Can I see your ID

imported post

Nothing is "illegal harassment" until a judge decides it is

Click to expand...

I'm No Fan of the ACLU, but they can articulate just fine what harassment is legal or not....... We can, too, if you try. That's why you ask if " AM I being Detained?"...Right?

Bear, we've knocked heads on this one before. I'll support the Cops (and yeah, one or two might be crooked......burn 'em!!) over the Bad Guys, which are 100% bad guys. Dude, you want to take the law in your own hands, but don't want the LAW to take the law in it's own hands:banghead:

imported post

Bear 45/70 wrote:

So your thinking it isOK for cops to be as bad as they want, aka amoral just like the bad guys, to get the job done? You really do have a cop mentality. The bad guysare bad guy because they lie, cheat and break the law.Cops are good guys because of the badge, butit is OK if they lie, cheat and break the law to catch the bad guys and you see nothing wrong with this?

Click to expand...

Instead of you thinking up convoluted and twisted bullsh!t and then blaming me for having said it, why don't you actually read the fuc king posts. I'll quote them here for your ignorant convenience...

911Boss wrote:

To be fair, bad guys lie to cops all the time. I don't have a problem with "turn about being fair play".

If some schmo confesses to shooting someone because he is told they have his fingerprint on the gun when they don't, or shows up at a warrant sting because he was told he won a free Playstation 3, I am all for it. Good guys have to follow a hell of a lot more rules than the bad guys, you can't completely tie their hands and still expect them to actually solve crimes.

Click to expand...

911Boss wrote:

It is my experience that they don't lie indiscriminately but only when it does serve a purpose such as in questioning, working undercover, etc. As to determining when and if someone violates a law, I don't disagree some might be "wrong", but that doesn't mean there was an intentional lie. Many times it is a judgment call (which is why we have prosecutors and courts), or it may be the officers misunderstanding, lack of training, or flat out stupidity.

If I tell you the sky is green it isn't a lie if I believe the sky is green. Not every un-truth is a lie. To be a lie, there needs to be an intent to deceive.

Click to expand...

911Boss wrote:

I didn't say it was "wrong" for the bad guys to lie. I just acknowledged that they do. Right and wrong are moral judgments and as such are frequently determined by the circumstances. There are times when the end DOES justify the means.

To really mince words, what cops doe is not "lie" but to use a "ruse" during interviews to elicit information they might not otherwise get from a suspect about a crime.

It is a legitimate and legal tactic. You may not like it but that is what the courts have ruled. Having it available doesn't mean that cops constantly lie with impunity, time and place for everything.

Even in my job a certain amount of "dis-information" can be helpful. I have solicited taped admissions from DV suspects who freely admitted to slapping their wife or girlfriend around after I told them that everyone occasionally fights with their partner and even I have had the need to slap my wife on occasion (which is absolutely false).

I've also told people that if they've done nothing wrong they won't be arrested, we just need to talk to hem and sort everything out for the report knowing full well if I could keep them there for a few more minutes the cops would arrive and they most certainly would be arrested.

I made no "promise" to these fools that I broke and don't feel degraded in the least. There is very little in this world that is absolute black and white, you need to be able to see the gray.

Click to expand...

911Boss wrote:

I "get it" just fine. The mentality of expecting someone to do a job, then throw up every possible obstacle to getting that job done, tying their hands, and then blaming them for not doing the job is what is sad. Blaming someone for using a tool in the performance of their job that the legal system has decided they can use is sad.

The cops ARE the good guys. Sure, there are exceptions and one bad apple can spoil the whole bunch. That in no way diminishes the good that the vast majority of them do on a very regular basis.

Nothing is "illegal harassment" until a judge decides it is. While I don't believe stopping and ID'ing without something other than OC being the issue is wrong, I also think it falls far short of "harassment" if that is all that is done.

No point starting another one of our pissing matches, you won't change my mind and it isn't likely anyone will change yours.

Fact of life is that the courts and the law allow the use of ruse and deceit in certain circumstances. If you don't like it work to change it, otherwise deal with it.

