If he charges you with a crime by writing a ticket, you must post bond. Normally this is done by signing the ticket as a form of personal recognizance bond (“I hereby promise to either appear in court, or plead guilty and pay the fine.”)

If you refuse to sign the ticket, he will place you in full custodial arrest and you must appear before a magistrate and pay a cash bond to be released (not-so-coincidentally, they set the amount of the bond at the amount of the ticket.)

Oh, and except for two “crimes” (speeding, and open container), he doesn’t even have to offer you the option of signing the ticket: he can just take you to jail on the spot. Thankfully, most departments have decided this isn’t worth the cost:revenue involved, so they have internal policies against the practice. But, it’s perfectly legal if they haul you to jail even as you beg to sign a ticket.

Funny the tasers never seem to malfunction.

I probably malfunctioned….seems to happen a lot.

#44 | ktc2 | June 4th, 2009 at 3:13 pm
Cop flushes fetus down motel toilet:

Huh? The cop flushed a miscarriage/abortion down the toilet?

Isn’t that kinda like flushing a member of one’s own family?

;)

http://www.kpho.com/news/19651231/detail.html

Also, as for defense counsel paid for by the state, isn’t that a little anti-libertarian? Should the government be in the business of defending AND prosecuting? I mean, I agree with you in that all defense should be paid for, but I’m wondering if it’s not anti-libertarian.

It really has to be that way. If the state can bring a criminal case against someone against their will, then it needs to be able to guarantee that person’s constitutional rights, as well. Whether that’s ‘anti-libertarian’ I don’t know. I don’t identify myself as a ‘Libertarian’ because I’m very much ‘anti-anarchy’.

Remember… the ‘state’ is not intended to be a monolithic entity, it’s broken into branches that are supposed to work as a balance.

However, that’s not how the Judicial System has evolved. The Executive Branch (Governor->Mayor->Police Chief) has virtually all the power and control. The counter to this is supposed to be the Judicial branch, that controls the courts… in theory, it is that control that maintains adherance to the constitution.

But it doesn’t.

The Executive Controls Police and Prosecution. The Judicial provides Judges and Courtrooms.

Arrestees are on their own for legal representation. Representation a lot of people can’t afford.

The Executive Branch picked up on this real fast… and focused it’s attention on those that would be least likely to be able to defend themselves in court.

The logical solution, then… is to require the Judicial Branch to provide council to protect the constitutional rights of all defendants. In theory, it’s the office of the Public Defender that fulfills this role.

Here’s the problem: The office of the Public Defender works for the Governor, in the Executive Branch. In the ensuing conflict of interest, the Prosecutors win every time.

See the George Lucas film, “THX 1138″ (1971).
That’s almost forty years ago, now. I remember seeing that on the big screen and very seriously wondering if America might come to that. In those days, I couldn’t quite believe it would, but I had to wonder then already.

1) Vigilantes generally don’t want attention for taking the laws into their own hands.
2) Cops are increasingly taking non-existant laws and heavy handedly inflicting them on the common folk.
3) In a made up laws world or the enforcement of personal opinion it’s inevitable that people will fight back. If no confidence in 2, than they will become increasingly supportive of 1.
4) The inevitable conclusion of forces of 1 clashing with 2.

If the supposed “law” is on the side of group 2, but the real “moral right” is in group 1. What could the average Joe do? So, Stephen, your sentiment is completely understood. There’s a whole lot of grey area out there, but when a cop takes out the wrong person, it will sooner or later create a vigilante Braveheart style that is going to demand more than a pound of flesh. And it will also not be a good day for the police if I’m on the jury that decides his fate (if the cops even try to bring them in alilve)

Let’s be fair here, I’ve been coming to this site for years, and I there seems to be as many definitions of libertarianism as there are self identified libertarians.

If nothing else, this cop should be met with calls of “wuss! What a wimp! Look at the wussy cop who’s afraid of grandma!” for the rest of his career if he wishes to stick to this story.