Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 28

Thread: Steven Hildreth’s encounter with police goes viral: ‘Officers are people too

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,152

    Steven Hildreth’s encounter with police goes viral: ‘Officers are people too

    “The officer asks me how I’m doing, and then asks if I have any weapons. ‘Yes, sir. I’m a concealed carry permit holder and my weapon is located on my right hip. My wallet is in my back-right pocket,” Mr. Hildreth recalled in the post, which amassed more than 176,000 shares since Tuesday.
    [ ... ]
    Mr. Hildreth wrote. “Officers return with my Glock in an evidence back, locked and cleared. ‘Because you were cool with us and didn’t give us grief, I’m just going to leave it at a verbal warning. Get that headlight fixed as soon as possible.’ I smile. ‘Thank you, sir.’”

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...eful-encounte/

    https://news.google.com/news/rtc?ncl...wKW5he7S0-pEmM
    Last edited by Nightmare; 10-29-2015 at 05:00 PM.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  2. #2
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    No mention of whether the serial number was run, or whether that was a pretext for seizing the gun.

    We've been all through this before on this forum. Gun has nothing to do with the speeding ticket (or in this case, a head light being out.)

    Is AZ a must-inform state?

    The writer thought the officer was professional? The true test of police professionalism is not how they behave when you acquiesce to their requests or questions; it is how they behave when you exercise your rights.
    Last edited by Citizen; 10-29-2015 at 07:50 PM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  3. #3
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,792
    I have to be honest, it still bugs me that officers feel compelled to disarm a perfectly peaceful, cooperative, law-abiding man during an entirely routine traffic stop. A burned out headlight isn't even a moving violation; it is an equipment failure. It is a failure that IS going to occur on every car sooner or later since it is all but impossible to predict when a fairly expensive headlight is going to burn out. That is why we have two headlights. It is the kind of thing that should be a verbal warning every single time, short of some evidence the driver has been knowingly or negligently driving around for an extended period of time with a burned out light.

    That said, it will take some more time to change the culture of officers thinking they have any business disarming law abiding citizens during entirely routine, cooperative interactions. It might also take some legislation.

    In my State of Utah officers are generally not permitted to ask whether a person is armed as part of their interactions during a routine traffic stop. If the driver has a Utah permit to carry, that will come up on the officer's in-car-terminal when he runs the license. But if the driver is carrying pursuant to our permit-free car-carry provisions, or if a passenger is armed, the officer generally won't even know unless the firearm is visible or there is voluntary disclosure. Once the officer knows a person is armed, he is still permitted to disarm him "for officer safety". But in many cases of routine interactions they never know because they don't get to routinely ask. Little by little, fewer and fewer officers in Utah are choosing to disarm LACs during routine, peaceful, cooperative interactions even when they know the LAC is armed.

    My one interaction with the Tucson PD, some 20 years ago was almost exactly the same as this, except I didn't have a permit and was OCing. I got a verbal over a burned out license plate light (a bogus but technically valid reason to stop my car with out of State plates that looked like it might be a good fishing trip), and my firearm was returned unloaded with the mag dropped, but not in any evidence bag.

    That all said (in my usual verbose fashion), it is nice to see someone recognize the connection between how a person responds to a police officer and how the officer is likely to respond to the person. This is not to excuse excessive force or other bad behavior from cops when it happens. Just to recognize that most officers don't seem to be out looking to hurt people.

    Charles
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  4. #4
    Regular Member solus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    here nc
    Posts
    6,866
    sorry, the individual stopped in AZ was a person of color...

    the question is when will the nice LEs across this country exhibit the same professionalism, w/o the unnecessary bravado towards all citizens regardless of their ethnicity....

    then it will not be news on either social media or mainstream.

    ipse
    Last edited by solus; 10-29-2015 at 08:32 PM.
    I'm only human; I do what I can; I'm just a man; I do what I can; Don't put the blame on me; Don't put your blame on me ~ Rag'n'Bone Man.

    Please do not get confused between my personality & my attitude. My personality is who I am ~ my attitude depends on who you are and how you act.

    Remember always, do not judge someone because they sin differently than you do!

    Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain

  5. #5
    Campaign Veteran MAC702's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    6,520
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    ...Is AZ a must-inform state?

    The writer thought the officer was professional? The true test of police professionalism is not how they behave when you acquiesce to their requests or questions; it is how they behave when you exercise your rights.
    No, it is not.

