Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: TweetyBird on March 04, 2005, 10:20:47 PM
-
For all you skeptics of due process...
My nephew was arrested today, handcuffed searched and brought to jail just because some officer misread his drivers liscence number. Luckily, the officer allowed him to use his cell phone before putting him the car. Before he was to lockup, he knew he would be out before he hit a holding cell. He was shaken and about to lose it (thinking he was going for an overnighter) when he got the call back there were no warrants against him.
The funny part was the change in attitude of the officers at the lockup. From teasing him to bein extremely apologetic and promising an investigation after their chief and 2 judges called the lockup. It was even funnier that they realized their mistake and were trying to cover themselves (no, no one by that name is in custody..) before the judge called.
Due process is a good thing because everyone makes mistakes. Punching a driver's license number in wrong is a common mistake. That why they have checks to prevent that. Unfortunately the officer and dispatcher didn't follow protocol. Their bellybutton should be in a sling for that.
I just wonder how they would've handled it if my nephew wasn't "connected."
-
Originally posted by TweetyBird
For all you skeptics of due process...
My nephew was arrested today, handcuffed searched and brought to jail just because some officer misread his drivers liscence number. Luckily, the officer allowed him to use his cell phone before putting him the car. Before he was to lockup, he knew he would be out before he hit a holding cell. He was shaken and about to lose it (thinking he was going for an overnighter) when he got the call back there were no warrants against him.
The funny part was the change in attitude of the officers at the lockup. From teasing him to bein extremely apologetic and promising an investigation after their chief and 2 judges called the lockup. It was even funnier that they realized their mistake and were trying to cover themselves (no, no one by that name is in custody..) before the judge called.
Due process is a good thing because everyone makes mistakes. Punching a driver's license number in wrong is a common mistake. That why they have checks to prevent that. Unfortunately the officer and dispatcher didn't follow protocol. Their bellybutton should be in a sling for that.
I just wonder how they would've handled it if my nephew wasn't "connected."
Most likely exactly the same way.
-
I dunno, denying he was in custody really got my goat. I mean if he's not in cutody, I wanna report a kidnapping. But I knew he was in custody and they were trying to cover their ass. I just wonder how far they would have gone to cover their ass.
-
Originally posted by TweetyBird
I dunno, denying he was in custody really got my goat. I mean if he's not in cutody, I wanna report a kidnapping. But I knew he was in custody and they were trying to cover their ass. I just wonder how far they would have gone to cover their ass.
tweety I agree with you. In my job I follow a book to the T or a pilot might not be able to punch out of a jet.
These guys should follow the same meticulasnous ( if that's even a word) that I do when approaching their jobs. They follow the book or poeple get hurt/innocent people get arrested.
-
Originally posted by TweetyBird
I dunno, denying he was in custody really got my goat. I mean if he's not in cutody, I wanna report a kidnapping. But I knew he was in custody and they were trying to cover their ass. I just wonder how far they would have gone to cover their ass.
Why should they tell anyone that calls who they have in custody?
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
"In my job I follow a book to the T or a pilot might not be able to punch out of a jet.
These guys should follow the same meticulasnous..."
Holy **** they are so completely screwed!
:D
-
>>Why should they tell anyone that calls who they have in custody?<<
I'm not anyone
-
Originally posted by TweetyBird
>>Why should they tell anyone that calls who they have in custody?<<
I'm not anyone
You are to them. You're just a voice on the line. Even excluding that, you're just an uncle.
-
-
Personal attack
-
>>You are to them. You're just a voice on the line. Even excluding that, you're just an uncle.<<
Not anymore, rest assured.
And to be serious, it wasn't just "anyone" calling them. It was a professional call.
-
Personal attack
-
No, not Ceasar. Its a small parish where ordinary people have different jobs - sometimes 2 or 3 jobs.
-
Are you ordinary, or do you have just one job?
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
In Canada wether or not someone is in custody is a matter of public knowledge. You know, so the goverment can't "disappear" people. It's a little something that we like to call "transparency".
But I can understand why freedom hating commies like Martlet might be against it.
Freedom hating? Actually, I'm "privacy protecting". Don't beat around the bush or anything, though. Just jump right into the insults.
-
Personal attack
-
Off topic
-
Off topic
-
Off topic
-
I'm hooked - seeking to expedite the release of a mistakenly arrested person is abusing a positon how? Attempting to conceal of person was mistakenly arrested is not abuse?
And if you mean finding if there are any outstanding warrants on a person - thats public record. Yea, I might know "Sally" who can bring it up quickly, but its public record.
-
Personal attack
-
Originally posted by TweetyBird
I'm hooked - seeking to expedite the release of a mistakenly arrested person is abusing a positon how? Attempting to conceal of person was mistakenly arrested is not abuse?
No, it's not. They have no business telling you who is or isn't in custody, regardless how important you think you are. Obviously, they weren't quaking in their boots and spilling their guts.
-
>>No, it's not. They have no business telling you who is or isn't in custody<<
Wrong - so so wrong. Its public record. You're not an officer are you?
-
Originally posted by TweetyBird
>>No, it's not. They have no business telling you who is or isn't in custody<<
Wrong - so so wrong. Its public record. You're not an officer are you?
Neither are you. You're telling me if I call my local PD they'll tell me everyone they're holding? Even minors?
-
Yes, and most list them on a web page - charges bond etc. Yea, thats EXACTLY what I'm telling you - its PUBLIC RECORD. But depending where you live, you may have to call another office other than the PD - PD transports, in certain places another office handles the incarceration. But it is always public record.
-
Originally posted by TweetyBird
Yes, and most list them on a web page - charges bond etc. Yea, thats EXACTLY what I'm telling you - its PUBLIC RECORD.
Nope. You're wrong. Particularly in the case of minors.
-
9
-
>>Particularly in the case of minors.<<
Only in the case of minors. You intoduce some red herring. No one is talking about a minor and you damn well know it.
Adult arrests are public record - get it?
-
Personal attack
-
this post reminds me of my own little run in with the wrong seat in a police cruiser..
few years ago i was speeding down a back road going prolly about 65-70 late for my flight lesson.. non residential area, just a back road behind the airport. my dumb luck there ends up being a cruiser with a speedtrap (dont ask me why) and before he even turned his lights on i pulled over. 72 in a 35.. he takes my license and reg and almost immediately comes back and says he has to go, and he's gonna mail me my ticket.
needless to say, he took down my info wrong and mailed the CRIMINAL driving to endanger charge to the wrong address. in mass they give you like 3 business days to respond to that stuff before they put a warrent out for your arrest. needless to say, i didnt get anything and it was just my luck that an officer who was a friend of my brother's saw my car at a gas station and told me to get the hell home and figure out what the deal was cuz he was told to arrest me on the spot. yikes.
so i go to court and cut a deal with the magistrate, ,which ends up being 6 months of probation where if i dont get a ticket, it'll all be wiped. they were lenient since it was a service road and i'd never been any trouble before, which was nice.. so i go down to the clerks office and fix my address in the system, and leave.
7 months later, i get pulled over again. cop comes up, asks me to shut the car off and get out. knew something was wrong. ended up in lockup for 4 hours because of an outstanding warrent. i'm sitting bewildered totally not understanding what the hell is going on.
turns out that at the end of my probation they sent some sort of follow up notice for me to show up to court again, but they sent it to the wrong address. (again) since i didnt show to court, all charges were reinstated and another warrent put out for me. not only that, but my insurance was dropped and my registration revoked because of the outstanding charges. in the end this all ends up being my fault, and i have to pay over $1200 for the original driving to endager, plus driving w/o insurance or reg. i never knew any of this because guess what, all of it was sent to the wrong addy. (and my insurance company never mentioned to tell me they yanked me, either)
1200 bucks and like 5 pts on my insurance because of some serious fluff'n screwups in our court system. i don't deny i was speeding and i would have taken the punishment for that but the added stuff was a joke. actually, no, the real joke was that apparently even though i went and tried to fix my address problem, it was still my fault THEY screwed up.
grr.
-
There is no detained! You're watching too many cops episodes. An officer cannot detain anyone without arresting them. A cop holding you against your will without arresting you is breaking the law. They sure as hell can't transport you without making an arrest. And even though for logistics reasons, arrests aren't made widely available till after booking, arrests before booking are PUBLIC RECORD.
-
Personal attack
-
Originally posted by Martlet
Personal attack
While waiting, I did a little looking myself. It appears to be state by state. I found plenty of states that allow detaining for cause, but I've yet to find one that doesn't. I'll wait for you to give an example.
-
In all states, detaining means you can hold them in the vicinity with just cause (i.e., cause to warrant an investigation). Removing them from the immediate vicinity requires arrest. In order to transport a person against their will, you must first arrest them. At anytime an individual can determine there is unjust cause for detention and simply walk away, forcing an arrest if the officers believe they have just cause for arrest. That's about any state.
There is no such thing as resisting detention
-
When I was maybe 7 or 8 we were walking along the town with my father.
My father saw two familiar troopers in a police cruiser and waved them to us. They gave us a ride but because of the limitation in space I had to sit between the guys in front and they put my father in the back.
I was pretty embarrassed when the dispatcher called in some crime close to them. They had to leave us in the center of the city with lights flashing and all. I still remember the looks on people when they let my father out from the back of the car and ran away lights flashing. :D
-
Well i guess you could walk away. If the officer has P/C to detain you i guess he could then arrest you for Evading arrest or detention
State of TEXAS
§ 38.04. EVADING ARREST OR DETENTION. (a) A person
commits an offense if he intentionally flees from a person he knows
is a peace officer attempting lawfully to arrest or detain him.
