Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: Video: Decent OC Police Encounter (CA?)

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    63

    Video: Decent OC Police Encounter (CA?)

    Sorry if this has already been posted:
    http://www.bing.com/videos/watch/vid...20videos|msn||

    Some comments:
    1) The video is called "World's Nicest Cop." Nice? Mostly. More accurately, I'd say a professional, calm police interaction between two reasonable individuals.
    2) Maybe California? OCer is carrying unloaded and the officer seems to imply it shouldn't be loaded.
    3) What's the legality of disarming for officer safety?
    4) Points to the officer for not trying too hard to illegally get the OCer's name (though he does try once.) Again, assuming CA which is not stop and identify state.
    5) Minus points for the OCer for possibly giving a false name. Don't give false information to police! (Though "Jeremy" might be his real first name and he hesitates because he doesn't want to give his last.)
    6) Points to the officer for knowing the video would end up on YouTube and very hilariously stating his name and badge number.
    7) Points to the OCer for asking the officer to replace the gun to avoid any chance of brandishing.
    8) Points to the OCer for filming and points to all OCers for making this interaction more comfortable through familiarity!
    Last edited by DoomGoober; 08-09-2011 at 11:27 AM.

  2. #2
    Regular Member Dave_pro2a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2,227
    That 'cop' assaults the OCer right off the bat. A hand twisting submission hold.

    He should be in jail.

    He's not the worlds nicest cop. He's not a professional. He's a scared cop who saw the camera and tried to stifle his real, normal behavior.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Olympia
    Posts
    539
    I was told that in California the police can stop and check your ID to see if you have a valid license...true? I never researched it...

  4. #4
    Regular Member Dave_pro2a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2,227
    Quote Originally Posted by Lovenox View Post
    I was told that in California the police can stop and check your ID to see if you have a valid license...true? I never researched it...
    What if you don't have a drivers license, because you don't drive, because you love walking in LA.

  5. #5
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,915
    Quote Originally Posted by Lovenox
    I was told that in California the police can stop and check your ID to see if you have a valid license...true? I never researched it...
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave_pro2a
    What if you don't have a drivers license, because you don't drive, because you love walking in LA.
    For the last two years, I have Never carried identification with me unless I knew it was going to be required at my destination. My driver's license stays safely ensconced in the sun visor of my car.

    Think for a moment, how many times have you Needed your identification in the last two years?
    Now.. how many of those times did you Know you were going to need it beforehand?

  6. #6
    Regular Member amzbrady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Marysville, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,522
    I saw someone post once that an officer could stop and legally detain you long enough only to verify your identity with out RAS and that if they ask you, for your name, you have to verbally give your name so they can. I dont think that is correct in this state or any for that fact, or am I wrong.
    If you voted for Obama to prove you are not a racist...
    what will you do now to prove you are not stupid?

    "The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of "liberalism," they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened." - Norman Thomas

    "They who can who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve niether liberty nor safety." - Ben Franklin

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    63
    Quote Originally Posted by amzbrady View Post
    I saw someone post once that an officer could stop and legally detain you long enough only to verify your identity with out RAS and that if they ask you, for your name, you have to verbally give your name so they can. I dont think that is correct in this state or any for that fact, or am I wrong.
    There are two things needed for an officer to require you to identify yourself:
    1) A detention caused by reasonable suspicion
    2) A state stop and identify statute.

    (Aside from some other exceptions such as while driving.)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_identify_statutes

    From Hiibel case:
    In sum, Hiibel holds a state may criminalize a refusal to produce identification as long as the detention is predicated on a valid Terry stop (i.e., reasonable suspicion). In other words, police officers do not violate the Fourth Amendment when they arrest an individual after the individual refuses to provide identification during a lawful detention pursuant to their state's stop-and-identify statute.
    Last edited by DoomGoober; 08-09-2011 at 03:12 PM.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Gig Harbor, Washington, USA
    Posts
    286
    Quote Originally Posted by DoomGoober View Post
    There are two things needed for an officer to require you to identify yourself:
    1) A detention caused by reasonable suspicion
    2) A state stop and identify statute.

    (Aside from some other exceptions such as while driving.)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_identify_statutes

    From Hiibel case:
    In sum, Hiibel holds a state may criminalize a refusal to produce identification as long as the detention is predicated on a valid Terry stop (i.e., reasonable suspicion). In other words, police officers do not violate the Fourth Amendment when they arrest an individual after the individual refuses to provide identification during a lawful detention pursuant to their state's stop-and-identify statute.
    Ahhhh....but the rub is, they can lie to you about their 'reasonable suspicion'. Say you're walking down the street minding your own business when a cop stops you and demands your ID because they got a report of someone who 'may' have robbed a bank and 'may' fit your description.

