• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

"...you're under arrest for resisting arrest..."

RetiredOC

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Dec 21, 2009
Messages
1,561
My favorite quote.

[video=youtube;uz9dZPJKhEo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uz9dZPJKhEo[/video]

I'm sure some of you have seen this since it's a bit old, but for those who haven't I thought it was worth bringing up.
This woman is stopped for no reason at all and given a nazi germany like statement of "i need to know who you are to travel down this road"


Under arrest for resisting arrest, obstructing justice, and assault a police officer. (apparently if a LEO has pulled you from a vehicle for no lawful reason you are assaulting him....even though YOU are being assaulted)

Good bye constitution, it was nice knowing you!



(I was unsure if this would be the right section to post in, but I saw some other stuff that was LEO and not OC centered so I thought this would be okay in General, sorry if it's not!)
 

thebigsd

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
Messages
3,535
Location
Quarryville, PA
Yep, that's a classic video. A good one too. Unfortunately, there are hundreds of videos like this that show the police breaking the law. That's the real shame.
 

paramedic70002

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2006
Messages
1,440
Location
Franklin, VA, Virginia, USA
I think SCOTUS really screwed up when they allowed sobriety checkpoints, and don't consider cars a part of 'travel.' It flies in the face of that whole unreasonable search / probable cause thing as well as right to travel, etc. Of course now the original checkpoint is known as the jumping off point for all manor of intrusion. Alcohol, drugs, licensed, inspection, the list goes on.

I'm curious to know if she beat all the charges. So the next time the VSP tries to check me I can just yell "Abbey Newman" and just ride away laughing.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
I think SCOTUS really screwed up when they allowed sobriety checkpoints, and don't consider cars a part of 'travel.' It flies in the face of that whole unreasonable search / probable cause thing as well as right to travel, etc. Of course now the original checkpoint is known as the jumping off point for all manor of intrusion. Alcohol, drugs, licensed, inspection, the list goes on.

I'm curious to know if she beat all the charges. So the next time the VSP tries to check me I can just yell "Abbey Newman" and just ride away laughing.

I always try to live in an unobtrusive manor. Something the peasants won't notice when they come bearing torches and pitchforks. :p:)


Seriously, though, if I recall, the roadblock business was approved by SCOTUS as being a minimal intrusion compared to government interest--according to their logic, anyway.
 

HKcarrier

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2011
Messages
816
Location
michigan
THis is the type of police video that gets me fired up.

The recent ohio video of the dimwit picking up hookers... well, he had it coming...


But this... this is just a lady going about her business and refusing to ID when she wasn't stopped for a specific infraction.


Amazing the cop had the balls to reach in.. open door... then later on pull her out of her car... for what?!


In Lansing, the cops KILL you when you don't pull your motorcycle over...
 

Butch00

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2009
Messages
215
Location
Alaska
All Law Enforcers in this country are Agents of Corporations.
Federal, State, Local Governments are Artificial Individuals.
Corporations = Artificial Individuals.
Corporations and Artificial Individuals are not real living beings
and have no authority, without CONSENT.
 

SavageOne

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2009
Messages
577
Location
SEMO, , USA
THis is the type of police video that gets me fired up.

The recent ohio video of the dimwit picking up hookers... well, he had it coming...


But this... this is just a lady going about her business and refusing to ID when she wasn't stopped for a specific infraction.


Amazing the cop had the balls to reach in.. open door... then later on pull her out of her car... for what?!


In Lansing, the cops KILL you when you don't pull your motorcycle over...



WOW


I was unaware that anyone who is told, they need their head caved in or 10 shots put in them, by a LEO had it coming. I watched the video of the incident in Ohio and thought the guy gave an explanation just as feasable as the LEO's, as to why he was where he was. Let's also remember that he was not charged with anything related to prostitution.
 

Gunslinger

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2008
Messages
3,853
Location
Free, Colorado, USA
My favorite quote.

[video=youtube;uz9dZPJKhEo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uz9dZPJKhEo[/video]

I'm sure some of you have seen this since it's a bit old, but for those who haven't I thought it was worth bringing up.
This woman is stopped for no reason at all and given a nazi germany like statement of "i need to know who you are to travel down this road"


Under arrest for resisting arrest, obstructing justice, and assault a police officer. (apparently if a LEO has pulled you from a vehicle for no lawful reason you are assaulting him....even though YOU are being assaulted)

Good bye constitution, it was nice knowing you!