    And yes, yes it is!

    I recently wrote an article for a friend's blog that addresses this issue in the similar neighboring state of Nevada:

    Should You Inform an Officer that You Are Armed?

    http://nevadacarry.blogspot.com/2015...icer-that.html
    "It's not important how many people I've killed. What's important is how I get along with the people who are still alive" - Jimmy the Tulip

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,152
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    No mention of whether the serial number was run, or whether that was a pretext for seizing the gun.

    We've been all through this before on this forum. Gun has nothing to do with the speeding ticket (or in this case, a head light being out.)

    Is AZ a must-inform state?

    The writer thought the officer was professional? The true test of police professionalism is not how they behave when you acquiesce to their requests or questions; it is how they behave when you exercise your rights.
    I believe AZ is a 'must inform' state and a 'stop and ID.'

    The cop very professionally masqueraded as a public master - massa - rather than the public servant that he is.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  7. #7
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,792
    Quote Originally Posted by MAC702 View Post
    ....

    Should You Inform an Officer that You Are Armed?

    http://nevadacarry.blogspot.com/2015...icer-that.html
    My answer is unusually simple and brief:

    If legally required to inform, inform.

    If not legally required, inform only if the presence of your firearm is likely to come to the attention of the officer during the course of the interaction.

    Charles
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  8. #8
    Regular Member solus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    here nc
    Posts
    6,866
    I'm only human; I do what I can; I'm just a man; I do what I can; Don't put the blame on me; Don't put your blame on me ~ Rag'n'Bone Man.

    Please do not get confused between my personality & my attitude. My personality is who I am ~ my attitude depends on who you are and how you act.

    Remember always, do not judge someone because they sin differently than you do!

    Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain

  9. #9
    Regular Member Rusty Young Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Árida Zona
    Posts
    1,648
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    I believe AZ is a 'must inform' state and a 'stop and ID.'

    The cop very professionally masqueraded as a public master - massa - rather than the public servant that he is.
    No, thankfully you are wrong on this one.
    The misconception is widely disseminated by the media though. Tell an untruth often enough and it becomes truth, Truth be dammed. Yes, that was a pun. Sometimes I need a little humor to deal with such frustrating facts of life.

    Quote Originally Posted by ARS 13-3102
    13-3102. Misconduct involving weapons; defenses; classification; definitions

    A. A person commits misconduct involving weapons by knowingly:

    1. Carrying a deadly weapon except a pocket knife concealed on his person or within his immediate control in or on a means of transportation:

    (a) In the furtherance of a serious offense as defined in section 13-706, a violent crime as defined in section 13-901.03 or any other felony offense; or

    (b) When contacted by a law enforcement officer and failing to accurately answer the officer if the officer asks whether the person is carrying a concealed deadly weapon; or

    2. Carrying a deadly weapon except a pocket knife concealed on his person or concealed within his immediate control in or on a means of transportation if the person is under twenty-one years of age; or

    SNIP for brevity...

    B. Subsection A, paragraph 2 of this section shall not apply to:

    1. A person in his dwelling, on his business premises or on real property owned or leased by that person or that person's parent, grandparent or legal guardian.

    2. A member of the sheriff's volunteer posse or reserve organization who has received and passed firearms training that is approved by the Arizona peace officer standards and training board and who is authorized by the sheriff to carry a concealed weapon pursuant to section 11-441.

    3. A firearm that is carried in:

    (a) A manner where any portion of the firearm or holster in which the firearm is carried is visible.

    (b) A holster that is wholly or partially visible.

    (c) A scabbard or case designed for carrying weapons that is wholly or partially visible.

    (d) Luggage.

    (e) A case, holster, scabbard, pack or luggage that is carried within a means of transportation or within a storage compartment, map pocket, trunk or glove compartment of a means of transportation.
    Trust, but verify: http://www.azleg.state.az.us/FormatD...13&DocType=ARS
    I carry to defend my loved ones; Desensitizing and educating are secondary & tertiary reasons. Anything else is unintended.

    “Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” - Frederic Bastiat

    "When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle." - Edmund Burke

  10. #10
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,272
    Is OCing in your vehicle considered CCW in AZ?
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  11. #11
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
    Posts
    3,828
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    Is OCing in your vehicle considered CCW in AZ?
    And since AZ doesnt require a permit anymore to conceal, "just what difference does it make now?" read the quoted part in a Hillary Clinton screech.
    RIGHTS don't exist without RESPONSIBILITY!
    If one is not willing to stand for his rights, he doesn't have any Rights.
    I will strive to stand for the rights of ANY person, even those folks with whom I disagree!
    As said by SVG--- "I am not anti-COP, I am PRO-Citizen" and I'll add, PRO-Constitution.
    If the above makes me a RADICAL or EXTREME--- So be it!