You always like to point to the Constitution, where does it say you can't lie ("good" guys OR "bad" guys)???

Click to expand...

Now where did I say it was ok for them to "be as bad as they want" ??? Where did I say it is ok if they "break the law"?. I very clearly pointed out that they are ALLOWED by law to use deceit under certain circuimstances. If something is ALLOWED by law, then it is OK - JUST LIKE OC YOU FUC KING MORON!

Bear 45/70 wrote:

You probably wonder why there are so many bad cops on the street too. Why? because of attitudes like yours. Not a Constitutional issue, it is one of morals and if the cops act like bad guys, badge or no, they are bad guys.

Click to expand...

You are ASSuming I "wonder why there are so many bad cops on the street". FACT is I DON"T believe there are that many "bad" cops. Yes, as I said there are a few, but the vast majority are not.

Bear 45/70 wrote:

Not a Constitutional issue, it is one of morals and if the cops act like bad guys, badge or no, they are bad guys.

Click to expand...

I agree it isn't a Consititutional issue. The point I was making is you are always spouting off about if something ain't in the Constitution then it doesn't mean anything as if it is the only law of the land.

You have a problem with mixing morals and laws. Morality is a personal code that may or may not be shared with others, law is a societal code that ALL have to follow regardless of individual beliefs. Something can be completely immoral to some and yet be perfectly legal (case in point- Abortion).

Again "Good" and "Bad" are concepts that you seem to hold absolute, unlike in real life where things vary in degree of "Legal" and "Illegal". The only time cops act like "Bad" guys is if they BREAK the law. If they are acting within their authority, they are still "Good" guys. Again, you may disagree, but thankfully you are not the arbiter of right and wrong in this world. Their failure to follow what YOU think should be done is of no consequence.

Bear 45/70 wrote:

If not we will have a police state or anarchy(I'm OK with anarchy, it's the police state I don't want to have to fight against).

Click to expand...

Yes, idiots like you think "Anarchy" is a wonderful idea. Since you get all your milk from the government teat, you really want to give it up?

The absence of any societal rules or power to enforce them means everyone can just do what they want. Just how fine would that be when someone decided to come and take your sh!t? I am sure you believe that could never happen since you are the biggest bada$$ ever put on earth, but if there is one universal rule it is this- there is ALWAYS someone bigger and badder. Without the rule of law you would quickly find yourself as someones b!tch and watching them use your sh!t.

Again, you can have law and order without a police state. It isn't a choice of one or the other, there are steps in between.

Bear 45/70 wrote:

Ifcops want an easy jobthey should go on welfare and sit on their front pouch. You and your thinking will have all our rights gone because it will help catch the bad guys.

Click to expand...

Where did I say that want an "Easy" job? We can't all be freeloaders on the system like you are, and thankfully there aren't a lot of folks who want to be. Once again you show your ignorance by thinking in absolutes only.

imported post

error

imported post

double

imported post

OK, in order so you can't complain.

Convoluted may ass. You flat out said that not letting cops lie makes doing their job harder. That would be advocating that it is OK for cops to lie.

Cops, just like any other person will do worse bad things if allowed to cheat a little. It's call human nature.

Your idea of anarchy is so totally flawed it is unbelievable. You need to do a whole lot of reading before you can even start to comprehend the concept. For me to explain it to you would require a reading list that I am unwilling to supply you, mainly because you wouldn't read it anyway. You already made up your mind, regardless of the facts.

As to easy, you seem to thing that the cops having to be honest and not lie creates a hardship on cops, there by making the job harder. MY response to that concept is "Too f'king Bad!" The copneed to live within the same rules that everyone else does or they aren't cops, but just thugs with a badge. Not my idea of law and order. Oh and if you think what we have now is law and order, then you are as confused about what law and order is, as you are about what anarchy is.

imported post

Bear 45/70 wrote:

OK, in order so you can't complain.

Convoluted may ass. You flat out said that not letting cops lie makes doing their job harder. That would be advocating that it is OK for cops to lie.

Cops, just like any other person will do worse bad things if allowed to cheat a little. It's call human nature.

