dealing with war protesters. We had to hold the line and not lose our cool when we were spit on, called dirty names and shoved and pushed. The ones doing the bad acts were seasoned security troops acting like protesters, doing as best they could to make us lose our tempers. They didn’t want anyone working security at one of those anti-war things who might embarrass the DOD on the six o’clock news by shooting into a crowd.
As a nightclub bouncer for 23 years, in some of the most cut-throat, gut-cutting, bone breaking joints in Mississippi, where we didn’t get soccer moms going twelve MPH over the speed limit, or an RV of college kids lipping off, we got bikers with too much alcohol, too much attitude and us with no guns, pepper spray, batons, handcuffs, body armour, riot gear or a hundred other cops back at the office to back us up, we did risk life and limb every night.
We would have lost a lawsuit in a heartbeat, if we had “abused” our position and physically manhandled anybody in anything but a self-defense situation.
If police officers resort to unnecessary measures in situations where less force would be adequate for the task at hand, then it’s either poor training or wilful misbehavior. Trained officers are not allowed to act that way, and ethical, mature and intelligent officers wouldn’t want the ability or responsibility of passing judgment on a street, sidewalk or back alley.
FYI, my father was a Harley cop, my uncle retired from the Highway Patrol and my grandfather was a retired deputy.
You going to actual put forth a cogent argument or are you going to continue dodging points raised in opposition to your veiw?
Also, it was in response to the claim that we are living in a police state. Your response was seriously lacking. How many people living in the Soviet Union were arrested by the secret police, sent to the gulag, and so forth? How many were like you, kept their heads down, did what they were told and largely went on with their lives? My guess is most people fell in the latter catagory. As such, most people in the former Soviet Union could have written something not unlike what you did. In short, my observation still stands–unrepresentative sample thus a rather piss poor argument.
Maybe the claim that we live in a police state is wrong, but you have yet to provide a sufficient argument to rebut…well pretty much everything here.
Didn’t think so.
For example, this variant (by Muffy) of the argument I’ve made,
You are ready to heap scorn on these petulent children, but you don’t fault the police fore being overzealous and quite possibly trampling people’s rights. If the cop pulled them over, called in back up, verified the guns were stored correctly and that the driver had a valid license, registration and insurance, then let them go on their way, there would be nothing to this. Maybe even some good press for cops.
But you keep right on ignoring this argument.
You fail.
“The three states with the highest incarceration ratio are Louisiana (816 per 100,000), Texas (694 per 100,000), and Mississippi (669 per 100,000). ”
No crap, everything is a jail-able offense below the Mason-Dixon line.
(Maine 148 per 100,000)
Thorn @74
“but I assure you, calling them pigs as they walk down the street is the worst way to go about it.”
&
“Do you have the legal right to run around with a video camera at a police rally, wearing a Pigs Suck! t-shirt and photographing the cops?”
&
@86 “Appeal to Popularity fallacy all you like”
Since the motor home crew did not call anyone pigs, wear t-shirts calling anyone pigs or act in anyway disrespectful, I think you are guilty of the Red Herring fallacy or is it the Straw Man?
So what are you going to do about cop behavior like this when it happens to you?
[...] Soon after our release, Charlotte Graham of the Laurel Leader-Call brought the incident to the attention of Jones County in her article Civil Rights Violation? which also included some quotes from Jones County Sheriff Alex Hodge. Quotes that the Grumbling Old Fart did an excellent job disseting point-by-point. Radley Balko over at The Agitator also helped update folks of Sheriff’s Hodges statements. [...]
[...] Soon after our release, Charlotte Graham of the Laurel Leader-Call brought the incident to the attention of Jones County in her article Civil Rights Violation? which also included some quotes from Jones County Sheriff Alex Hodge. Quotes that the Grumbling Old Fart did an excellent job disseting point-by-point. Radley Balko over at The Agitator also helped update folks of Sheriff’s Hodges statements. [...]
Mabye the people in Jones County don’t really give a crap about what most of you think.
we are sick and tired of the way that the jones county sherriffs department operates! Sheriff Alex hodge is a simpleton, and ex-Ms hwy patrol officer, that has recently been elected sheriff after a highly debated defeat of another crooked sheriff. This guys gun is too big for his pants, hes a gun slingin good ole southern baptist boy just like mama told him to be, and he thinks that his good ole boy system still is in effect in 2009, we got news for you , its not. Where can i donate to the legal fund for sueing the shit out of these ignorant hicks?
I live in jones county and from what i know they shouldn’t be able to make the beer in a dry county stick because they were inside laurel and even thou the county is dry the city is not weird i know. i know a lot of people don’t like our sherriff and somethings about him aren’t good but he has done some really good things i mean they are doing things about the meth fiannlly. i mean do some research on the jones county and meth it is really bad her. i am in know way taking up for what was done because in my opinoin the deputies took it to extreme and were in no way right. my grandfather was a deputy and he taught us about the law and how people in power should never run over those who aren’t and every one has the right to live their lives the way they want as long as they aren’t hurting anyone and i don’t believe these guys were so why exactly did all this happen. by the way, a routine traffic stop is a lame way of saying they saw something they didn’t like so they pulled them over with out just cause
[...] Texas Police Taser Pastor Helping Driver in Traffic Stop By Fox News • Jul 1st, 2009 • Category: News Pastor Jose Elias Moran went to assist the stopped driver, a church member, by asking the police what had happenedRelated BlogsRelated Blogs on Texas Police Taser Pastor Helping Driver in Traffic StopThe Agitator » Blog Archive » Jones County, MS Police Respond to … [...]