    Life Member NRA
    Life Member GOA
    2nd amendment says.... "...The right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!"

  12. #12
    Regular Member solus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    here nc
    Posts
    6,866
    the really sad state of affairs is this individual's commentary spinning on social media and fringe mainstream is because it is felt it is newsworthy as it portrays the nice LEs in a compassionate image against a person of color.

    not one comment nor reported commentary asked: why did the nice LE take the individual's firearm in the first place AND return it in an evidence bag broken down?

    not one comment nor reported commentary asked: what do the AZ statutes state regarding the carrying of a firearm.

    unfortunately, the august membership of this forum are informed enough to ask and discuss these types of question(s) to ascertain some semblance of truth.

    question to the AZ members and the state level grassroots enity(ies):

    has anybody reached out by phone, personal contact, etc., and explained exactly what the law states as well as explained to the individual involved what their rights are while carrying a firearm.

    good PR effort and lo and behold might get a new 'group' of supporter(s) to the grassroots cause and someone will be appropriately informed for any future LE encounters.

    ipse
    I'm only human; I do what I can; I'm just a man; I do what I can; Don't put the blame on me; Don't put your blame on me ~ Rag'n'Bone Man.

    Please do not get confused between my personality & my attitude. My personality is who I am ~ my attitude depends on who you are and how you act.

    Remember always, do not judge someone because they sin differently than you do!

    Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain

  13. #13
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,272
    Bogus story? PR spin?

    TUCSON – The American Civil Liberties Union has initiated a second legal claim against an Arizona police department that stems from the implementation of the "show me your papers" provision of SB 1070, saying the law continues to result in the violation of people's constitutional rights.

    https://www.aclu.org/news/aclu-says-...0-show-me-your
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  14. #14
    Regular Member solus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    here nc
    Posts
    6,866
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    Bogus story? PR spin?

    TUCSON – The American Civil Liberties Union has initiated a second legal claim against an Arizona police department that stems from the implementation of the "show me your papers" provision of SB 1070, saying the law continues to result in the violation of people's constitutional rights.

    https://www.aclu.org/news/aclu-says-...0-show-me-your

    your cite is a year and a half olde...

    ipse
    I'm only human; I do what I can; I'm just a man; I do what I can; Don't put the blame on me; Don't put your blame on me ~ Rag'n'Bone Man.

    Please do not get confused between my personality & my attitude. My personality is who I am ~ my attitude depends on who you are and how you act.

    Remember always, do not judge someone because they sin differently than you do!

    Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain

  15. #15
    Regular Member Rusty Young Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Árida Zona
    Posts
    1,648
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    Is OCing in your vehicle considered CCW in AZ?
    Not sure. If I understand the law correctly, it is NOT considered CCW. See my emphasis below of the "holster... carried within a means of transportation". Seems to suggest carried ON your person when taking into account the final part of that sentence listing the compartments of the vehicle (insinuating a difference between carrying ON your person while in a vehicle and having it in the vehicle but not ON your person; but, as they are both under the same subsection, both of these modes of carry seem to be exempt from the criminalized behaviour ).

    Quote Originally Posted by ARS 13-3102
    13-3102. Misconduct involving weapons; defenses; classification; definitions

    A. A person commits misconduct involving weapons by knowingly:

    1. Carrying a deadly weapon except a pocket knife concealed on his person or within his immediate control in or on a means of transportation:

    (a) In the furtherance of a serious offense as defined in section 13-706, a violent crime as defined in section 13-901.03 or any other felony offense; or

    (b) When contacted by a law enforcement officer and failing to accurately answer the officer if the officer asks whether the person is carrying a concealed deadly weapon; or

    2. Carrying a deadly weapon except a pocket knife concealed on his person or concealed within his immediate control in or on a means of transportation if the person is under twenty-one years of age; or

    SNIP for brevity...

    B. Subsection A, paragraph 2 of this section shall not apply to:

    1. A person in his dwelling, on his business premises or on real property owned or leased by that person or that person's parent, grandparent or legal guardian.

