Police Forum Thread on the Culver's 5

[Rich B]

Yes they are, and I (at least) appreciate their efforts in that regard (even the time it came back to bite me).

+1

 

[maclean]

No problem. Thanks for pointing it out. The way I had it written originally definitely was a less accurate representation of the point I was trying to make.

As an aside, and I've said this in another place or two on the forum, but I want to say it again - I have no problem with the police in general. I'm friends with a lot of them in my home town and I have a couple relatives and in-laws in various police agencies, as well.

My problem in this particular situation is that the police involved (and subsequently the Chief, it seems) are not following the law, even though they know what the law is, apparently because they don't agree with the law.

As a private citizen, I'm expected to follow the law. I'm responsible for my actions if I violate the law, whether I know I'm violating the law or not, whether I agree with the law or not. With that in mind, I expect (at a minimum) the same from those who've willingly taken on the responsibility of enforcing those laws.

To put it more simply - The law is the law, it applies to everyone equally, as do the consequences for breaking the law.

I would agree that the Police Chief in the Wisconsin situation seems to be irrational and bent on applying his people to how he thinks the law should be.

 

[McX]

not to sound like a snob, but i give no credibility, nor do i even go to and read, statements uttered on that forum by the obviously uninformed, uneducated, tramplers of citizens rights. it is good they have a forum to go to and air their opinions, so they don't bother us here.

 

[Brass Magnet]

Even worse, he is from Ohio, and it appears he is even more legally troubled in Ohio if he truly practices what he is preaching.

I THINK this is ohio's stop and identify statue... but don't quote me on it. It appears to have been adopted in 2006
2921.29 Failure to disclose personal information.

(A) No person who is in a public place shall refuse to disclose the person’s name, address, or date of birth, when requested by a law enforcement officer who reasonably suspects either of the following:
(1) The person is committing, has committed, or is about to commit a criminal offense.
(2) The person witnessed any of the following:
(a) An offense of violence that would constitute a felony under the laws of this state;
(b) A felony offense that causes or results in, or creates a substantial risk of, serious physical harm to another person or to property;
(c) Any attempt or conspiracy to commit, or complicity in committing, any offense identified in division (A)(2)(a) or (b) of this section;
(d) Any conduct reasonably indicating that any offense identified in division (A)(2)(a) or (b) of this section or any attempt, conspiracy, or complicity described in division (A)(2)(c) of this section has been, is being, or is about to be committed.
(B) Whoever violates this section is guilty of failure to disclose one’s personal information, a misdemeanor of the fourth degree.
(C) Nothing in this section requires a person to answer any questions beyond that person’s name, address, or date of birth. Nothing in this section authorizes a law enforcement officer to arrest a person for not providing any information beyond that person’s name, address, or date of birth or for refusing to describe the offense observed.
(D) It is not a violation of this section to refuse to answer a question that would reveal a person’s age or date of birth if age is an element of the crime that the person is suspected of committing.
Effective Date: 04-14-2006

 

[maclean]

Even worse, he is from Ohio, and it appears he is even more legally troubled in Ohio if he truly practices what he is preaching.

If you mean Pudge, what has he stated that violates the law?

I think we might be reading his posts very differently.

 

[Rich B]

I THINK this is ohio's stop and identify statue... but don't quote me on it. It appears to have been adopted in 2006
2921.29 Failure to disclose personal information.

(A) No person who is in a public place shall refuse to disclose the person’s name, address, or date of birth, when requested by a law enforcement officer who reasonably suspects either of the following:
(1) The person is committing, has committed, or is about to commit a criminal offense.
(2) The person witnessed any of the following:
(a) An offense of violence that would constitute a felony under the laws of this state;
(b) A felony offense that causes or results in, or creates a substantial risk of, serious physical harm to another person or to property;
(c) Any attempt or conspiracy to commit, or complicity in committing, any offense identified in division (A)(2)(a) or (b) of this section;
(d) Any conduct reasonably indicating that any offense identified in division (A)(2)(a) or (b) of this section or any attempt, conspiracy, or complicity described in division (A)(2)(c) of this section has been, is being, or is about to be committed.
(B) Whoever violates this section is guilty of failure to disclose one’s personal information, a misdemeanor of the fourth degree.
(C) Nothing in this section requires a person to answer any questions beyond that person’s name, address, or date of birth. Nothing in this section authorizes a law enforcement officer to arrest a person for not providing any information beyond that person’s name, address, or date of birth or for refusing to describe the offense observed.
(D) It is not a violation of this section to refuse to answer a question that would reveal a person’s age or date of birth if age is an element of the crime that the person is suspected of committing.
Effective Date: 04-14-2006

That is the same as what I found and posted there.

 

[Brass Magnet]

More and more though, I'm just as worried about the 5th amendment consequences to these statutes, and not just 4th amendment consequences.

An LEO, like they are doing in Madison, can always find SOMETHING to nail you with. So, maybe you're better off not incriminating yourself by giving any form of ID if at all possible. Just like the Madison 5. Had they not illegally searched 2 of them, they wouldn't know who they are, and couldn't send them a DC ticket.