Your idea of anarchy is so totally flawed it is unbelievable. You need to do a whole lot of reading before you can even start to comprehend the concept. For me to explain it to you would require a reading list that I am unwilling to supply you, mainly because you wouldn't read it anyway. You already made up your mind, regardless of the facts.

As to easy, you seem to thing that the cops having to be honest and not lie creates a hardship on cops, there by making the job harder. MY response to that concept is "Too f'king Bad!" The copneed to live within the same rules that everyone else does or they aren't cops, but just thugs with a badge. Not my idea of law and order. Oh and if you think what we have now is law and order, then you are as confused about what law and order is, as you are about what anarchy is.

Click to expand...

You really are a simplistic person aren't you? What I said was letting cops lie as legally allowed in the form of a ruse is ok. If something is allowed by the rules, it is NOT "cheating".

So pray tell what is YOUR idea of anarchy? Mine pretty much follows the main dictionary definitions :


1. a state of society without government or law. 2. political and social disorder due to the absence of governmental control: The death of the king was followed by a year of anarchy. 3. a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society. 4. confusion; chaos; disorder: Intellectual and moral anarchy followed his loss of faith.
I am betting your idea is the Utopian belief suggested in #3 that everyone will just magically get along since that has worked so well all through history...

Go ahead and supply your "reading list". I'll let you know which ones I have already read and which ones are written by nut-jobs. am sorry of you can't wrap your little brain around the concept that the law ALLOWS a ruse. So if the Law ALLOWS it, it isn't illegal. To put it another way if it is in the "rules" it isn't "cheating".

Here let summarize your argument and mine and then we can let the people decide...

YOU:
Blah, blah, blah CHEATING waah, waah, waah ,NOT FAIR whine, whine, whine, COPS SUCK

ME:
Courts have long held police may use a ruse such as presenting false information to solicit information regarding a crime.



Keep those PM coming in folks, up to 18 to 1 now....

imported post

Bear 45/70 wrote:

Venator wrote:

911Boss wrote:

Bear 45/70 wrote"

You really don't get it, do you? Which is sad. Either the cops are good guys or they are just more bad guys opposed to other bad guys. I don't want amoral bad guys supposedly defending me and my rights, mainly because they won't. This is just an indicator of why cops do as they please until caught and punished for it. The illegal harrassment of OCers is a perfect example too.

Click to expand...

I "get it" just fine. The mentality of expecting someone to do a job, then throw up every possible obstacle to getting that job done, tying their hands, and then blaming them for not doing the job is what is sad. Blaming someone for using a tool in the performance of their job that the legal system has decided they can use is sad.

The cops ARE the good guys. Sure, there are exceptions and one bad apple can spoil the whole bunch. That in no way diminishes the good that the vast majority of them do on a very regular basis.

Nothing is "illegal harassment" until a judge decides it is. While I don't believe stopping and ID'ing without something other than OC being the issue is wrong, I also think it falls far short of "harassment" if that is all that is done.

No point starting another one of our pissing matches, you won't change my mind and it isn't likely anyone will change yours.

Fact of life is that the courts and the law allow the use of ruse and deceit in certain circumstances. If you don't like it work to change it, otherwise deal with it.

You always like to point to the Constitution, where does it say you can't lie ("good" guys OR "bad" guys)???

Click to expand...

It's against the law to lie to the police, but not the other way around.

It's when a citizen stands up fortheir rights that some LEO's get pissy. I would wager that more rights are violated by LEO's on a day to day basis than are ever hindered by a citizen standing up for his rights. Be polite and stand firm.

Click to expand...

What laws says you can't lie to cops?

Click to expand...

There are several laws (Local, state) that make it a crime to give false information to a LEO.

Here is one in California. That is one of many with a search on google.

http://www.premierebailbonds.com/Charges/code-148-9.html

imported post

911Boss wrote:

Bear 45/70 wrote:

OK, in order so you can't complain.

Convoluted may ass. You flat out said that not letting cops lie makes doing their job harder. That would be advocating that it is OK for cops to lie.

