Baltimore protests

[billchao]

What is a facist?

Damnit.

No beer for you.

[Golfingdad]

If you are a capitalist, you keep two beers, and sell a beer to each for a 80% mark up.  A socialist will pour out 4 beers into a large pitcher, and equally redistribute in equal amount to all 3.

Dam, I should have thought of this. Good one. [quote name="Phil McGleno" url="/t/81692/baltimore-protests/210#post_1138684"] What is a facist?[/quote]Somebody who is prejudiced against anybody with a face?

[dkolo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mmoan2

Running away on sight to me is reasonable suspicion.

It's not. US v. Navedo

http://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/113413p.pdf (Page 17):

Quote:

Our holding today reiterates that unprovoked flight, without more, can not elevate reasonable suspicion to detain and investigate into the probable cause required for an arrest. Rather, a person whom police approach is free to avoid a potential encounter with police by leaving the scene, and the rate of acceleration of the person‟s gate as s/he leaves away is far too ephemeral a gauge to support a finding of probable cause, absent some other indicia of involvement in criminal activity

Quote:

Originally Posted by mmoan2

Also, cops often ask questions of people who fit a profile of a suspected criminal. If someone calls a tip in that a tall white kid in a baseball cap stole a van, and the police are tasked with finding that person, they may canvas and area asking random tall white kids with baseball caps some pointed questions.

Cops can stop you in such a case, but unless there's a state law that requires you to provide the cops with ID in a Terry stop, you don't even have to give them the time of day, much less answers to their pointed questions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mmoan2

It may seem intrusive, but there's a reason behind them you may not understand. Cops are not just like anyone else. They have a unique job and I don't mind sacrificing some liberty. It has become too much for some parts of society, but to me this argument is a false equivalency.

I don't even know what this means. The police have a unique job which may lead to things like arrest and use of force under the color of government authority. Many people have historical and personal mistrust of the police. Others simply don't feel obligated to interact with them when they are under no such obligation. The fact that you choose to cede your liberties to the government is your business, but it is quite another thing to suggest that others who place more value on their rights do the same. I have a right to be secure in my person, and I'm not waiving that right just because it would make the police's job easier.

[Mac62]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mmoan2

Running away on sight to me is reasonable suspicion.

It's not. US v. Navedo

http://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/113413p.pdf (Page 17):

How about Illinois v. Wardlow?:

While driving, Officer Nolan noticed respondent, Sam Wardlow , standing in front of 4035 West Van Buren. According to Nolan, respondent was doing nothing illegal, nor acting suspiciously. Respondent looked in the officers' direction and then fled. The officers followed respondent in their cruiser and observed him run through a gangway and an alley. Respondent then ran right toward the cruiser and was detained. Officer Nolan frisked respondent. Inside a white opaque plastic bag carried by respondent, Nolan felt a hard object similar in shape to a revolver. Nolan opened the bag and discovered a loaded handgun. Respondent was then arrested.

And the subsequent court findings

Held. Yes. Reverse and remand the judgment.

Reasonable suspicion justifying a Terry stop is met in this situation. Determination of reasonable suspicion has to be based on commonsense inferences about human behavior, and officers are justified in suspecting that defendant was involved in criminal activity based on his flight and the fact that he was in a high crime area.

Officers are not required to ignore relevant characteristics of a location in determining whether further investigation is warranted.
Headlong flight is suggestive of wrongdoing.

[14ledo81]

I don't even know what this means. The police have a unique job which may lead to things like arrest and use of force under the color of government authority. Many people have historical and personal mistrust of the police. Others simply don't feel obligated to interact with them when they are under no such obligation. The fact that you choose to cede your liberties to the government is your business, but it is quite another thing to suggest that others who place more value on their rights do the same. I have a right to be secure in my person, and I'm not waiving that right just because it would make the police's job easier.

Just curious.

If it would help stop crime to answer a few questions, (that you don't have to), why wouldn't you?

[Abu3baid]

Just curious.

If it would help stop crime to answer a few questions, (that you don't have to), why wouldn't you?

It's not about not helping stop a crime.. it's about relinquishing your rights, because like anything else, once you start relinquishing some of your liberties the impact snow balls until you eventually find your self in a police state where you have none.

