Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: Resisting without violence

  1. #1
    Founder's Club Member ixtow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Suwannee County, FL
    Posts
    5,069

    Resisting without violence

    I just had a friend arrested for "Resisting Without Violence." I was listening to the events as they unfolded, and know that the charge is absolutely unfounded, as is pandemic in this part of the country. It's the new 'Disturbing the Peace' catch-all, but more offensive.

    But I think it is something to be on the lookout for. They use it in a more aggressive and engaging manner during Citizen-initiated or Consensual encounters to achieve a detainment without cause.

    I'll not discuss the particulars of my friend's incident (he's actually still in the clink and I won't wreck things for his potential lawsuit). I can say that Officers do demand more than a Full Legal Name, and they can and do arrest you for not providing your SSN, DOB, etc. No matter the frequency that these cases are thrown out, it's actually escalating, not decreasing; because they get away with it scott-free.

    Florida's Stop and Identify law is actually buried under the loitering a prowling ordinance, and is very clear that this information requires RAS, and does not exceed more than a Full Legal Name.

    Expect to see this become the new excuse for unfounded detainment and 'investigations' of people doing nothing wrong. It doesn't apply merely to arrest, but to impeding an officer in his official duties, regardless. Basically, the Officers construe it to be sarcastically broad, and Judges don't. And nothing is being done, punitively, to force the Officers to comply.

    Here's a report of an unrelated incident of this abuse, but there are many more.

    http://www.wftv.com/news/10234766/detail.html

    Notice that it's from 2006. The problem is much worse now. I don't expect it to stay contained in this State once the anti-OC officers get wind of how easy and consequence-free it is. Especially in States that haven't Statutized (?) Hiibel as restrictively as FL has. If they can get away with it here, they can get away with it anywhere.

  2. #2
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Supreme court struck down loitering laws. So if Florida is using this law it is illegal. If you read the opinons notice how "conservative" Scalia is an anti freedom idiot.

    http://libertarianrock.com/1999/06/s...loitering-law/

    From this site: http://www.streetgangs.com/topics/19...ganginjla.html

    The lead opinion in the case (Chicago vs Morales, 97-1121), was written by Justice Stevens, who was appointed in 1975 by Republican President Ford. He is now probably the court's most liberal member.

    "The freedom to loiter for innocent purposes is part of the liberty" protected by the U.S. Constitution, he said. Chicagoans who stop to "engage in idle conversation or simply to enjoy a cool breeze on a warm evening" should not be subject to police commands, he said, if they have committed no other offense. Justices David H. Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg joined his opinion in full.

    In separate statements, three other justices shunned the notion of a constitutional right to loiter and stressed that the Chicago law was unconstitutional because it did not focus on specific criminal conduct.


    The lead opinion in the case (Chicago vs Morales, 97-1121), was written by Justice Stevens, who was appointed in 1975 by Republican President Ford. He is now probably the court's most liberal member.

    "The freedom to loiter for innocent purposes is part of the liberty" protected by the U.S. Constitution, he said. Chicagoans who stop to "engage in idle conversation or simply to enjoy a cool breeze on a warm evening" should not be subject to police commands, he said, if they have committed no other offense. Justices David H. Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg joined his opinion in full.

    In separate statements, three other justices shunned the notion of a constitutional right to loiter and stressed that the Chicago law was unconstitutional because it did not focus on specific criminal conduct.




    The lead opinion in the case (Chicago vs Morales, 97-1121), was written by Justice Stevens, who was appointed in 1975 by Republican President Ford. He is now probably the court's most liberal member.

    "The freedom to loiter for innocent purposes is part of the liberty" protected by the U.S. Constitution, he said. Chicagoans who stop to "engage in idle conversation or simply to enjoy a cool breeze on a warm evening" should not be subject to police commands, he said, if they have committed no other offense. Justices David H. Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg joined his opinion in full.

    In separate statements, three other justices shunned the notion of a constitutional right to loiter and stressed that the Chicago law was unconstitutional because it did not focus on specific criminal conduct.

  3. #3
    Regular Member Dreamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Grennsboro NC
    Posts
    5,358
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    The lead opinion in the case (Chicago vs Morales, 97-1121), was written by Justice Stevens, who was appointed in 1975 by Republican President Ford. He is now probably the court's most liberal member.

    Gerald Ford was a member of the Warren Commission that "investigated" the Kennedy assassination.

    'nuff sed...
    It is our cause to dispel the foggy thinking which avoids hard decisions in the delusion that a world of conflict will somehow mysteriously resolve itself into a world of harmony, if we just don't rock the boat or irritate the forces of aggression—and this is hogwash."
    --Barry Goldwater, 1964

Posting Permissions

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