Cops, just like any other person will do worse bad things if allowed to cheat a little. It's call human nature.

Your idea of anarchy is so totally flawed it is unbelievable. You need to do a whole lot of reading before you can even start to comprehend the concept. For me to explain it to you would require a reading list that I am unwilling to supply you, mainly because you wouldn't read it anyway. You already made up your mind, regardless of the facts.

As to easy, you seem to thing that the cops having to be honest and not lie creates a hardship on cops, there by making the job harder. MY response to that concept is "Too f'king Bad!" The copneed to live within the same rules that everyone else does or they aren't cops, but just thugs with a badge. Not my idea of law and order. Oh and if you think what we have now is law and order, then you are as confused about what law and order is, as you are about what anarchy is.

Click to expand...

You really are a simplistic person aren't you? What I said was letting cops lie as legally allowed in the form of a ruse is ok. If something is allowed by the rules, it is NOT "cheating".

So pray tell what is YOUR idea of anarchy? Mine pretty much follows the main dictionary definitions :


1. a state of society without government or law. 2. political and social disorder due to the absence of governmental control: The death of the king was followed by a year of anarchy. 3. a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society. 4. confusion; chaos; disorder: Intellectual and moral anarchy followed his loss of faith.
I am betting your idea is the Utopian belief suggested in #3 that everyone will just magically get along since that has worked so well all through history...

Go ahead and supply your "reading list". I'll let you know which ones I have already read and which ones are written by nut-jobs. am sorry of you can't wrap your little brain around the concept that the law ALLOWS a ruse. So if the Law ALLOWS it, it isn't illegal. To put it another way if it is in the "rules" it isn't "cheating".

Here let summarize your argument and mine and then we can let the people decide...

YOU:
Blah, blah, blah CHEATING waah, waah, waah ,NOT FAIR whine, whine, whine, COPS SUCK

ME:
Courts have long held police may use a ruse such as presenting false information to solicit information regarding a crime.



Keep those PM coming in folks, up to 18 to 1 now....

Click to expand...

This is a Washington Forum andas for laws from the Peoples Republic of Kalifornia are of no interest to us and me especially as I will never go there again until they re-enter the United States of America and follow the law. Oh and by the way, all you have said is BLAH BLAH and nothing that applies to Washington State and being in Michigan why are you citing Kalifornia law? So unless you have something relevant to say why don't you go back to the Michigan Forum and shut up here.

imported post

Bear 45/70 wrote:

911Boss wrote:

Bear 45/70 wrote:

OK, in order so you can't complain.

Convoluted may ass. You flat out said that not letting cops lie makes doing their job harder. That would be advocating that it is OK for cops to lie.

Cops, just like any other person will do worse bad things if allowed to cheat a little. It's call human nature.

Your idea of anarchy is so totally flawed it is unbelievable. You need to do a whole lot of reading before you can even start to comprehend the concept. For me to explain it to you would require a reading list that I am unwilling to supply you, mainly because you wouldn't read it anyway. You already made up your mind, regardless of the facts.

As to easy, you seem to thing that the cops having to be honest and not lie creates a hardship on cops, there by making the job harder. MY response to that concept is "Too f'king Bad!" The copneed to live within the same rules that everyone else does or they aren't cops, but just thugs with a badge. Not my idea of law and order. Oh and if you think what we have now is law and order, then you are as confused about what law and order is, as you are about what anarchy is.

Click to expand...

You really are a simplistic person aren't you? What I said was letting cops lie as legally allowed in the form of a ruse is ok. If something is allowed by the rules, it is NOT "cheating".

So pray tell what is YOUR idea of anarchy? Mine pretty much follows the main dictionary definitions :


1. a state of society without government or law. 2. political and social disorder due to the absence of governmental control: The death of the king was followed by a year of anarchy. 3. a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society. 4. confusion; chaos; disorder: Intellectual and moral anarchy followed his loss of faith.
I am betting your idea is the Utopian belief suggested in #3 that everyone will just magically get along since that has worked so well all through history...