Having said that and reading the incident above. I have been a police officer for 11 years and we all make mistakes. It is always best to dust them off ,say your sorry, and admit when your wrong.
Problem is that in the public service business, when you make a mistake people pay a hell of a price for it. So you do your best and hope like hell the guys uncle you just arrested understands that you screwed up and will try to learn from it.
When you start trying to cover things up you look like a crook. But everyone does it. Some get caught and some dont. Not just cops!!! Judges,banktellers,and burger flippers all try and cover their mistakes. Its just human not to want to be found doing something wrong.
In the incident above a simple....hey we screwed up and we are sorry would have worked. After the guy leaves you spend the next two years waiting for the law suit.
I will say that it is the policy of my department to release the name and charge of all inmates over the age of 16 to the public.
anyone arrested under that age......the parents must be contacted and their names are not released.
Tweety i hope that this incident does not jade you towards the police. There are alot of good police officers out there just trying to earn a living and do a job. But i promise you everyone of them has made a mistake at one time or another. What you do with your mistakes makes you a good officer. NOT what you do when you succeed
-
Originally posted by Nash
Holy **** they are so completely screwed!
:D
Nash I see that emoticon but I want to make one thing very clear. I take my job very seriously.
The other thing I take seriously is individual rights. Notice I didn't say Civil rights.....even though that should encompas everyone....today in the states it only covers minorities. I believe in our constitution and think the 4th amendment is just as important as the 2nd or the 1st.
This situation is wrong and these guys dropped the ball. If they were lying to a judge in doing their jobs they should be punished accordingly.
like tweaty said in so many words it pays to have connections....imagin if he didnt have them.
If his car had been towed guilty or innocent he'd still pay the fees
If he'd been fired from his job for not showing back up to work REGUARDLESS OF PAST HISTORY the city wouldnt do anything about it.
False arrest happens and its a serious thing but the cops need to own up to their mistake.
-
martlet, on a civil thing such as speeding or tailgating or whatever, its 20 days.. for criminal charges such as DTE, its a week maybe at most from when you get the ticket till when they want you in court. it sucked. :(
-
Sounds like a crappy time for your nephew. Some things don't make much sense to me here, though. I find it hard to believe that he would have ever been booked, once they started doing the paperwork. The warrant that came back to the incorrect drivers license number the officer gave would have a name on it, and unless this is the coincidence of all coincidences, that warrant and drivers license number probably have a different name than your nephew.
Also, when you called the jail, did you actually speak to one of the arresting officers, or to someone else? Pretty sad if they just outright lied about having him in custody.
As for teasing, I don't know what you consider to be teasing. I'm sure they've heard it all...particularly people trying to talk their way out of being arrested. Sounds like when they realized what happened, they were obviously apologetic, and I doubt that would have been any different had the mistake been discovered without your intervention.
-
Inflammatory
-
Non-responsive/Off topic
-
Originally posted by TweetyBird
In all states, detaining means you can hold them in the vicinity with just cause (i.e., cause to warrant an investigation). Removing them from the immediate vicinity requires arrest. In order to transport a person against their will, you must first arrest them. At anytime an individual can determine there is unjust cause for detention and simply walk away, forcing an arrest if the officers believe they have just cause for arrest. That's about any state.
There is no such thing as resisting detention
That may be the way it is supposed to work and may be the actual written law or may not be. I can`t attest one way or the other.
What I CAN tell you it is definitely NOT the way it works in reailty in my fine county.
Before you walk away from any law enforcement around here you had better make sure you are in the mood for bologna sandwichs for your next meal because you will be on the way to the pokie faster than you can say "Very rarely is anything done by the booK". :D
-
Originally posted by TweetyBird
I dunno, denying he was in custody really got my goat. I mean if he's not in cutody, I wanna report a kidnapping. But I knew he was in custody and they were trying to cover their ass. I just wonder how far they would have gone to cover their ass.
Speaking as a former LEO I can tell you these thing happens alot. Mostly it has to due with the dept it self. I am not sure what size dept were talking about. But the one I worked at was ok size. We could hold around 250 inmates. So if you called to check to see if someone is in custody most likely you got a dispatcher who took the name you gave and ran it though the processing unit. If he hasnt been processed yet then that is when things get mixed up.
There is sort of an operational limbo someone goes into when they are first brought into custody. This can last anywhere from 15 mins to two hours depending on the size and current business the jail is seeing at that time. This is more than likely what happend.
As for him not reading his DL number correctly that can happen too. Hell I have even have had it happen to me, and I was a cop at the time! I was told I was driving on a suspended licence that some how happend in that state before I even moved there and had the licence issued to me. This was due to a glitch in the NCIC system. Again you have humans entering all of your data into NCIC and sometimes things get messed up. It sucks but that is the way it is.
As for the cops being asses, you have to put it into prospective. I dont know what you do for a living but I am sure there are things about your job that bug you. When I was a cop it was excuses. And trust me bad guys can be pretty colorful when thinking them up. So sometimes as an officer you become complacent. Again just a sad deal all around. But you can bet it wont happen again.
-Keg.
-
Originally posted by TweetyBird
In all states, detaining means you can hold them in the vicinity with just cause (i.e., cause to warrant an investigation). Removing them from the immediate vicinity requires arrest. In order to transport a person against their will, you must first arrest them. At anytime an individual can determine there is unjust cause for detention and simply walk away, forcing an arrest if the officers believe they have just cause for arrest. That's about any state.
There is no such thing as resisting detention
Edit: Never mind. Information substantiating my postion has already been posted.
-
Off topic
-
Off topic
-
Off topic
-
Originally posted by Martlet
Why should they tell anyone that calls who they have in custody?
Well one person they better tell is someone who claims to be the detainee's legal counsel...otherwise, guilty or not, they are going to walk.
Basically, Tweet's request is called habeas corpus...literally: you should have the body (ie, the detainee). And no, I cannot point to a statute...it does not exist. It is an English Common Law procedure, which is the basis for US Judicial System despite radical beliefs that it should be the 10 Commandments. However, the right of habeas corpus is protected by the US Constitution (Art. 1, sec 9) with some caveats for suspension in time of rebellion or invasion (thus we have the Gitmo Detainees).
The concept of habeas corpus exists to prevent exactly what happened to Tweet. Otherwise, law enforcement could hold someone indeterminately simply by refusing to admit that they were being held. Tweet could have gone further after the initial denial by filing a petition of habeas corpus with the court (no attorney required), which would have led to a judge issuing a writ of habeas corpus...and probably the judge would have then issued some law enforcement officer a serious lecture about what he had done wrong by refusing to admit that the detainee was in custody.
Now in this particular case, failing to admit holding the person could have been a violation of Florida law...don't know about Mass law. Since Tweet's nephew was arrested, the moment that information was entered into the criminal justice information system by the arresting agency it became public record (upheld by the FL courts...I can find the citation if you really want me to). Custodians of public records in Florida must produce them within a reasonable time...trust me having responded to many public records requests, the courts would say reasonable time for producing a single name from a criminal justice information system is pretty close to immediate. BTW, while some information held in a criminal justice information system is exempt from public records requests... Ch 119, F.S. specifically states that detainee's "name" is not exempt.
-
Tweety,
A couple questions here.
What jusrisdiction are you talking about? The reason I ask is that I can't tell if you are even in the US on a bbs.
Secondly, are you an attorney qualified to practice law in whatever jurisdiction you claim this happened in?
I ask these questions to try and establish some factual information. So far all anyone here has is one side of an alleged situation. I say alleged as there is no corroborating information posted to confirm this happened. There certainly is no information from the "other side" nor is is likely would there be. Most, if not all US jurisdictions prohibit their employees from "discussing" activities that may or have led to court action except in limited methods such as a press conferance where the information to be released meets departmental / court guidelines. This bbs doesn't meet ANY of those considerations.
As far as the situation is concerned. IF it happened as listed, there is certainly cause for an internal investigation to determine if policy / procedures were followed. There may even be grounds for legal action in civil court. Not necessarily for the innitial contact but for the errors that may or may not have occurred as the story indicates. Frankly a mistake in DR information is not uncommon. Lack of confirmation of it IS a serious breach of reasonable conduct. A simple rerun of the information might have caugh the error in the number.
As to denial of whether the individual is in custody, there is insuffiecient information given to determine if there is a problem there. Example. If the individual has not completed booking then the detention facility may not have all the information regarding this persons presence there available to the person who answers the phone on inquiries from outside the building.
Tweety. When you state a law enforcement officer cannot detain without an arrest you are wrong. It is also incorrect to state that "probable cause" is necessary to detain. An officer can detain for investigation based on reasonable suspicion that a crime has or is being committed. That does not mean the person being detained is necessarily the subject of the investigation. (witness) It is typical that this detention is limited to no more than 20 minutes absent probable cause to arrest . FWIW most states list traffic offenses as a civil infraction, IE no jail if you don't sign the ticket or appear in court. (they just suspend your driving priveledges) By your statement then a person in a traffic stop could simply decide for themselves that no criminal action has happened and leave. Bad idea. Leaving then moves into the criminal arena and bad things will happen.
Lastly I would like to ask you to explain your contention that you have special position in your community. The way you stated it it sounds like you should have some kind of extraordinary authority not reserved for every day citizens. Not criticising, just asking. The term you used, "connected" implies special status or treatment not reserved for all citizens.
For all those following the thread I am not excusing or condemming the actions that led to the situation as described by Tweety. If it is true then they did "screw up" and are likely to face penalties for it. At this time there certainly is insufficient information to determine the facts of the situation and no information from anyone directly involved. It's all second hand information at this point. Given that situation, feel free to take sides and or castigate all involved. :rolleyes:
-
Again, its not some extraordinary power unavailable to ordinary citizens. Its knowing from professional experience who to call to get the information and how to expedite the process.