Here is a video I watched a few years ago and it explains why you should never talk to a police officer under any circumstances.  :)

The first 5 minutes are pretty cool and he gives a test in it that is kind of funny.

[dkolo]

How about Illinois v. Wardlow?:

[TR] [/TR]

While driving, Officer Nolan noticed respondent, Sam Wardlow , standing in front of 4035 West Van Buren. According to Nolan, respondent was doing nothing illegal, nor acting suspiciously. Respondent looked in the officers' direction and then fled. The officers followed respondent in their cruiser and observed him run through a gangway and an alley. Respondent then ran right toward the cruiser and was detained. Officer Nolan frisked respondent. Inside a white opaque plastic bag carried by respondent, Nolan felt a hard object similar in shape to a revolver. Nolan opened the bag and discovered a loaded handgun. Respondent was then arrested.

And the subsequent court findings

Held. Yes. Reverse and remand the judgment.

Reasonable suspicion justifying a Terry stop is met in this situation. Determination of reasonable suspicion has to be based on commonsense inferences about human behavior, and officers are justified in suspecting that defendant was involved in criminal activity based on his flight and the fact that he was in a high crime area. Officers are not required to ignore relevant characteristics of a location in determining whether further investigation is warranted. Headlong flight is suggestive of wrongdoing.

In the Navedo opinion I quoted, the "without more" was taking Wardlow into account. Flight alone doesn't suffice, you need additional indicia of criminal activity. In Wardlow, that was the fact that it was in a high crime area. Courts have also found that indicators like triggered alarms coupled with flight can amount to reasonable suspicion. Moreover, Wardlow itself stands for the principle that you can refuse to speak with cops and that doesn't create reasonable suspicion. Subsequent lower court cases, including Navedo (that was the last sentence I quoted), have questioned the validity of the distinction between flight and mere refusal to speak in practice. Regardless, flight alone doesn't give rise to reasonable suspicion for a Terry stop. [quote name="14ledo81" url="/t/81692/baltimore-protests/216#post_1138792"] Just curious. If it would help stop crime to answer a few questions, (that you don't have to), why wouldn't you? [/quote] You're assuming it would help stop a crime. If I haven't done anything and haven't seen anything, I have nothing helpful to add. I'm not advocating being a dick to cops, but I'm also not going out of my way to accommodate the authorities when I'm doing nothing and its within my rights to do so. The earlier mention of DWI checkpoints falls under this heading.

[Jakester23]

You're assuming it would help stop a crime. If I haven't done anything and haven't seen anything, I have nothing helpful to add. I'm not advocating being a dick to cops, but I'm also not going out of my way to accommodate the authorities when I'm doing nothing and its within my rights to do so. The earlier mention of DWI checkpoints falls under this heading.

Why wouldn't you go out of your way to help the authorities? Do you hold a door open for the elderly? I don't understand this logic. I have no problem with your point of view I just don't get it.

[14ledo81]

Quote:

Originally Posted by 14ledo81

Just curious.

If it would help stop crime to answer a few questions, (that you don't have to), why wouldn't you?

You're assuming it would help stop a crime. If I haven't done anything and haven't seen anything, I have nothing helpful to add. I'm not advocating being a dick to cops, but I'm also not going out of my way to accommodate the authorities when I'm doing nothing and its within my rights to do so. The earlier mention of DWI checkpoints falls under this heading.

You betcha I'm assuming it "might" help.  Who cares?  Also, saying you have not seen anything would definitely be helpful to the cop.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dkolo

You're assuming it would help stop a crime. If I haven't done anything and haven't seen anything, I have nothing helpful to add. I'm not advocating being a dick to cops, but I'm also not going out of my way to accommodate the authorities when I'm doing nothing and its within my rights to do so. The earlier mention of DWI checkpoints falls under this heading.

Why wouldn't you go out of your way to help the authorities? Do you hold a door open for the elderly? I don't understand this logic. I have no problem with your point of view I just don't get it.

Agree with @Jakester23 here.  I would hope if a crime was committed against me or my family, some citizens would "go out of their way" to help.

[newtogolf]

Why wouldn't you go out of your way to help the authorities? Do you hold a door open for the elderly? I don't understand this logic. I have no problem with your point of view I just don't get it.