    Do you A) call his/her bluff and withold identifying yourself and risk arrest if they really do have RAS? or B) give up your 4A rights and surrender your name because you're not sure if they really have RAS?

    I don't have a good answer for the above scenario, but it's just something to think about.
    DISCLAIMER: This post may contain libertarian ideas and language that are consistent with the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, including a belief in liberty, rule of law, and natural rights. It may also contain opinions critical of government and the tyrannies being committed by such. If you are an authoritarian, statist, or other freedom hater, side effects of reading this post may include high blood pressure, loose stool, severe genital itching, and diarrhea of the mouth.

  9. #9
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Lovenox View Post
    I was told that in California the police can stop and check your ID to see if you have a valid license...true? I never researched it...
    Kolender v. Lawson

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolender_v._Lawson

    I
    D is not required even in Komifornia yet.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  10. #10
    Campaign Veteran Schlitz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,567
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLCDR View Post
    This is why it is vitally important to establish right up front if you are being detained or not. "Officer, are you detaining me?" If the answer is no, attempt to walk away. Then, in Washington, according to state law, you are only required to identify yourself by giving name, address and date of birth IF the officer is going to issue you a citation for something.
    Yup! Cops can lie to you all day, but let them tell you you are being detained as a part of their trick and you may have a law suit.
    “The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.”
    [Miller vs. U.S., 230 F. Supp. 486, 489 (1956)]
    “There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of constitutional rights.”
    [Sherar vs. Cullen, 481 F2d. 946 (1973)]

  11. #11
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953
    Quote Originally Posted by Schlitz View Post
    Yup! Cops can lie to you all day, but let them tell you you are being detained as a part of their trick and you may have a law suit.
    Yes you could. And then the Court could also award you the magnificent sum of $1

    http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...2_fees06m.html

    This guy's attorney made over $93,000 though.

    The case arose from a 2007 incident in which rookie police Officer Jonathan Chin, who was off-duty, in plain clothes and driving his personal car, said he was cut off in traffic on Capitol Hill by a black Jeep that ran a red light. Dialing 911, Chin followed the car to a dead-end street in West Seattle, where he confronted three men who were standing outside the vehicle. Rutherford had been a passenger in the car.

    Alone and outnumbered, Chin drew a handgun and ordered the men to sit in the darkened street while waiting for backup officers to arrive.

    Rutherford claimed he and his two friends were ordered to sit in the street while other officers sped to the scene. Rutherford alleged a cruiser roared toward him, and out of fear he jumped up to move out of the way. When that happened, he claimed, Chin and officers Joshua Rurey and Jason McKissack — the driver of the patrol car — tackled him.
    You'd think this guy would have had a far better case than where someone was just "lied to". Wonder what he's going to do with his "buck"?
    "If I shoot all the ammo I am carrying I either won't need anymore or more won't help"

    "If you refuse to stand up for others now, who will stand up for you when your time comes?"

  12. #12
    Regular Member Dave_pro2a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2,227
    Quote Originally Posted by amlevin View Post
    Wonder what he's going to do with his "buck"?
    Buy a cup of coffee in 1983.

    Buy a piece of penny gum in 2012.

  13. #13
    Regular Member trevorthebusdriver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    592
    Did anyone else notice that when the officer is checking/clearing the gun that it is pointed at the passing traffic? What happened to "always point in a safe direction"?

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    SW Idaho
    Posts
    1,552

    Angry

    Quote Originally Posted by amlevin View Post
    Yes you could. And then the Court could also award you the magnificent sum of $1

    http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...2_fees06m.html

    This guy's attorney made over $93,000 though.
    The jury in the civil-rights trial cleared Chin and four other officers of allegations they used excessive force, and found that Chin was within his rights to briefly detain the men at gunpoint for investigative purposes.
    Holding a man at gunpoint for investigation of being in a car that cut the officer off? I doubt a mere serf would have fared well under similar circumstances.

    This jury makes me greatly fear for the future of our liberties.
    Last edited by ManInBlack; 08-17-2011 at 02:09 PM.

  15. #15
    Regular Member amzbrady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Marysville, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,522
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave_pro2a View Post
    Buy a cup of coffee in 1983.

    Buy a piece of penny gum in 2012.
    Are they bringing penny gum back in 2012???
    That would be cool, I havent seen that in 10 years.
    If you voted for Obama to prove you are not a racist...
    what will you do now to prove you are not stupid?

    "The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of "liberalism," they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened." - Norman Thomas

    "They who can who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve niether liberty nor safety." - Ben Franklin

Posting Permissions

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