And again, this is not some huge city. Its a small city that contracts their legal work because they cant afford to retain city attorneys. They had 3 arrests that day. It wasn't a matter of someone getting lost in the shuffle.
Law enforcement can detain you if you consent. If you decide there is no cause to warrant an investigation, you can walk away. It would be wise to tell the officer to either arrest you or let you go before walking away, but its not mandatory. Walking away from an officer is not evading arrest. If the officer arrests you, you must comply, and the officer must mirander you before continuing any investigation that requires your participation. What is a legal detention and what is an attempt to circumvent miranda rights is decided by a judge, and is probably specific to the case.
And I'm not knocking policemen in general either. Mistakes happen, I understand. Other than blowing off steam (because it seemed in this case they were stalling for time), the real point was to emphasize the importance of not taking short cuts or just skipping over things like due process.
The crack about "I'm not anyone" was more or less a snappy comeback directed to Martlet :D
-
Originally posted by TweetyBird
Law enforcement can detain you if you consent. If you decide there is no cause to warrant an investigation, you can walk away. It would be wise to tell the officer to either arrest you or let you go before walking away, but its not mandatory. Walking away from an officer is not evading arrest. If the officer arrests you, you must comply, and the officer must mirander you before continuing any investigation that requires your participation. What is a legal detention and what is an attempt to circumvent miranda rights is decided by a judge, and is probably specific to the case.
You obviously didn't read a thing anyone posted, nor do you have an understanding of law. Heck, even do a quick google search.
Some states put a time limit on how long you may be detained. Others don't.
-
And you didn't read this..
>>What is a legal detention and what is an attempt to circumvent miranda rights is decided by a judge, and is probably specific to the case. <<
Just because something meets the time limit of a legal detention in a state, it doesn't follow the detention is legal.
In any state, the individual can decide its illegal and force the officer to either arrest him or let him go. Other than giving identification, no one should be compelled to participate in an investigation against them without legal council - not for 5 minutes, not for 50 minutes.
-
Personal attack
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
In Canada wether or not someone is in custody is a matter of public knowledge. You know, so the goverment can't "disappear" people. It's a little something that we like to call "transparency".
But I can understand why freedom hating commies like Martlet might be against it.
Its the same in the USA.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
Personal attack
If they take you to jail against your own will, you are arrested. That is not detaining which is done during the course of the investigation. You dont go to jail if you are not under arrest. You would go for an interview at the station not the jail. Jail = Arrest.
-
On a barely marginally related note, saw in the paper somebody walked recently because they weren't read Miranda Rights. With how cheap car audio stuff is getting (and the fact most cruisers now have onboard computers), why not put a rear facing screen that automatically plays a video clip that reads somebody their rights in several languages whenever you put them in the back of the car?
-
Originally posted by Raider179
If they take you to jail against your own will, you are arrested. That is not detaining which is done during the course of the investigation. You dont go to jail if you are not under arrest. You would go for an interview at the station not the jail. Jail = Arrest.
Sure. That's been said several times. However, not a single person has been able to point out where it says that.
However, the definition of detainment has been cited and is easily obtainable.
Let's see your source.
-
Tweetybird.
You still didn't answer my questions. I'm waiting for you to disclose your expertise here. From a few of your statements you are clearly confused on the concept of detention. Small town or not, exercising "influence" calls for a position based on proper authority.
There are a few situations that result in arrest without incarceration. It is common to arrest and release on the basis of a criminal citation. The arrestee does not go to jail but certainly is none the less under arrest. Miranda rights also are not a key element to an arrest as the TV shows seem to think. You can be arrested and never Mirandized. Miranda warnings only apply to questioning and only if the investigation focuses on the person being questioned as a suspect. They do not apply to a witness.
Handcuffs also do not confirm an arrest. It is certainly possible to be hand cuffed and not be under arrest.
Again, there is insufficient information to make a definate conclusion as to what actually happened or to determine if there are culpable actions, on either side.
-
Personal attack
-
Originally posted by Martlet
Sure. That's been said several times. However, not a single person has been able to point out where it says that.
However, the definition of detainment has been cited and is easily obtainable.
Let's see your source.
Oregon State Bar
If an officer orders you to go with him or her, or when you submit or surrender to custody, you have been arrested. If an officer merely requests or asks you to go with him or her to the police station, you have not been arrested.
If you are not sure whether or not you are being arrested, ask the police officer if he or she is placing you under arrest. Unless you are under arrest, you do not have to go with the officer.
At the time of arrest, the officer must tell you why you are being arrested and how the arrest is authorized.
If you are arrested, you have the right to request the help of a lawyer. Your number of phone calls may be limited, so you might want to telephone a relative or other person who can help you locate a lawyer. You will be taken to a police station where you are booked. You may be fingerprinted and photographed. You may ask to have these destroyed if the case against you is dismissed. You do not have to submit to an interview about the charge(s) against you.
You have the right to get out of jail on a release agreement unless you are charged with murder. There are three kinds of release agreements: security release, personal recognizance, and conditional release.
http://www.osbar.org/public/legalinfo/1077.htm
-
Supreme Court Strengthens Police Right to Detention. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A57604-2004Jun21.html)
Q. How long can an Officer detain me?
A. This is another question that addresses several laws and constitutional issues. In general, the police may detain you for a reasonable time to conduct their investigation or issue a ticket. Reasonable time is different in each situation and depending on the reason could last from ten minutes to an hour or more.
Police-Citizen (http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/police/Publications/policecontacts.html#How%20long%20can%20an%20Officer%20detain%20me?)
-
Originally posted by TweetyBird
Law enforcement can detain you if you consent. If you decide there is no cause to warrant an investigation, you can walk away. It would be wise to tell the officer to either arrest you or let you go before walking away, but its not mandatory. Walking away from an officer is not evading arrest.
Hee hee. That may look all nice and wrapped up in a tight package on paper , but it does not work like that in reality.
Like I said earlier, around here, if you decide to just walk away from any law enforcement, for any reason, you best have some free time saved up because your butt is going to jail. You WILL be charged with resisting arrest and I can GUARANTEE it will stick.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Handcuffs also do not confirm an arrest. It is certainly possible to be hand cuffed and not be under arrest.
That's certainly true. I've been handcuffed 3 times, but I've never even been inside of a police car, let alone arrested.
-
Originally posted by indy007
That's certainly true. I've been handcuffed 3 times, but I've never even been inside of a police car, let alone arrested.
What happens in the privacy of your home is not at issue.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
What happens in the privacy of your home is not at issue.
At least I'm gettin' mine :)
Seriously though, on 3 seperate occasions I've been handcuffed & got to sit on the curb while an officer searched my vehicle. Had a bad habit of keeping my paintball gear sitting on the backseat of my car. Then some neighborhood kids shot up a school sign or something. Got confronted by an officer while leaving a gas station. 20 minutes later I was let go with an apology. Got pulled over for a dead brake light, saw the equipment... back to the curb! 20 minutes later I was let go without an apology, but no ticket. Got pulled over for speeding, saw the equipment... back to the curb! 45 minutes later I was let go without an apology and a speeding ticket. Then I turned 21 & got a CHL. I haven't been searched since.
-
Here's a question, if a police officer asks to search your car, are the readers of this BBS in the habit of saying yes or no? If no, the reason is self evident, but if yes, why?
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Here's a question, if a police officer asks to search your car, are the readers of this BBS in the habit of saying yes or no? If no, the reason is self evident, but if yes, why?
I'm not in the habit of being asked to have my car searched.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
Supreme Court Strengthens Police Right to Detention. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A57604-2004Jun21.html)
Police-Citizen (http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/police/Publications/policecontacts.html#How%20long%20can%20an%20Officer%20detain%20me?)
that shows what? That officers can detain a suspect? I already knew that.It's called conducting an invetigation. The supreme court case you cited was about a guy not giving his name. That is a crime and he was charged. If you refuse to give your name the police have a right to hold you until you give it to them or they figure it out.
I thought you were saying police could take people to jail without arresting them. Which they cannot, except in the case above where the only "crime" he committed was not giving his info.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
If no, the reason is self evident,
And what reason do you think that is? Because I can think of two that are immediately obvious.
1. Because there is something to hide.
2. Because rights must be exercised in or for them to be kept.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Here's a question, if a police officer asks to search your car, are the readers of this BBS in the habit of saying yes or no? If no, the reason is self evident, but if yes, why?
I love to say no. Get to see a K9 in action. lol Too bad he wont find anything in there. But I would say Thrawns answer #2 is more important.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
And what reason do you think that is? Because I can think of two that are immediately obvious.
1. Because there is something to hide.
2. Because rights must be exercised in or for them to be kept.
#2 of course. Well put.
-
Originally posted by TweetyBird
Law enforcement can detain you if you consent. If you decide there is no cause to warrant an investigation, you can walk away. It would be wise to tell the officer to either arrest you or let you go before walking away, but its not mandatory. Walking away from an officer is not evading arrest. If the officer arrests you, you must comply, and the officer must mirander you before continuing any investigation that requires your participation. What is a legal detention and what is an attempt to circumvent miranda rights is decided by a judge, and is probably specific to the case.
Detention requires nothing close to consent. When you get pulled over, you're detained. When a cop stops to talk to you and has reasonable suspicion to believe you were involved in a crime (ie you match a description), you aren't going anywhere. If he wants, he can handcuff you, put you on the curb, frisk you for weapons. If you leave, you're most likely taking a short trip into the ground.