(I was unsure if this would be the right section to post in, but I saw some other stuff that was LEO and not OC centered so I thought this would be okay in General, sorry if it's not!)

Zum letzten Mal wird Sturmalarm geblasen!
Zum Kampfe steh'n wir alle schon bereit!
Bald flattern Hitlerfahnen über alle Straßen.
Die Knechtschaft dauert nur noch kurze Zeit!

I'm surprised these cracker cops could even read the titles of the books they were sure are 'illegal.' Book burning is the next step here in the 4th Reich. Let's see, what else can we charge this subject-- who thought she was a citizen, with? Papiere jetzt!!"
 
Last edited:

Gunslinger

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2008
Messages
3,853
Location
Free, Colorado, USA
I always try to live in an unobtrusive manor. Something the peasants won't notice when they come bearing torches and pitchforks. :p:)


Seriously, though, if I recall, the roadblock business was approved by SCOTUS as being a minimal intrusion compared to government interest--according to their logic, anyway.

Only for DUI checkpoints. Someday, maybe SCOTUS will get their head out of their ass and call it what it is: a violation of the 4th, 5th and 14th Amendments.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
Only for DUI checkpoints. Someday, maybe SCOTUS will get their head out of their ass and call it what it is: a violation of the 4th, 5th and 14th Amendments.

Nobody caught the joke? (sigh)

Hey, GS. You're pretty handy with that German. Is there something you're not telling us? :p:D
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
Makes me sick. And I have personally heard the "obstruction of justice" line for refusing to give police any I.D. when he couldn't state any RAS. The only thing she is guilty of is obstruction of injustice. There was no justice in those officers actions.
 

Brass Magnet

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2009
Messages
2,818
Location
Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
Makes me sick. And I have personally heard the "obstruction of justice" line for refusing to give police any I.D. when he couldn't state any RAS. The only thing she is guilty of is obstruction of injustice. There was no justice in those officers actions.
This makes me sick too.

As for your quoted material above, I would just like people to remember that the police don't need to state any RAS to you, they only need to articulate it to the courts. Therefore a person must know their states laws, specifically "stop and identify" statutes before they refuse ID. You can ask some questions of the police to try to surmise if they have RAS but you can't know for sure, so refusal is at your own risk. It's probably safer to merely refuse consent but comply. As long as consent if refused it should be legally actionable without added risk to yourself.

Here in Wisconsin, two of the 5 Culvers OC'ers; whose charges were recently dropped, were initially cited with obstruction for refusal to ID but they knew the laws better than the officers. In Wisconsin there is a law that allows officers to "demand" ID if they have RAS but it has no teeth. There is no penalty for refusal. In other states it differs widely and unfortunately SCOTUS ruled that "stop and identify" statutes that require ID assuming RAS are constitutional.
 
Last edited:

HKcarrier

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2011
Messages
816
Location
michigan
WOW


I was unaware that anyone who is told, they need their head caved in or 10 shots put in them, by a LEO had it coming. I watched the video of the incident in Ohio and thought the guy gave an explanation just as feasable as the LEO's, as to why he was where he was. Let's also remember that he was not charged with anything related to prostitution.



I don't mean it as in he deserved it and the cop was certianly over the line.. I"m just saying that it's likely that he was picking up hookers and got busted.... IE: He put himself in that position. All this lady was doing is driving.

Of course the canton cop should probably face criminal charges... but as I stated in the other thread, the dumb-dumb driver deserves some of the blame too.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
This makes me sick too.

As for your quoted material above, I would just like people to remember that the police don't need to state any RAS to you, they only need to articulate it to the courts. Therefore a person must know their states laws, specifically "stop and identify" statutes before they refuse ID. You can ask some questions of the police to try to surmise if they have RAS but you can't know for sure, so refusal is at your own risk. It's probably safer to merely refuse consent but comply. As long as consent if refused it should be legally actionable without added risk to yourself.