Your point is well taken but there's a mentality that once we voluntarily forego our rights that it becomes that much easier for them to be taken away.  I constantly hear the "If you did nothing wrong, then what are you afraid of?" argument but it doesn't always work that way.  Once you start answering questions you open yourself up to further questioning and possible search.

The police are supposed to have probable cause in detaining and questioning you, if they don't have that then you're not obligated to assist them in doing their job.  You don't get brownie points for assisting them and ultimately it could result in you being fined or arrested.

[14ledo81]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jakester23

Why wouldn't you go out of your way to help the authorities? Do you hold a door open for the elderly? I don't understand this logic. I have no problem with your point of view I just don't get it.

Your point is well taken but there's a mentality that once we voluntarily forego our rights that it becomes that much easier for them to be taken away.  I constantly hear the "If you did nothing wrong, then what are you afraid of?" argument but it doesn't always work that way.  Once you start answering questions you open yourself up to further questioning and possible search.

The police are supposed to have probable cause in detaining and questioning you, if they don't have that then you're not obligated to assist them in doing their job.  You don't get brownie points for assisting them and ultimately it could result in you being fined or arrested.

Maybe not brownie points, but sometimes it is the "right" thing to do.  See my above post.

[dkolo]

Why wouldn't you go out of your way to help the authorities? Do you hold a door open for the elderly? I don't understand this logic. I have no problem with your point of view I just don't get it.

Because the nature of a stop like this is I'm being treated like a criminal and it's in my best interest to not offer any information beyond what I'm required to. If an officer stops me and I'm not free to go (he has reasonable suspicion), by definition I'm being investigated for criminal activity. It's entirely different if I had information the police would benefit from and I sought out the police to give it to them.

[newtogolf]

Maybe not brownie points, but sometimes it is the "right" thing to do.  See my above post.

If you're a witness to an accident or crime then I have no problem with assisting if you are certain of the details that you are asked to provide.  Ultimately I try to avoid inserting myself into situations where there's little or no upside and a lot of downside.

[14ledo81]

Quote:

Originally Posted by 14ledo81

Maybe not brownie points, but sometimes it is the "right" thing to do.  See my above post.

If you're a witness to an accident or crime then I have no problem with assisting if you are certain of the details that you are asked to provide.  Ultimately I try to avoid inserting myself into situations where there's little or no upside and a lot of downside.

Could be a little "culture disconnect".

I am from a small town in Northern WI.  I have zero concern that I will be falsely accused or held.  I will freely speak with any member of the law.  I know many of the city police and county deputy sheriffs personally.  Probably makes a difference on how I view this topic.

[dsc123]

Why wouldn't you go out of your way to help the authorities? Do you hold a door open for the elderly? I don't understand this logic. I have no problem with your point of view I just don't get it.

To me, it depends on how it comes up.  If the officer comes over to me and says "excuse me sir, did you see a man in a red hat?" I would always answer.  If the officer approaches me with a hand on his gun and says "What are you doing here?"...well....I'd probably still answer, but I would not be happy about the situation.

[newtogolf]

Could be a little "culture disconnect".

I am from a small town in Northern WI.  I have zero concern that I will be falsely accused or held.  I will freely speak with any member of the law.  I know many of the city police and county deputy sheriffs personally.  Probably makes a difference on how I view this topic.

That's very likely, the relationship with police is much different in small towns compared to large cities and metro areas.

[dkolo]

Could be a little "culture disconnect". I am from a small town in Northern WI.  I have zero concern that I will be falsely accused or held.  I will freely speak with any member of the law.  I know many of the city police and county deputy sheriffs personally.  Probably makes a difference on how I view this topic.

I'm unsarcastically happy that that's the case for you. I think the overarching theme of these protests is that these communities have very different relationships with the cops. I know from second hand accounts a number of instances where police have taken liberties with Terry stops and it makes me wary. Personally, I get diarrhea of the mouth when I get nervous, so I fully intend to take advantage of my rights under the fourth and fifth amendments and keep my mouth shut if I'm ever stopped by the police on anything other than a traffic stop.

[RFKFREAK]

I blame @RFKFREAK for me being here now. Clearly he needs a frisking because he has something up his sleeves.

Meh, whatever.  Nobody derailed anything.  The thread hasn't been about Baltimore all day - we've been discussing @RFKFREAK   So lets blame him!!!!!!!!!!!

Always happy to help!