As Mav said, Miranda warnings are only necessary when you have a custodial arrest by the police and want to use the suspect's statements against them in court. You can go all the way from committing the crime to going to jail and never be Mirandized. All it means is that your testimony (and any evidence obtained from it) can't be used against you in court. If they have enough evidence without your incriminating statements, you're still going away.
-
>> From a few of your statements you are clearly confused on the concept of detention. Small town or not, exercising "influence" calls for a position based on proper authority. <<
A person is considered under arrest whenever they feel they aren't free to leave or are transported from the immediate vicinity (e.g., a police officer can not drive you arround for 30 minutes against your will). Laws governing detainment can not superceed Miranda. There are different statutes regarding detaining suspected shoplifters/thieves on premises, citizens arrests, private investigators, and material witnesses, (and vary state to state) but do not apply to this discussion. The discussion here is whether or not a police officer can detain someone against their will and interview them without Mirandizing them. The answer is "NO" and thats not television.
>>Miranda rights also are not a key element to an arrest as the TV shows seem to think. You can be arrested and never Mirandized. <<
I never said it was. Freedom to leave IS a key aspect of arrest and can define an arrest (e.g., a police officer can not hold you for 45 minutes as you keep stating you want to leave and later say he didn't arrest you. You were arrested but a judge will ultimately rule on that.
And yup, you can be arrested and never Mirandized but most if not everything you say after the arrest (even if the police officers try to call it a "detainment") is going to be thrown out. Miranda rights, whether stated or not, have to be respected.
-
Originally posted by TweetyBird
I dunno, denying he was in custody really got my goat. I mean if he's not in cutody, I wanna report a kidnapping. But I knew he was in custody and they were trying to cover their ass. I just wonder how far they would have gone to cover their ass.
This part I don't get. He's in custody. You can be in police custody standing on the side of the street (ie detention). He's definately in custody when he's put into the car. He's super-definately in custody when he's transported to the station for booking.
I don't get how they can deny that.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Here's a question, if a police officer asks to search your car, are the readers of this BBS in the habit of saying yes or no? If no, the reason is self evident, but if yes, why?
I say yes, because I have nothing to hide. If it makes the officer happy & feel safer (and less likely to ticket me), he can go for it. I'm glad I don't have his job. I said no once. I got to wait on the curb while they called in for a search warrant or whatever the procedure dicates they do. More cops & a K-9 showed up. They got excited and 1 was talking trash to me when the dog went nuts... it found my Quarter Pounder & fries. Turns out that's what the handler gives it as a reward for busting people.
-
Originally posted by Raider179
that shows what? That officers can detain a suspect? I already knew that.It's called conducting an invetigation. The supreme court case you cited was about a guy not giving his name. That is a crime and he was charged. If you refuse to give your name the police have a right to hold you until you give it to them or they figure it out.
I thought you were saying police could take people to jail without arresting them. Which they cannot, except in the case above where the only "crime" he committed was not giving his info.
I'm saying the police can detain people, which Tweety specifically said wasn't allowed to happen. The length or restrictions on the detainment varies from state to state. You haven't submitted any code that backs up your claim.
-
Originally posted by indy007
I say yes, because I have nothing to hide. If it makes the officer happy & feel safer (and less likely to ticket me), he can go for it. I'm glad I don't have his job. I said no once. I got to wait on the curb while they called in for a search warrant or whatever the procedure dicates they do. More cops & a K-9 showed up. They got excited and 1 was talking trash to me when the dog went nuts... it found my Quarter Pounder & fries. Turns out that's what the handler gives it as a reward for busting people.
I always say no, I also advise my gf and my friends to say no as well. Saying no to a search is in no way an admision to guilt. Saying no doesnt mean you have anything to hide. The reasion I say no is the simple fact you MIGHT have somthing in your car you dont know about. There have even been cases where someone bought a car that had drugs in it the dealer never found.
It is a bit of a pain but for the most part you have to wait for a K-9 to come out sometimes the wait for this is so long the officer will just say forget it unless he thinks there is somthing in the car.
There are officers out there that like to take every chance they get to search a car. Not for any good reasion other than the fact they try have permison to.
Back when I got pulled over and told I had a suspended licence I was put in cuffs and put in the back of a police car. The officer later claimed in court this was due to my status as a police officer and the fact I was armed at the time of the stop...again things with in my right.
He preformed a search on the car. I was the driver but the car belonged to my GF. She was also there at the time. He never asked her to search which he should have. In the trunk he found a shotgun, from when we went shooting earler in the day with friends. There was a shell in the loading tube, one that was forgot. He tried to charge me with that as well.
In the end all charges were dropped, the suspended licence bit was a mistake on there part, and the fact is I should have never been cuffed and placed in the back of there car, and our car should have never been searched. This is why I always say no.
In some states it is against the law to store a weapon and amunition in the trunk. You never know when you might have a gun in there with a stray 9mm round somewhere in your trunk. You can get a ticket for this or worse. The car is an extension of the home. Keep it that way.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
Sure. That's been said several times. However, not a single person has been able to point out where it says that.
However, the definition of detainment has been cited and is easily obtainable.
Let's see your source.
Here is another one:
http://dui.findlaw.com/articles/1501.html
An arrest is different from a stop. A stop involves brief questioning in the place where you were detained. If the officer wishes to hold you for a longer period of time, or decides to take you elsewhere, such as to the police station, he or she is no longer just stopping you, but is arresting you. Because an arrest deprives you of your freedom of movement for an even longer period of time than a stop, the law limits the instances when arrests can be made.
-
i remeber beeing pulled over by cops somewere in montana..
oh... no i dont
but my gf remebers
all to well
-
"You never know when you might have a gun in there with a stray 9mm round somewhere in your trunk."
Something that only an American could possibly say.
-
Originally posted by Curval
Something that only an American could possibly say.
Freedom is a wonderful thing.
-
Ain't it though. :)
-
>>I'm saying the police can detain people, which Tweety specifically said wasn't allowed to happen. <<
No you are trying to wiggle out of being wrong.
To recap, you state:
>>They have no business telling you who is or isn't in custody, regardless how important you think you are.<<
Wrong, its public record. When proven wrong you attempt to bring up some red herring about juveniles, which doesn't even apply to the discussion.
Then you try another straw
>>Correct. When they are charged and booked it becomes public record. When they are detained, it is not.<<
Again you are wrong.
First of all someone being transported is NOT detained but arrested, and no, before they are even booked its public record and there is no expectation of privacy.
This is what I said about detainment…
>>In all states, detaining means you can hold them in the vicinity with just cause (i.e., cause to warrant an investigation). Removing them from the immediate vicinity requires arrest. In order to transport a person against their will, you must first arrest them. At anytime an individual can determine there is unjust cause for detention and simply walk away, forcing an arrest if the officers believe they have just cause for arrest. That's about any state.<<
That’s what I stated about detainment and stand by that statement, not your twisted summary.
And here you delete information that doesn’t even apply to governmental agencies (i.e., police officers, civil sheriffs etc.)…
>>Edit: Never mind. Information substantiating my postion has already been posted<<
You’re trying to make a point out things that don’t even apply. A person being transported to lockup is not detained, they are arrested and that is public record at that point (I can write about it, print pictures of it, and sing about it without fear of infringing on privacy). You were wrong as to what constitutes arrest and when an arrest becomes public record and you're trying to wiggle out of being wrong. Its really that simple.
-
lol
Freedom.
-
Still waiting for the answer to my original questions to you Tweety. I see you have started to dance around the post and are talking about something I was not discussing in my posts. Favorite tactic of trollers here on the bbs. Was this whole trhread just a troll? If so at least fess up as I don't waste time with trollers.
-
Originally posted by TweetyBird
>>I'm saying the police can detain people, which Tweety specifically said wasn't allowed to happen. <<
No you are trying to wiggle out of being wrong.
No, actually you said:
Originally posted by TweetyBird
There is no detained! You're watching too many cops episodes. An officer cannot detain anyone without arresting them. A cop holding you against your will without arresting you is breaking the law.
Which, as we just learned, is entirely false.
-
"Texas redneck hick"
Abundantly redundant. :)
-
>>No, actually you said:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by TweetyBird
There is no detained! You're watching too many cops episodes. An officer cannot detain anyone without arresting them. A cop holding you against your will without arresting you is breaking the law.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Which, as we just learned, is entirely false.<<
Yes that was an over simplification cleared up in the next post being more specific (the post quoted in my recap) but NOT entirely false even its oversimplification as you quickly learned while googling it. What is entirely false is your contention that someones arrest is not public record until they are booked or that someone can be transported out of the vicinity against there will without being arrested. You still failed to address that you were entirely wrong about both of these.
Also interesting you left out this bit of my post...
>> They sure as hell can't transport you without making an arrest. And even though for logistics reasons, arrests aren't made widely available till after booking, arrests before booking are PUBLIC RECORD.
<<
You know why you left that out? I do. Because it told you that you were wrong, and guess what - you WERE wrong about what is detention, what is arrest, and when arrest becomes public record.
-
Maveric, I'm not dancing around anything. You're asking for specific personal information that I won't give to you. What the hell is your expertise? You're a cop. So what? Your expertise is transport-period. Everything else is very gray including efforts to circumvent Miranda even if not stated. Efforts to circumvent Miranda are violations of Miranda (more specifically the the precedent set in Miranda v. Arizona ) - "well if you don't talk to me I'll put you in a cell with people who know what you've done" or "if you talk to me I'll help you" All that is hollywood BS. Both violate Miranda.
You are stating I'm assigning too much importance to Miranda, and I'm telling you Miranda is based on constitutional rights that do NOT have to be read to be in place. Miranda is the precedent - the RIGHTS are in the constitution. How is that dancing around what you've asked?
As far as as this board is concerned, my name is TweetyBird and my expertise is putty tats. Your expertise is either horses, cars or old tv shows as far as I'm concerned.
If you want to post as an authority, post under your real name where your credentials can be checked -not under some pseudonym.
-
Originally posted by TweetyBird
>>No, actually you said:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by TweetyBird
There is no detained! You're watching too many cops episodes. An officer cannot detain anyone without arresting them. A cop holding you against your will without arresting you is breaking the law.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Which, as we just learned, is entirely false.<<
Yes that was an over simplification cleared up in the next post being more specific (the post quoted in my recap) but NOT entirely false even its oversimplification as you quickly learned while googling it. What is entirely false is your contention that someones arrest is not public record until they are booked or that someone can be transported out of the vicinity against there will without being arrested. You still failed to address that you were entirely wrong about both of these.
Also interesting you left out this bit of my post...
>> They sure as hell can't transport you without making an arrest. And even though for logistics reasons, arrests aren't made widely available till after booking, arrests before booking are PUBLIC RECORD.
<<
You know why you left that out? I do. Because it told you that you were wrong, and guess what - you WERE wrong about what is detention, what is arrest, and when arrest becomes public record.
Or because it's completely irrelevant.
You were wrong. Your overstated self importance was recognized by the cops. They put you in your place. You came to a BBS to cry about it.
It's pretty cut and dry. If, of course, you didn't just make the whole thing up.
-
Originally posted by TweetyBird
Maveric, I'm not dancing around anything. You're asking for specific personal information that I won't give to you. What the hell is your expertise? You're a cop. So what? Your expertise is transport-period. Everything else is very gray including efforts to circumvent Miranda even if not stated. Efforts to circumvent Miranda are violations of Miranda (more specifically the the precedent set in Miranda v. Arizona ) - "well if you don't talk to me I'll put you in a cell with people who know what you've done" or "if you talk to me I'll help you" All that is hollywood BS. Both violate Miranda.
You are stating I'm assigning too much importance to Miranda, and I'm telling you Miranda is based on constitutional rights that do NOT have to be read to be in place. Miranda is the precedent - the RIGHTS are in the constitution. How is that dancing around what you've asked?
As far as as this board is concerned, my name is TweetyBird and my expertise is putty tats. Your expertise is either horses, cars or old tv shows as far as I'm concerned.
If you want to post as an authority, post under your real name where your credentials can be checked -not under some pseudonym.
Yeah, Maverick. You don't know jack. Tweety does, though. He's connected.
-
Yea, Martlet, you're right again :D
-
Originally posted by TweetyBird
Yea, Martlet, you're right again :D
Of course. We've established that several times.
I'm surprised your "connections" didn't tell you that, since you're "not just anybody".
-
>>Of course. We've established that several times.
I'm surprised your "connections" didn't tell you that, since you're "not just anybody".<<
That really bugged you eh? I knew it would. Best way to show a weakness is to try to hide it. Gotcha.
But you have the fact that you were right to hold on to :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by TweetyBird
>>Of course. We've established that several times.
I'm surprised your "connections" didn't tell you that, since you're "not just anybody".<<
That really bugged you eh? I knew it would. Best way to show a weakness is to try to hide it. Gotcha.
But you have the fact that you were right to hold on to :rolleyes:
Ahhh yes. Tweety's lies to create self importance bug me.
Obviously your community standing bugs you, or you wouldn't be compelled to portray delusions of grandeur. Then, when called on it, pull the "I can't tell you routine.
It does make me laugh, though. Keep it up. Get a few more lines from your "connections".
-
Anything you say, Anavar...
-
Originally posted by TweetyBird
Anything you say, Anavar...
Of course. I'm "not just anybody". I have "connections".
-
lol :) always a pleasure
-
Originally posted by TweetyBird
Maveric, I'm not dancing around anything. You're asking for specific personal information that I won't give to you. What the hell is your expertise? You're a cop. So what? Your expertise is transport-period. Everything else is very gray including efforts to circumvent Miranda even if not stated. Efforts to circumvent Miranda are violations of Miranda (more specifically the the precedent set in Miranda v. Arizona ) - "well if you don't talk to me I'll put you in a cell with people who know what you've done" or "if you talk to me I'll help you" All that is hollywood BS. Both violate Miranda.
You are stating I'm assigning too much importance to Miranda, and I'm telling you Miranda is based on constitutional rights that do NOT have to be read to be in place. Miranda is the precedent - the RIGHTS are in the constitution. How is that dancing around what you've asked?
As far as as this board is concerned, my name is TweetyBird and my expertise is putty tats. Your expertise is either horses, cars or old tv shows as far as I'm concerned.
If you want to post as an authority, post under your real name where your credentials can be checked -not under some pseudonym.
Tweetybird
You just proved that you are nothing but a troll.
Please post where I said you were puttingh too much importance on Miranda.
Miranda deals with one thing and only one thing. As stated earlier, it is related to questioning a suspect. It is not required to make an arrest. BTW I didn't ask you a thing about Miranda. Go back and look it up. You are really reaching with the story you stated there in that last post.
I never mentioned anything about trying to circumvent Miranda. I have no idea where you got that from.
I don't have to put down my real name to prove what I say as you've already admitted I have professional experiance in law enforcement. FYI it is just short of 2 decades worth. If I hadn't been disabled in the line of duty it would have been 25.
Just to clarify, here are the 2 questions I asked you.
"What jusrisdiction are you talking about? The reason I ask is that I can't tell if you are even in the US on a bbs.
Secondly, are you an attorney qualified to practice law in whatever jurisdiction you claim this happened in?"
As even a quick reading will reveal I did not ask for any personal information. If that is your main concern it shouldn't be as I didn't ask you for any information that could be used to check up on you. A simple confirmation that it was in the US and which state is hardly key information other than to make sure we were discussing the appropriate legal system. Which was why I asked it. As to the second question, a simple yes or no was all that would be needed to answer it.
Other than my pointing out to you that you are confused in the difference between arreest and detention, I have no idea why you are so defensive. If being told you are wrong makes you upset you are overly sensitive.
Since you're so concerned about it, I worked in Arizona, Tucson specifically. You know, the same jurisdiction that the Miranda case came from. It was a homicide case. He did get off after appeal (justifiably so) and ended up being killed some time later in a knife fight.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
If I hadn't been disabled in the line of duty it would have been 25.
What happened?
-
Originally posted by Nash
Martlet... what would you say....
On a scale of 1 to 10......
How big of a knob are you?
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahha
new sig material.
-
Motorcycle collision. A kid going to school in town hung a very quick left turn right in front of me then nailed the brakes stopping in the lane. He tried to make the turn after the panel truck in front of me started to clear the intersection. It was oh ****! bang. It turned out it was his 3rd collision in 2 weeks and both of the other officers who investigated them also ended up responding to my crash. I "t-boned" the mustang and totalled it. Impact was computed at 30 MPH. I had a short but interesting flight and a brisk landing roll.
I lost partial use of my right wrist as hydrostatic shock going through the hand to the arm just blew out all the ligaments holding the wrist joint together. It was rebuilt twice and is held by a mesh and a couple screws. Of course I'm right handed. I have partial movement in it. The right knee was pretty badly torn up but the ligaments were only partially torn. I couldn't be certified for street duty again and I had to retire. It took a bit over a year before the surgeon said it was all I'd ever get back. Arthritis will be a when, not if. Someday I'll have to have the wrist fused, until then I ignore the pain and go on.
The surgery was a bit interesting as they did it with a local only. They numbed the entire arm, not a pleasant experiance. It was very sureal hearing an electric drill (Dr. said it was black and Decker when I asked) while they placed 4 pins through the wrist.
-
>>Please post where I said you were puttingh too much importance on Miranda.
Miranda deals with one thing and only one thing. As stated earlier, it is related to questioning a suspect.<<
I'm not trying to diminish your service, but Miranda deals with more than one thing, i.e., precedent defining rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. It deals with many things (rights) that are gauranteed and do not have to be stated to be in place. It makes the abstract more concrete.
The whole idea of detention over arrest deals with Miranda in that statements made during detention are admissable even though no Miranda warning is given. Therefore it is crucial that it is determined that detention is not an arrest used to circumvent Miranda.
I'm sorry you feel I'm a troll. But when you stated people can go from arrest to jail without being Mirandized, it seemed to imply that those constitutionaly guaranteed rights set plainly in precedent (Miranda vs Arizona), were not in place - that would be false.
It was not meant to slight your service. However, in this context, demanding the nature of my expertise is out of line because I cant prove mine and you cant prove yours.
-
Originally posted by TweetyBird
>>Please post where I said you were puttingh too much importance on Miranda.
Miranda deals with one thing and only one thing. As stated earlier, it is related to questioning a suspect.<<
I'm not trying to diminish your service, but Miranda deals with more than one thing, i.e., precedent defining rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. It deals with many things (rights) that are gauranteed and do not have to be stated to be in place. It makes the abstract more concrete.
The whole idea of detention over arrest deals with Miranda in that statements made during detention are admissable even though no Miranda warning is given. Therefore it is crucial that it is determined that detention is not an arrest used to circumvent Miranda.
I'm sorry you feel I'm a troll. But when you stated people can go from arrest to jail without being Mirandized, it seemed to imply that those constitutionaly guaranteed rights set plainly in precedent (Miranda vs Arizona), were not in place - that would be false.
It was not meant to slight your service. However, in this context, demanding the nature of my expertise is out of line because I cant prove mine and you cant prove yours.
You have posts confused here I think.