Go ahead and supply your "reading list". I'll let you know which ones I have already read and which ones are written by nut-jobs. am sorry of you can't wrap your little brain around the concept that the law ALLOWS a ruse. So if the Law ALLOWS it, it isn't illegal. To put it another way if it is in the "rules" it isn't "cheating".

Here let summarize your argument and mine and then we can let the people decide...

YOU:
Blah, blah, blah CHEATING waah, waah, waah ,NOT FAIR whine, whine, whine, COPS SUCK

ME:
Courts have long held police may use a ruse such as presenting false information to solicit information regarding a crime.



Keep those PM coming in folks, up to 18 to 1 now....

Click to expand...

This is a Washington Forum andas for laws from the Peoples Republic of Kalifornia are of no interest to us and me expecially as I will never go there again until they re-enter the United States of America and follow the law. Oh and by the way, all you have said is BLAH BLAH and nothing that applies to Washington State and being in Michigan why are you citing Kalifornia law? So unless you have something relivant to say why don't you go back to the Michigan Forum and shut up here.

Click to expand...

There are those carefully honed reading skills again, I didn't say a single word about CA and I am not in MI....

Not to mention spelling (oops, I guess I just did!)

imported post

911Boss wrote:

There are those carefully honed reading skills again, I didn't say a single word about CA and I am not in MI....

Not to mention spelling (oops, I guess I just did!)

Click to expand...

No, he meant to quote the post above your's that he quoted... the one posted by a Michagonian. *head-desk, rinse, repeat*

imported post

Before all the bickering started this was getting to be a good discussion.

911Boss wrote:

heresolong wrote:

I am personally glad that the police can't ask you for ID without PC that you are breaking a law.

Click to expand...

Actually they can still ask for it, you just aren't compelled to give it. Coercion and intimidation still convince lots of folks to voluntarily submit to things they are not legally required to.

If in doubt, my response to any question might likely be "Am I being detained?" asked repeatedly until answered by either a yes or a no. If they say "No", then I will say good day and walk away.

Click to expand...

Any WaSCT, 9th Circuit or higher cases that specifically say that. I ask because I am being asked on another board and they aren't happy with just Terry v. Ohio. I was wondering if there are more cases maybe more specifically on point since then?

-adamsesq

imported post

adamsesq wrote:

Before all the bickering started this was getting to be a good discussion.

911Boss wrote:

heresolong wrote:

I am personally glad that the police can't ask you for ID without PC that you are breaking a law.

Click to expand...

Actually they can still ask for it, you just aren't compelled to give it. Coercion and intimidation still convince lots of folks to voluntarily submit to things they are not legally required to.

If in doubt, my response to any question might likely be "Am I being detained?" asked repeatedly until answered by either a yes or a no. If they say "No", then I will say good day and walk away.

Click to expand...

Any WaSCT, 9th Circuit or higher cases that specifically say that. I ask because I am being asked on another board and they aren't happy with just Terry v. Ohio. I was wondering if there are more cases maybe more specifically on point since then?

-adamsesq

Click to expand...

You can blame 911Boss for the bickering. He's been on a vendetta for a couple of weeks to try and get my goat. The only goat is him being a bigoted azzhole.

imported post

adamsesq wrote:

Before all the bickering started this was getting to be a good discussion.

911Boss wrote:

heresolong wrote:

I am personally glad that the police can't ask you for ID without PC that you are breaking a law.

Click to expand...

Actually they can still ask for it, you just aren't compelled to give it. Coercion and intimidation still convince lots of folks to voluntarily submit to things they are not legally required to.

If in doubt, my response to any question might likely be "Am I being detained?" asked repeatedly until answered by either a yes or a no. If they say "No", then I will say good day and walk away.

Click to expand...

Any WaSCT, 9th Circuit or higher cases that specifically say that. I ask because I am being asked on another board and they aren't happy with just Terry v. Ohio. I was wondering if there are more cases maybe more specifically on point since then?

-adamsesq

Click to expand...