    2. A member of the sheriff's volunteer posse or reserve organization who has received and passed firearms training that is approved by the Arizona peace officer standards and training board and who is authorized by the sheriff to carry a concealed weapon pursuant to section 11-441.

    3. A firearm that is carried in:

    (a) A manner where any portion of the firearm or holster in which the firearm is carried is visible.

    (b) A holster that is wholly or partially visible.

    (c) A scabbard or case designed for carrying weapons that is wholly or partially visible.


    (d) Luggage.

    (e) A case, holster, scabbard, pack or luggage that is carried within a means of transportation or within a storage compartment, map pocket, trunk or glove compartment of a means of transportation.
    Trust, but verify: http://www.azleg.state.az.us/FormatD...13&DocType=ARS

    Quote Originally Posted by JoeSparky View Post
    And since AZ doesnt require a permit anymore to conceal, "just what difference does it make now?" read the quoted part in a Hillary Clinton screech.
    Oh, c'mon. You think being held accountable for telling lies, outright lies, and distortion of the truth applies to her or her ilk?

    In this case though, it doesn't matter, PROVIDED I understand the law correctly (see my response to OC for ME above).
    I carry to defend my loved ones; Desensitizing and educating are secondary & tertiary reasons. Anything else is unintended.

    “Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” - Frederic Bastiat

    "When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle." - Edmund Burke

  16. #16
    Regular Member Rusty Young Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Árida Zona
    Posts
    1,648
    Quote Originally Posted by solus View Post
    the really sad state of affairs is this individual's commentary spinning on social media and fringe mainstream is because it is felt it is newsworthy as it portrays the nice LEs in a compassionate image against a person of color.

    not one comment nor reported commentary asked: why did the nice LE take the individual's firearm in the first place AND return it in an evidence bag broken down?

    not one comment nor reported commentary asked: what do the AZ statutes state regarding the carrying of a firearm.

    unfortunately, the august membership of this forum are informed enough to ask and discuss these types of question(s) to ascertain some semblance of truth.

    question to the AZ members and the state level grassroots enity(ies):

    has anybody reached out by phone, personal contact, etc., and explained exactly what the law states as well as explained to the individual involved what their rights are while carrying a firearm.

    good PR effort and lo and behold might get a new 'group' of supporter(s) to the grassroots cause and someone will be appropriately informed for any future LE encounters.

    ipse
    Don't do social media myself, but I may try a half-hearted search for his contact info. Half-hearted because he honestly believes that a smile from the violator makes violation of Rights ok.

    Anybody on here do "social media" like FB? You could post directly. Expect some kind of excrement-storm from the state-worshippers: https://www.facebook.com/stevenhildr...022221/?type=3
    I carry to defend my loved ones; Desensitizing and educating are secondary & tertiary reasons. Anything else is unintended.

    “Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” - Frederic Bastiat

    "When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle." - Edmund Burke

  17. #17
    Regular Member twoskinsonemanns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    WV
    Posts
    2,489
    I imagine even a bad thug cop could find the occasion to be professional if his victim is showing the proper deference.
    "I support the ban on assault weapons" - Donald Trump

    We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission - Ayn Rand

  18. #18
    Regular Member The Trickster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    218
    Since the 5th Amendment recognizes and protects the natural right of the people to be free from self-incrimination, and, as such, it has long been established that people have the right to remain silent accordingly, would it not be a stretch to state that being required to inform law enforcement that one is armed when asked is a violation of this right? It would be interesting to see it used as a legal defense in court by refusing to answer the question and taking the stance that the AZ state law which requires a response to the question is trumped by the 5th Amendment which allows the individual to refuse to answer any questions.

  19. #19
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,275
    Quote Originally Posted by The Trickster View Post
    Since the 5th Amendment recognizes and protects the natural right of the people to be free from self-incrimination, and, as such, it has long been established that people have the right to remain silent accordingly, would it not be a stretch to state that being required to inform law enforcement that one is armed when asked is a violation of this right? It would be interesting to see it used as a legal defense in court by refusing to answer the question and taking the stance that the AZ state law which requires a response to the question is trumped by the 5th Amendment which allows the individual to refuse to answer any questions.
    I believe that issue has come up in court, it seems that the line is where the gun is carried legally, or illegally. IIRC illegal carry have no duty to inform.
    It is well that war is so terrible – otherwise we would grow too fond of it.
    Robert E. Lee
    The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.
    Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson
    What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.
    President Donald Trump

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Louisville ky
    Posts
    101
    Since the police shoot citizens more often than citizens shoot the police, shouldn't we be disarming them in these encounters if anyone is going to?