First off let me restate what I said earlier. You can be arrested and not have your miranda rights read to you. Miranda applies to questioning by law enforcement of a person who is a suspect of a criminal act. If no questions related to the act are asked there is no need to mirandize the suspect. Example, I stop a person driving on a suspended license. I run the license for wants and status. It comes back suspended. I have observed the act of driving and after I confirm identity with the license I have no need to ask if the person was driving as I saw it. The person is arrested, either placed in full custody or released on the basis of a criminal citation. Either way it is still an arrest. Questions regarding identity are not subject to the Miranda situation (name, address etc.)
Detention is not arrest. Even witnesses can be detained and they certainly are not under arrest.
Telling people that detention is totally voluntary and that they can leave when detained by a law enforcement officer is incorrect. You have already seen the court decision confirming that situation as it was posted earlier. If you do not agree then that is your perogative, you'll still be in error but you can disagree if you want.
-
First off
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=384&invol=436
That is the Miranda decision
Second, certain constitutional rights spelled out in Miranda do not have to be stated to be in place, e.g., the right to council, indigent or not, questioned or not. Just because you arrest someone for a blatant crime that requires no investigation or interview from the suspect, does not mean he has no right to council. Mirandize or not - the constitutional rights spelled out in Miranda v Arizona exist.
>>Detention is not arrest. Even witnesses can be detained and they certainly are not under arrest.
<<
THAT is entirely up to a judge (or even jury) to decide. It is not black and white. Sometimes a detainment IS an arrest as has been proven in civil suits.
>>Telling people that detention is totally voluntary and that they can leave when detained by a law enforcement officer is incorrect.<<
I said detention is cooperative. I said a person can force the issue by walking away in which case they must either be arrested or let go. In cases where detention is being used to coerce a person into self incrimination, the smartest course is to force arrest (i.e., arrest me now or I AM LEAVING). It is much better to deal with detectives, DA's and your lawyer than it is a police officer who expertise is not law, but law enforcement.
-
Originally posted by Curval
lol
Freedom.
It's OK to be envious, that's normal. Or was there was some other, more pathetic reason you felt the need to delve into the subject?
-
In Aus an arrest can be as little as being told your under arrest and a hand being placed upon you (unless you submit) ie. If you feel your freedom has been restricted, that constitutes an arrest being made. Of course the real problem is that you must have a justification to make that arrest (which you must also acknowledge at the time). You can be arrested if the officer has a reasonable suspicion that you are about to commit a crime at night, are committing a crime or have recently committed a crime
If your not a police officer, a similar warning about right to remain silent, and an acknowledgement that the police have been called is required...and until then you have a duty of care (that nothing untoward happens to them).
After you have been arrested NSW (the state where I live) police have up to four hours to investigate you and then you must be either charged or released.
Originally posted by TweetyBird
Not anymore, rest assured.
And to be serious, it wasn't just "anyone" calling them.
Originally posted by TweetyBird
I just wonder how they would've handled it if my nephew wasn't "connected."
To be honest, this sounds like your real problem with the whole thing...not the "legal process"
Tronsky
-
Originally posted by TweetyBird
First off
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=384&invol=436
That is the Miranda decision
Second, certain constitutional rights spelled out in Miranda do not have to be stated to be in place, e.g., the right to council, indigent or not, questioned or not. Just because you arrest someone for a blatant crime that requires no investigation or interview from the suspect, does not mean he has no right to council. Mirandize or not - the constitutional rights spelled out in Miranda v Arizona exist.
>>Detention is not arrest. Even witnesses can be detained and they certainly are not under arrest.
<<
THAT is entirely up to a judge (or even jury) to decide. It is not black and white. Sometimes a detainment IS an arrest as has been proven in civil suits.
>>Telling people that detention is totally voluntary and that they can leave when detained by a law enforcement officer is incorrect.<<
I said detention is cooperative. I said a person can force the issue by walking away in which case they must either be arrested or let go. In cases where detention is being used to coerce a person into self incrimination, the smartest course is to force arrest (i.e., arrest me now or I AM LEAVING). It is much better to deal with detectives, DA's and your lawyer than it is a police officer who expertise is not law, but law enforcement.
That's not true at all, as has been shown.
It IS black and white. It also goes so far to make avoiding detention a crime in some states.
Your "connections" aren't very good.
State of TEXAS
§ 38.04. EVADING ARREST OR DETENTION. (a) A person
commits an offense if he intentionally flees from a person he knows
is a peace officer attempting lawfully to arrest or detain him.
-
Just a diversionary story about life outside the US until everyone gets back to arguing:
In Japan, the police can hold you in jail for questioning without charging you for... (are you ready?)
27 days.
Then they have to get a judge to sign off on a second 27-day interrogation period, before placing any charges. Here's an interesting story about being a foreigner:
A foreigner got a little tired of his neighbor's dog barking continuously all night long, every night, so he stopped at the house on the way back home from work and knocked on the door. He asked the middle-aged man if the dog was hungry or ill since he would pay to send it to a vet. The guy's teenage son walked around behind the foreigner and sucker punched him from behind. The foreigner turned around and him hit.
The police carted him off to jail for questioning. Of course the teenager didn't go to jail because, well, he was Japanese. The police interrogate people for 10 -12 hours per day in shifts until they sign a confession. If you don't sign a confession, you stay in jail and get convicted. He eventually signed a confession and paid apology money to avoid a long prison sentence.
Japan has a 99.5+% conviction rate. If you don't plead quilty, your sentence is harsh. If you plead guilty, your sentence is harsh, but a little shorter.
If you are a white-collar criminal, confession and a tearful apology will get you convicted, but your sentence will be suspended - always. Well, not always. I think 2 or 3 guys have been sentenced to a few months prison in the last 3 years for bribery or stealing a billion yen.
The great thing is, you usually don't have to pay back the money! What a country.
Traffic accidents are great. The police show up and after reams and reams of paperwork, everyone shares guilt in all accidents. No one is a harmless victim. If you're sitting at a red light and someone rams into the back of you, you are 20% at fault for having bad karma. Oh... and no day in court needed for these types of things. The police decide who pays how much on the spot. Cuts down on pesky trials.
In the days before the war, the police were the yakuza and the yakuza were the police. It would be hard to categorize the relationship as 'unfriendly' even now.
Small time thugs have a weekly quota of cash they have to give to the local yakuza boss. A favorite little con is the fake traffic accident con. Two little thugs will drive next to some drunk, hapless guy then stop and claim he kicked their tire. The police cart him off to jail until he confesses and agrees to pay the equivalent of $2,000 - $5,000 (depending on how much he looks like he can cough up) as an apology. They go the local ATM machine, or he agrees to pay it in installments. If he doesn't pay, the police come around his house to collect. The police make a cut and the thugs can pay the boss.
Nothing like a little entrepreneurial spirit to keep currency circulating.
Okay, back to the arguing...
-
I think tweety is saying that you can walk away from a situation where you are being detained, thereby forcing the agent to arrest you or let you go. If you continue to attempt to leave after being told that you are under arrest you are guilty of resisting arrest.
Just my understanding of it though, I could be wrong, for the ump-teenth time today.
-
Originally posted by Lazerus
I think tweety is saying that you can walk away from a situation where you are being detained, thereby forcing the agent to arrest you or let you go. If you continue to attempt to leave after being told that you are under arrest you are guilty of resisting arrest.
Just my understanding of it though, I could be wrong, for the ump-teenth time today.
So he's saying that if you are being detained, commit a crime?
His "connections" must be pleased.
-
Well, I didn't convey that well enough I guess. It's my understanding that you are not commiting a crime by walking away from an officer if you haven't been placed under arrest.
You can force the arrest by attempting to leave a situation where you are being detained. They either arrest you or let you go.
If you are handcuffed, or locked in the back seat of a cruiser, you are for all intents and purposes under arrest in my book. Once your liberty has been taken away, you are arrested.
Just my take on it though.
"Connections" rarely turn out to be as good as you think they are, or others make them out to be. Especially when they are publicised.
-
Originally posted by Lazerus
Well, I didn't convey that well enough I guess. It's my understanding that you are not commiting a crime by walking away from an officer if you haven't been placed under arrest.
You can force the arrest by attempting to leave a situation where you are being detained. They either arrest you or let you go.
If you are handcuffed, or locked in the back seat of a cruiser, you are for all intents and purposes under arrest in my book. Once your liberty has been taken away, you are arrested.
Just my take on it though.
"Connections" rarely turn out to be as good as you think they are, or others make them out to be. Especially when they are publicised.
In most states the officer may legally detain you for investigative purposes.
-
Originally posted by Lazerus
Once your liberty has been taken away, you are arrested.
I understand what you're saying, it's just that I think that you are essentialy under arrest in that situation too. You no longer have freedom. You are detained. You are under arrest.
Legalese might not agree with it, but the essence of the definition is fulfilled.
Again, just my take on it.
-
Originally posted by Lazerus
I understand what you're saying, it's just that I think that you are essentialy under arrest in that situation too. You no longer have freedom. You are detained. You are under arrest.
Legalese might not agree with it, but the essence of the definition is fulfilled.
Again, just my take on it.
Well, you can call it anything you'd like. "nuts in a sling", "purple elephant", "Tweety's connections not working out",
but since we're discussing "legalese", you aren't arrested.
-
Well, in my legalese, detained is the same as arrested. If I'm not free to move along, I consider myself under arrest.
Originally posted by Lazerus
Once your liberty has been taken away, you are arrested.
I still stand by that. It is logically sound, and I've seen it argued in court and won.
As for the original argument, all I can say is New Orleans police have a reputation for a reason. But then again, it's been a decade since I've known anyone that had any first hand experience with them.