Read Hiibel v Nevada. In a nutshell it says that providing your name to officers during an investigatory stop is required and failure to do so is a crime. This only applies to states that make it a crime to not identify yourself by statute. It is much different than giving false information so this ruling probably will not apply in a few states.

edited for content.

imported post

Bear 45/70 wrote:

You can blame 911Boss for the bickering. He's been on a vendetta for a couple of weeks to try and get my goat. The only goat is him being a bigoted azzhole.

Click to expand...

Sorry bear wrong again. You post sh!t, I'll call you on it. Please explain how treating you the way you treat others is "bigoted"?

Do you even own a dictionary? If not, try dictionary.com

imported post

911Boss wrote:

Bear 45/70 wrote:

You can blame 911Boss for the bickering. He's been on a vendetta for a couple of weeks to try and get my goat. The only goat is him being a bigoted azzhole.

Click to expand...

Sorry bear wrong again. You post sh!t, I'll call you on it. Please explain how treating you the way you treat others is "bigoted"?

Do you even own a dictionary? If not, try dictionary.com

Click to expand...

If this is a comparison of crap posted, your vendetta has gotten one thread erased and another locked. I've never gotten close to that record, slick. So you are the king of crap.

imported post

Bear 45/70 wrote:

You can blame 911Boss for the bickering. He's been on a vendetta for a couple of weeks to try and get my goat. The only goat is him being a bigoted azzhole.

Click to expand...

Strange, I've found you bickering with me in at least two threads, one of which ended up locked.

You seem to be the common denominator here bear...

imported post

thewise1 wrote:

Bear 45/70 wrote:

You can blame 911Boss for the bickering. He's been on a vendetta for a couple of weeks to try and get my goat. The only goat is him being a bigoted azzhole.

Click to expand...

Strange, I've found you bickering with me in at least two threads, one of which ended up locked.

You seem to be the common denominator here bear...

Click to expand...

The locked thread wasn't my doing. I walked away at least three days before your twin, Boss 911 got that thread locked because of his insane vendetta. But then you would think that it was my fault rather than the likes of you.

imported post

Bear 45/70 wrote:

The locked thread wasn't my doing. I walked away at least three days before your twin, Boss 911 got that thread locked because of his insane vendetta. But then you would think that it was my fault rather than the likes of you.

Click to expand...

http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum55/17709.html

He didn't even post in that thread.

imported post

thewise1 wrote:

Bear 45/70 wrote:

The locked thread wasn't my doing. I walked away at least three days before your twin, Boss 911 got that thread locked because of his insane vendetta. But then you would think that it was my fault rather than the likes of you.

Click to expand...

http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum55/17709.html

He didn't even post in that thread.

Click to expand...

I was unaware that that thread was locked as all I did was post something about Snopes.I made no comment about the subject or anyone in regard to the subject. I just posted it. You and your crazy buddies went insane and screwed it up. Accusing me of attacking someone that I could care less about. Again not me screwing it up. It seems you guys are of the opinion that only you get to have your say and if my opinion is different then that is not allowed. It's like you guys all think you are above having one of the little people say no. Guess what, that's is your fantasy, not reality.

imported post

Bear 45/70 wrote:

911Boss wrote:

Bear 45/70 wrote:

You can blame 911Boss for the bickering. He's been on a vendetta for a couple of weeks to try and get my goat. The only goat is him being a bigoted azzhole.

Click to expand...

Sorry bear wrong again. You post sh!t, I'll call you on it. Please explain how treating you the way you treat others is "bigoted"?

Do you even own a dictionary? If not, try dictionary.com

Click to expand...

If this is a comparison of crap posted, your vendetta has gotten one thread erased and another locked. I've never gotten close to that record, slick. So you are the king of crap.

Click to expand...

Wow, who sounds like Obama and all the liberals now bear? Talk about some "selective" memory...

I clearly explained when I started my "mission" that it would have one single objective, to respond to the crap you post in kind. As far as the thread that got erased, it was mine and you should be glad it was zapped since the majority vote was you being the azz.

Still waiting for the explanation of how I am a bigot, but as usual you won't answer any direct questions about the crap you spew...

It takes two to tango and I've yet to fire the first shot. Why don't you man up for a change a take a little responsibility beyotch?