 

[maclean]

not to sound like a snob, but i give no credibility, nor do i even go to and read, statements uttered on that forum by the obviously uninformed, uneducated, tramplers of citizens rights. it is good they have a forum to go to and air their opinions, so they don't bother us here.

Would you prefer that I leave?

 

[maclean]

More and more though, I'm just as worried about the 5th amendment consequences to these statutes, and not just 4th amendment consequences.

An LEO, like they are doing in Madison, can always find SOMETHING to nail you with. So, maybe you're better off not incriminating yourself by giving any form of ID if at all possible. Just like the Madison 5. Had they not illegally searched 2 of them, they wouldn't know who they are, and couldn't send them a DC ticket.

I can't comment on how that would have turned out in Wisconsin.

I've generally found when I am reasonable and within the law, things remain fairly straight forward. I can't say I've never made a mistake, but I make a good effort to remain within the law.

I can say that if I had the legal right to demand information (Ie; RS or PC) and it was refused me, I would likely make an arrest, and have done so. To date, I have not had such an arrest fail in court.

Then again, I follow the law. This Wisconsin Chief, I guess I have no idea about.

 

[Brass Magnet]

Would you prefer that I leave?

I don't prefer that.

 

[Rich B]

Would you prefer that I leave?

I would not. I have no problem with your reasoned discourse so far.

I think McX shares the same feeling I have, but in a different way of "I would never accept legal advice from LEOs and LEOs undoubtedly do not have your best interests in mind as an OCer".

 

[Rich B]

I can say that if I had the legal right to demand information (Ie; RS or PC) and it was refused me, I would likely make an arrest, and have done so. To date, I have not had such an arrest fail in court.

Right, but that is not at dispute here. The WI incident (like most OC incidents) involved no RAS or PC.

 

[protias]

Would you prefer that I leave?

I would not. I think it would benefit us to see how a LEO thinks. There are a lot of good ones out there. It is a shame we rarely hear of them.

 

[Brass Magnet]

I can't comment on how that would have turned out in Wisconsin.

I've generally found when I am reasonable and within the law, things remain fairly straight forward. I can't say I've never made a mistake, but I make a good effort to remain within the law.

I can say that if I had the legal right to demand information (Ie; RS or PC) and it was refused me, I would likely make an arrest, and have done so. To date, I have not had such an arrest fail in court.

Then again, I follow the law. This Wisconsin Chief, I guess I have no idea about.

Well, I can say that I don't agree that as a police officer in your official capacity you have the legal right to do anything beyond what a civilian has the legal right to do. You are vested by the state with the states police power, which should always be subserviant to the rights of anyone, including your rights. Lawful authority is not the same as rights. Powers being subserviant to rights, when a right is violated, an officer get's sued.

Maybe to you I'm arguing semantics, but to me it's very important.

 

[maclean]

Right, but that is not at dispute here. The WI incident (like most OC incidents) involved no RAS or PC.

I think our thread has wandered off the Wisconsin incident, but I would and have concurred with that given the information available to me.

 

[maclean]

Well, I can say that I don't agree that as a police officer in your official capacity you have the legal right to do anything beyond what a civilian has the legal right to do. You are vested by the state with the states police power, which should always be subserviant to the rights of anyone, including your rights. Lawful authority is not the same as rights.

Maybe to you I'm arguing semantics, but to me it's very important.

Legally speaking, I have (in my State) specific powers that a citizen does not.

I can arrest on a warrant, and arrest without a warrant for specific enumerated misdemeanor crimes, and I can carry a firearm into certain otherwise restricted areas.

Other than that, your statement is accurate - except I don't understand what you mean about my rights?

 

[The Don]

I would not. I think it would benefit us to see how a LEO thinks. There are a lot of good ones out there. It is a shame we rarely hear of them.

agreed, and well said.

 

[Gunslinger]

Gents, our forum welcomes open discussion over there.

Please recognize that you'll be exposed to varying opinions from varying locations in the United States.

We do ask that if you care to join our conversation that you briefly introduce yourselves in the appropriate forum.

Cheers,

Mac

How about introducing ourself as a citizen, not a subject. REMAINDER OF COMMENT REMOVED BY MODERATOR: LEO Bashing

 

[maclean]

How about introducing ourself as a citizen, not a subject. REMAINDER OF COMMENT REMOVED BY MODERATOR: LEO Bashing

My IQ as tested would make an uncomfortable room temperature, but that hardly seems important since I'm not calling into question the intelligence of anyone here.

In three very short sentences, you have called friends of mine Nazis with inferior intelligence to your own - and you did so using poor grammar.

I don't see this as productive to healthy debate and education.

 

[Gunslinger]

maclean - Yes, I did notice that, but I would bet money I haven't even earned yet, that the location means nothing with the statement made by "Dave". My great-uncle was a LEO in the LaCrosse area for over 20 years and he said basicly the same thing to me years ago. He said "If I can't punish your behavior for something I don't like, I WILL find something that I can punish you for in trade" In that situation, he was talking about anti-war protester during the Vietnam war.

Many of us who served in Vietnam would take issue with your great uncle. The rights we swore to uphold and defend--even at the cost of our lives, applied to the protesters, too. A shame the cops who take essentially the same oath violate it in such a capricious manner. I'd rather be in a fight with a protester next to me than an oath breaker. At least the former is honest.