-
Originally posted by Lazerus
Well, in my legalese, detained is the same as arrested. If I'm not free to move along, I consider myself under arrest.
Originally posted by Lazerus
I still stand by that. It is logically sound, and I've seen it argued in court and won.
As for the original argument, all I can say is New Orleans police have a reputation for a reason. But then again, it's been a decade since I've known anyone that had any first hand experience with them.
Could you point to a few examples of where a person who has been detained for investigation, and the detainment followed the laws of that state, has successfully argued in court that he was arressted?
-
Specifically, no. I'm not in the legal profession and don't want to do the research to find the case to post for you.
I can tell you what I saw in court though.
No time to type it out now. I'll post it later this afternoon.
wife/work calling
-
Originally posted by Lazerus
Specifically, no. I'm not in the legal profession and don't want to do the research to find the case to post for you.
I can tell you what I saw in court though.
No time to type it out now. I'll post it later this afternoon.
wife/work calling
Uh huh. :rolleyes:
-
Tweety,
Last post in repsonse to you. You continue to read into what I stated what was neither implied or inferred. Do not attempt to place words in my mouth.
I simply told you that Miranda is NOT an integral part of being arrested. It is important certainly but only applies when the suspect decides to exercise his / her miranda rights OR when the law enforcement personel wish to question the suspect. (specifically the right against self incrimination). An arrest can be affected without any miranda warning being given simply by not asking the arrestee any questions relating to the offense in question. If you don't question him you do not have to mirandize him / her. Simple. That was all I said about it.
If the suspect requests representation that is his right. The arresting officer does not have to provide representaion to the arrestee and can certainly continue the arrest process without questioning the arrestee. The arrestee can call from jail if incarcerated. If the arrestee is given a field release (criminal citation) they can call from wherever they want once they sign the pronise to appear in court. Last time. I repeat, earlier I did not say the arrestee was not entitled to representation.
As to the detention situation that has been fully explained to you. The fact that a detention sometimes does result in an arrest does not in any way diminish the fact that a person can be detained, without their cooperation, and not be under arrest. If you refuse to see that, it's your problem, not mine.
Finally as to the 2 questions I asked you, I find it simply amazing you cannot admit what state (or even country for that matter) you are talking about.
I already know you are not an attorney, even a bad one, simply from the posts you have made here.
IMO you achieved what you wanted by starting the thread. You got attention by posting the alleged situation you first listed and stroked your ego by implying you were somehow important (connected) to get your nephew released from custody. I won't pamper your ego further in this thread. Feel free to continue to insult my service as you did earlier and you can even have the last word. :rolleyes:
-
Hmmm, the "easy life" in the RV travelling the world, yet so much angst? What gives?
I read your posts Mav, it's like Warren Schmidt talking to the AH O'Club like we are a bunch of under privileged African orphans.
Let it go, Goose is in a better place. It's not your fault. Let him fly... God Speed Goose.
-
I think people are confusing detaining a "suspect" and detaining a "witness". If you are not a suspect in a crime you don't have to stick around.
-
Originally posted by Tarmac
Detention requires nothing close to consent. When you get pulled over, you're detained. When a cop stops to talk to you and has reasonable suspicion to believe you were involved in a crime (ie you match a description), you aren't going anywhere. If he wants, he can handcuff you, put you on the curb, frisk you for weapons. If you leave, you're most likely taking a short trip into the ground.
As Mav said, Miranda warnings are only necessary when you have a custodial arrest by the police and want to use the suspect's statements against them in court. You can go all the way from committing the crime to going to jail and never be Mirandized. All it means is that your testimony (and any evidence obtained from it) can't be used against you in court. If they have enough evidence without your incriminating statements, you're still going away.
Cuff someone without cause, you're barking up a wrong tree. When the cuffs come on, you are taking a person's freedoms away. I'd advise against the frivilous use of cuffs, lawsuits will be on the horizon. Before some of you start popping off, I know plenty of Police, FBI, Sheriff, and Michigan State troopers, who agree with my statement.
Karaya
-
Originally posted by Creamo
Hmmm, the "easy life" in the RV travelling the world, yet so much angst? What gives?
I read your posts Mav, it's like Warren Schmidt talking to the AH O'Club like we are a bunch of under privileged African orphans.
Let it go, Goose is in a better place. It's not your fault. Let him fly... God Speed Goose.
:rofl
-
Arrest=Charges being placed against you
Detain=In PA, I could detain you for up to 8hrs. But, at the 8hr point, I had to have you in front of a Magistrate or release you.
Miranda=Only when I want to question you about the crime. You will be advised of your rights when you appear in court about the right to a bull Shhht artist.. sorry, lawyer, bail and speedy trial.
Lets face it, we do not live in a perfect world where no one makes mistakes. Only liberals think that no one should make mistakes or be fired. Until you take the human factor out of LE, then expect mistakes and insted of being a butthead, work with LE and help work out the issues.
If you don't like the Police, next time your in trouble call a Crack head.
:aok
-
Originally posted by Del
Arrest=Charges being placed against you
Detain=In PA, I could detain you for up to 8hrs. But, at the 8hr point, I had to have you in front of a Magistrate or release you.
Miranda=Only when I want to question you about the crime. You will be advised of your rights when you appear in court about the right to a bull Shhht artist.. sorry, lawyer, bail and speedy trial.
Lets face it, we do not live in a perfect world where no one makes mistakes. Only liberals think that no one should make mistakes or be fired. Until you take the human factor out of LE, then expect mistakes and insted of being a butthead, work with LE and help work out the issues.
If you don't like the Police, next time your in trouble call a Crack head.
:aok
Del but you can only detain "suspects" is that correct? or can you detain witnesses or whatever?
-
Maverick, I'm not going to trade insults with you. If you think what is considered detention and what is considered arrest is set in stone, and not subject to the opinion of a judge or jury, you just don't know too much. IMO.
The fact is, the incident I mentioned could in NO POSSIBLE WAY be considered anything but an arrest, and arrests are IMEDIATELY public record, no matter if it takes the sheriff's office 2 weeks or 10 years to make it easily available for the average citizen. Its public record at the time of the arrest and the police agency or suspect has no legal recourse against anyone that publicizes the arrest. Booking has NOTHING to do with making it public record, and thats how this whole long thread got started - Mullet's contention that it isn't public record until they are booked, and that the lockup shouldn't just "tell anybody" of the arrest as if it were a secret or prvacy issue.
Now I'll take my chances anyday challenging the constitutionality of a detainment and defy you to find a block of cases which hold conviction for resisting detainment. Detainment (other than a few minutes to determine whether or not a crime is occuring) is a ruse
to circumvent the rights afforded under arrest.
-
Radier,
First, I've been out of the LE loop for about 5yrs now but don't think things have changed that much.
When you goto bed at night, you look in the mirror, if you can pass the Red Face test and sleep knowing that you did what you know and belive to be the right thing.
I nor would any of the brothers/sister I know would detain someone just to do it. There was always a reason and that one would be willing to chance a law suit.
Police is one of the very few professions that, if you screw up, they will not only come after your deparment but they will take your home, tooth brush, what ever. This comes from some freaking lawyer and one freaking stupid cop. You sometimes gota wonder where they hire the 1% of dips from.
Its one of those things, its hard to explain until you have been in uniform and patroled the streets. When I would call in a DL, and if it would come back suspended or with warrents, I would verify the name, DOB, Address, and OLN. If it all matched, out come the nice shiny braclets (in PA suspended lic. is not reason to take someone to jail, unlike most states).
I have only once held someone for 8hrs before releasing them. I then picked them back up a few hours later after something changed, but, I had paperwork and warrent in hand when I did. Don't want to give anyone my tooth brush. BTW, if I arrest someone, take them to the Dist. Mag, he/she commits them to jail, the fact that I took them in isn't public record until they are fully booked and all paperwork checked and verified by the Booking officer. Then and only then do they release the information. The team in the jail has a lot of baby sitting todo with out having to respond to someones uncle calling that they are special and deserve special treatment.
I'm not even sure why I decited to respond to this.
Have a great day folks.
:cool:
-
Well, Del, you migyt not release it till after they are booked but it public record as soon as you arrest them and you have no reason to deny you've arrested them. Sorry thats just the facts unless your Dept disappears people.
-
Originally posted by Del
Radier,
First, I've been out of the LE loop for about 5yrs now but don't think things have changed that much.
When you goto bed at night, you look in the mirror, if you can pass the Red Face test and sleep knowing that you did what you know and belive to be the right thing.
I nor would any of the brothers/sister I know would detain someone just to do it. There was always a reason and that one would be willing to chance a law suit.
Police is one of the very few professions that, if you screw up, they will not only come after your deparment but they will take your home, tooth brush, what ever. This comes from some freaking lawyer and one freaking stupid cop. You sometimes gota wonder where they hire the 1% of dips from.
Its one of those things, its hard to explain until you have been in uniform and patroled the streets. When I would call in a DL, and if it would come back suspended or with warrents, I would verify the name, DOB, Address, and OLN. If it all matched, out come the nice shiny braclets (in PA suspended lic. is not reason to take someone to jail, unlike most states).
I have only once held someone for 8hrs before releasing them. I then picked them back up a few hours later after something changed, but, I had paperwork and warrent in hand when I did. Don't want to give anyone my tooth brush. BTW, if I arrest someone, take them to the Dist. Mag, he/she commits them to jail, the fact that I took them in isn't public record until they are fully booked and all paperwork checked and verified by the Booking officer. Then and only then do they release the information. The team in the jail has a lot of baby sitting todo with out having to respond to someones uncle calling that they are special and deserve special treatment.
I'm not even sure why I decited to respond to this.