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Louisville ky
    Posts
    101
    Quote Originally Posted by The Trickster View Post
    Since the 5th Amendment recognizes and protects the natural right of the people to be free from self-incrimination, and, as such, it has long been established that people have the right to remain silent accordingly, would it not be a stretch to state that being required to inform law enforcement that one is armed when asked is a violation of this right? It would be interesting to see it used as a legal defense in court by refusing to answer the question and taking the stance that the AZ state law which requires a response to the question is trumped by the 5th Amendment which allows the individual to refuse to answer any questions.
    But stating you have a firearm is not incriminating yourself because having a firearm is not against the law.

  22. #22
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by The Trickster View Post
    Since the 5th Amendment recognizes and protects the natural right of the people to be free from self-incrimination, and, as such, it has long been established that people have the right to remain silent accordingly, would it not be a stretch to state that being required to inform law enforcement that one is armed when asked is a violation of this right? It would be interesting to see it used as a legal defense in court by refusing to answer the question and taking the stance that the AZ state law which requires a response to the question is trumped by the 5th Amendment which allows the individual to refuse to answer any questions.
    It would be a violation of the 5A right against self-incrimination if the recipient of the question was carrying illegally, for example, as a prohibited possessor. Of course, that would wash out in court (maybe) with the charge of failing to accurately answer the question being dropped.

    In all other cases, my money would be on the state appealing any and every adverse ruling until it got to SCOTUS who would surely write some specious reasoning that an officer's safety is more important than rights.

    SCOTUS invented out of thin air the power for police to Terry Stop people and pat them down for weapons; so we already know how the 4th Amendment fares against officer safety. And, in Hiibel vs 6th Judicial Court, SCOTUS said requiring someone to identify themselves did not violate the right against self-incrimination. If I recall, one of their illogics was the need for police to know who they're dealing with.


    PS: For new readers, the police stop that led to Hiibel vs 6th Judicial District Court is on youtube. The cruiser had a dashcam going. You can actually view the encounter.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  23. #23
    Regular Member The Trickster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    218
    It simply seems illogical to me that we "have the right to remain silent" and yet, we are legally coerced to talk to law enforcement about this and that, and simply failing to do so could result in criminal charges even when there weren't going to be any to begin with. The right to remain silent and the 5th Amendment in general do not need an illegal precursor in order to be applicable. For example, if one is stopped by the police for speeding and is asked where they are from/going, one does not need to answer those questions; the right to remain silent is retained despite the fact that the answers to those questions do not self-incriminate. The legality of the circumstances is irrelevant.
    Last edited by The Trickster; 11-07-2015 at 12:22 PM.

  24. #24
    Accomplished Advocate color of law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,726
    The right to speak or not to speak does not fall under the 5th. amendment. It falls under the 1st. amendment. Courts will beat you about your head and ears when you scream about your 5th. amendment right. But, when you exercise your right to not speak the court goes berserk. They cannot make you speak about yourself. They offer immunity from prosecution. But, if you lie then comes perjury.

    Hiibel still requires reasonable suspicion.

  25. #25
    Accomplished Advocate color of law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,726
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    It would be a violation of the 5A right against self-incrimination if the recipient of the question was carrying illegally, for example, as a prohibited possessor. Of course, that would wash out in court (maybe) with the charge of failing to accurately answer the question being dropped.

    In all other cases, my money would be on the state appealing any and every adverse ruling until it got to SCOTUS who would surely write some specious reasoning that an officer's safety is more important than rights.

    SCOTUS invented out of thin air the power for police to Terry Stop people and pat them down for weapons; so we already know how the 4th Amendment fares against officer safety. And, in Hiibel vs 6th Judicial Court, SCOTUS said requiring someone to identify themselves did not violate the right against self-incrimination. If I recall, one of their illogics was the need for police to know who they're dealing with.


    PS: For new readers, the police stop that led to Hiibel vs 6th Judicial District Court is on youtube. The cruiser had a dashcam going. You can actually view the encounter.
    The SCOTUS also invented out of thin air qualified immunity. The SCOTUS is very good at inventing out of thin air all kinds of privileges and powers for the government and limiting citizens' rights. So, whats new Joe?????

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •