Motofixxer
Regular Member
Knowledge and the application of it is power as clearly shown in this vid. Know your rights and freedoms https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQUAu8QnKVs
...
query....anybody tell me why police do not walk up to the car after they have run the plate say hello Mr. XYZ how are you this evening? instead of who are you? or is it a tactic used by the nice LEs in their 'verbal' bag of tricks?
ipse
Absolutely true. They need to fix that firmly to the idea that without some sort of suspicion being articulated they aren't going to participate in some ad hoc fishing expedition to establish suspicion that wasn't there prompter hoc. The officers know very well why they don't want to say what crime they suspect,1 - cops are not required to state their RAS on the street [and I wish people would get that fact firmly fixed in their heads]
2 - a Brownie Scout should have been able to make RAS of stalking. http://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2011/784.048 That includes establishing "a pattern of conduct composed of a series of acts over a period of time, however short, evidencing a continuity of purpose".
(1) As used in this section, the term:
(a) “Harass” means to engage in a course of conduct [We have an allegation, not an observation of conduct.]
(b) “Course of conduct” means a pattern of conduct composed of a series of acts over a period of time, [The officer pulled over the subject as a result of the call, not as a result of him observing the subject. "I pulled you over because a young lady said you had been following her".]
(c) “Credible threat” means a threat made with the intent to cause the person who is the target of the threat to reasonably fear for his or her safety. [The officer in the video makes no reference to any threat to anyone's safety.]
(d) “Cyberstalk” means
(2) Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person [officer makes no statement supporting his observation of any such conduct.]
(3) Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person, and makes a credible threat [officer makes no statement supporting his observation of any such conduct that includes a threat of violence.]
(4) Any person who, after an injunction for protection [no evidence of any protective injunction.]
(5) Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks a minor under 16 [as the person the subject was driving, it's unlikely they were under 16, and no evidence of that age on the video.]
(6) Any law enforcement officer may arrest, without a warrant, any person he or she has probable cause to believe has violated the provisions of this section. [As we don't even have RAS, then surely we do not have PC]
(7) Any person who, after having been sentenced for a violation [inapplicable]
(8) The punishment imposed [inapplicable]
"You are driving a vehicle matching the description that someone told us was being harassing, we have a right to investigate the situation."
True, to investigate. But does that authority to investigate extend to seizing a person that an officer has no reasonable suspicion has committed a crime?
If the person answers no questions and, (because multiple officers denied that he was being detained), refuses to provide any identification, then what purpose did the detention serve?
I'm sure the officers had better things to do, if the gentleman (who was no doubt making their lives harder) were performing any criminal act he would have been cited or arrested. But he wasn't, was he?