Here in Wisconsin, two of the 5 Culvers OC'ers; whose charges were recently dropped, were initially cited with obstruction for refusal to ID but they knew the laws better than the officers. In Wisconsin there is a law that allows officers to "demand" ID if they have RAS but it has no teeth. There is no penalty for refusal. In other states it differs widely and unfortunately SCOTUS ruled that "stop and identify" statutes that require ID assuming RAS are constitutional.

I simply disagree, just because there is no law that says cops must does not mean they don't have to give you a reason, this is why all arrests were to be made by warrant at one time, my state now allows it if the offense is committed in the "presence" of the officer, which would make it obvious what you are getting arrested/detained for. My state is not a stop and identify state, and no other state requires you to carry ID "papers". So without RAS the office is getting no cooperation from me. He can haul my ass to jail and identify me there. And then he can deal with the courts for illegal arrest. (unless of course the arrest was valid) but simply being arrested for not providing ID when he can't state RAS is more legal than him arresting you for not giving RAS, people have the rights not government goons.

By our Blackstone founding the government is only allowed to do something if the powers are granted to it by the people by law. Just because it isn't illegal doesn't make it legal for government and their minions that only applies to its civilians.

How can we know to resist the unlawful arrest (SCOTUS has determined we have this right) if we do not know what the arrest or detainment is for? It is a complete violation of the 4th in my opinion for cops just to stop you for the sake of identifying you. I will continue to fight for the rights regardless of our governments position on it and the misconstrued way the courts have read the constitution.
 

Brass Magnet

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2009
Messages
2,818
Location
Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
I simply disagree, just because there is no law that says cops must does not mean they don't have to give you a reason, this is why all arrests were to be made by warrant at one time, my state now allows it if the offense is committed in the "presence" of the officer, which would make it obvious what you are getting arrested/detained for. My state is not a stop and identify state, and no other state requires you to carry ID "papers". So without RAS the office is getting no cooperation from me. He can haul my ass to jail and identify me there. And then he can deal with the courts for illegal arrest. (unless of course the arrest was valid) but simply being arrested for not providing ID when he can't state RAS is more legal than him arresting you for not giving RAS, people have the rights not government goons.

By our Blackstone founding the government is only allowed to do something if the powers are granted to it by the people by law. Just because it isn't illegal doesn't make it legal for government and their minions that only applies to its civilians.

How can we know to resist the unlawful arrest (SCOTUS has determined we have this right) if we do not know what the arrest or detainment is for? It is a complete violation of the 4th in my opinion for cops just to stop you for the sake of identifying you. I will continue to fight for the rights regardless of our governments position on it and the misconstrued way the courts have read the constitution.

I totally agree with your sentiment however there is no law (that I know of) that says police can lie to you either, but they are legally allowed to do that. What's right and what the courts say are many times two different things.

In any case I'm only trying to point out the legal jeopardy that one might face if they decided a cop didn't have RAS and refused to comply with a demand for an ID in a "stop and identify" state. I believe that refusing consent is perfectly fine in the situation though and should be just as legally actionable without as much danger to the refuser. Yes, you may have every right to refuse to comply to illegal commands or resist illegal arrest but there are safer ways to end up with the same conclusion.

Just to give an example; in Wisconsin I know that I may not be LEGALLY arrested for refusal to ID myself therefore; if I'm not actually driving a car, they will get no ID card from me unless they arrest me. In a state with a "stop and identify" statute that has teeth, I will do everything I can to coax the RAS out of the officer but comply with his/her demands while making it clear that I don't consent to them. He or she will later be forced to articulate the suspicion to a court of law. The varying approaches are why it's so important to know the law in the state you are in at the time.

You are perfectly free to go about it in the way that you outline and I can't fault you for it at all but others should know there are other, less dangerous ways to go about it.
 
Last edited:

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
I totally agree with your sentiment however there is no law (that I know of) that says police can lie to you either, but they are legally allowed to do that...

The reason it is legal is the same reason that many of the actions we take are legal: There is no law against it. There need not be a law that allows it.

However, as long as one remembers that he has the right to a lawyer and to have that lawyer present during questioning, police lying can be completely emasculated by the exercise of that right.

I don't want the law in this nation changed to where things we are allowed to do are enumerated. I prefer a system whereby we (including LEOs) are free to do anything not explicitly prohibited by law.
 
Top