Have a great day folks.
:cool:
sorry no disrespect but was that a yes or no? I understand you guys walk a fine line. I just want to know if you can "detain" a witness as opposed to someone who is a "suspect".
-
Originally posted by TweetyBird
Maverick, I'm not going to trade insults with you. If you think what is considered detention and what is considered arrest is set in stone, and not subject to the opinion of a judge or jury, you just don't know too much. IMO.
The fact remains, several examples of written law have been given to back up his position.
You've offered nothing.
-
Originally posted by Del
When you goto bed at night, you look in the mirror...
I wand a mirror on my ceiling, too but the wife says no. :confused:
-
Welp, there goes my trying to be clever this month, lol.
bastard
-
Originally posted by Airhead
I wand a mirror on my ceiling, too but the wife says no. :confused:
Maybe she doesn't like to see your bellybutton when she is having sex.
-
>>The fact remains, several examples of written law have been given to back up his position.
You've offered nothing.<<
I offer you this. Detainment is a constitutional gray area that will be challenged each and every time. Even state statutes giving specific time limits to detainment will be challenged on intent, and the specifics of the case (i.e., it is ridiculous to think 20 minutes were needed to determine whether or not a crime was taking place or perhaps a public threat in this case). All of these BONFIDE police officers who think detainment is cut and dried and laid in stone are just showing what they don't know about detainment (i.e., for the most part its illegal and unconstitutional but legislative judges have invented it). There's a good chance that each and every case standing on detainment will go to appellate and beyond, for the simple fact it violates a FEW amendments.
Thats why no precedents have been posted, and thats why "detainment" is preferred over "detention" - too many bad Japanese-American memories associated with the latter.
Ah - but I forgot - law abiding Republicans don't use euphemisms like "detainment" to hide things like "detention."
-
Yes and No.... to many If's whats and or buts...
Everything is case by case. Do I have a witness that doesn't want to talk about a child rape? I will sit there and stare at them for 8hrs then. No civil court is going to nail me on that one but, if they witnessed a shop lifter, not a chance.
There is very little black and white, lots of grey area and all officers must be able to use what tools they have to make a call.
Tweedy bird,
Like I have said before, a arrest is only, only after I have pressed charges,, If I give you a parking ticket, it is an arrest.
Ok, If I pick you up for DUI, I have you in custody, you are now being DETAINED!!! We go to the jail and I do my paperwork, you are given a blood test or breathilizer or what ever. You are in a holding cell while I do my paper work. You are in jail but, IT IS NOT PUBLIC RECORD YET! I must do my job before it goes public. If I release to the press that you are in jail, I'm sure you would be upset if I was to release you with no charges pressed. (neg. blood test or something).
Once I decided that you are DUI, then I will file charges against you. Now, you are arrested. Now you are public record.
This is that last that I shall respond, All departments, states, countys, townships and cities have differant rules and laws. We don't live in China, people don't just disppear like they do in some 1970's movie. If you think that they are to tough on someone, move to Mexico. The system there will be much more to your liking.
Stay safe everyone.
-
Del,
He's trolling. He's been called on it by folks who have been there and done it. Another posted the court decision on it. He just has his little ego stroke thread and will milk it for everything he can. You can't change his mind, best to ignore him.
-
I see that...
Later Bro
:D
-
Originally posted by TweetyBird
Thats why no precedents have been posted, and thats why "detainment" is preferred over "detention" - too many bad Japanese-American memories associated with the latter.
Ah - but I forgot - law abiding Republicans don't use euphemisms like "detainment" to hide things like "detention."
'Relocation Center' was the official term for Japanese American camps of WW2. 'Internment Camp' is also used.
This was done by Executive Order 9066, instituted by FDR, a noted non-Republican.
Canada also 'relocated' Japanese Canadians to camps in BC.
-
>>He just has his little ego stroke thread and will milk it for everything he can. You can't change his mind, best to ignore him.
<<
Yea either that or you could be wrong. But you're the one who is stuck on ego - I don't know what thats about. It seems personal or that your percieved authority is challenged. And please don't shift into drama queen mode. I'm not mocking your injuries if you ever were a police officer, or security guard or whatever.
-
Originally posted by TweetyBird
>>He just has his little ego stroke thread and will milk it for everything he can. You can't change his mind, best to ignore him.
<<
Yea either that or you could be wrong. But you're the one who is stuck on ego - I don't know what thats about. It seems personal or that your percieved authority is challenged. And please don't shift into drama queen mode. I'm not mocking your injuries if you ever were a police officer, or security guard or whatever.
You may stop posting now. We have to wait another day for fresh puppies to be born.
Karaya
-
Well its not just about puppies. I get sick of people posting as an authority under a pseudonym. Who knows? They might think they're a cop because they have 147 back issues of "Detective" or the first 10 seasons of "Cops" on DVD or worked mall security 25 years ago. Who knows? But I'm not paying homage to so presumed authority unless I see a real name where I can check the authority. "I'm a cop and I say you're wrong"
Well I call BS
-
Originally posted by TweetyBird
Well its not just about puppies. I get sick of people posting as an authority under a pseudonym. Who knows? They might think they're a cop because they have 147 back issues of "Detective" or the first 10 seasons of "Cops" on DVD or worked mall security 25 years ago. Who knows? But I'm not paying homage to so presumed authority unless I see a real name where I can check the authority. "I'm a cop and I say you're wrong"
Well I call BS
Funny. We called BS on you and you launched into a tirade about not providing personal information.
-
Er why don't you quote the "tirade." It pretty much says what I said in my last post, i.e., that its ridiculous to post as an authority under a psuedonym. But, I get it - you cant think of an argument so call my post a "tirade." Why not call it a whine or liberal babble? How can I ever combat such sophisticated rhetoric?:rolleyes:
"His argument is wrong because its a tirade."
"Mine is right because I agree with it"
So goes another day at the remedial debate society...
-
Originally posted by TweetyBird
Er why don't you quote the "tirade." It pretty much says what I said in my last post, i.e., that its ridiculous to post as an authority under a psuedonym. But, I get it - you cant think of an argument so call my post a "tirade." Why not call it a whine or liberal babble? How can I ever combat such sophisticated rhetoric?:rolleyes:
"His argument is wrong because its a tirade."
"Mine is right because I agree with it"
So goes another day at the remedial debate society...
Here's the "tirade". In the same post you refuse to give out personal information to back up your claim, you demand it of him. Hello, hypocrisy? It's me, Tweety.
Originally posted by TweetyBird
Maveric, I'm not dancing around anything. You're asking for specific personal information that I won't give to you. What the hell is your expertise? You're a cop. So what? Your expertise is transport-period. Everything else is very gray including efforts to circumvent Miranda even if not stated. Efforts to circumvent Miranda are violations of Miranda (more specifically the the precedent set in Miranda v. Arizona ) - "well if you don't talk to me I'll put you in a cell with people who know what you've done" or "if you talk to me I'll help you" All that is hollywood BS. Both violate Miranda.
You are stating I'm assigning too much importance to Miranda, and I'm telling you Miranda is based on constitutional rights that do NOT have to be read to be in place. Miranda is the precedent - the RIGHTS are in the constitution. How is that dancing around what you've asked?
As far as as this board is concerned, my name is TweetyBird and my expertise is putty tats. Your expertise is either horses, cars or old tv shows as far as I'm concerned.
If you want to post as an authority, post under your real name where your credentials can be checked -not under some pseudonym.
-
oh snap, martlet totally owned tweety
-
The difference he is attempting to post as a police officer, an authority on law enforcement. That may or may not be true. People pretend to be many things on this board. Maverick repeatedly tried to bring this to a credentials argument by repeatedly asking for my "expertise." After ignoring him a few times, I flat out told him I didn't intend to give out that information and why. Can we agree so far?
Yea, I could tell him I'm a former alderman for some made up town, but in means NOTHING unless I intend to use a real name. I don't so it would stupid to list my expertise .
Maverick seems to believe he's proven his credentials - he hasn't. I have no idea if he's a police officer, mall security, an eagle scout with 147 "Detective" magazines, or a dispatcher for an alarm company. A lot of folks call themselves cops on the net.
Even if he were a former police officer - so what? Police officers expertise is not law and prededent, its law enforcement. The procedures they follow are handed down by some dept lawyer.
Thats not to put down real police officers, but only to point out a police officer can not use his expertise to justify what is detainment and what is arrest. He and his handed down procedure may be struck as unconstitutional by a judge and probably rests on case specifics
Maverick seem bent on this being an ego thing. That makes me think he believes one can stroke their ego through a pseudonym. If someone was that nuerotic, I think they'd pick "Elvis" or "Anavar" over TweetyBird.
Sincerly,
James Hoffa
-
oh snap, tweety totally owned maverick.
-
Tweety,
I have posted and listed my real name on this bbs before. I have also in this thread given you my jurisdiction that I worked in. Here is the thread where I posted the information you yourself are so afraid of divulging.
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=81826 It's not related to this thread in any way shape or form and is over a year old.
As far as my expertise goes, I have gone far further than you have at establishing credentials and knowledge of the subject.
You'd better stick to putty tats you will be far more believable in that area of "expertise". They would likely be more impressed with your "connection".
In the mean time, have a nice cup of STFU on me.
-
Police officers expertise is not law and prededent, its law enforcement.
What a dork.... Where are you from, Mars or something. It is kinda hard to enforce the Law if we don't know anything about it. It seems that the only people around who don't know the law are Lawyers. They twist it and turn it everyway they can so it goes in their favor. If it wasn't for Lawyers, who know the law,, ack ack... we wouldn't have to fight for the Constitution all the time in the S.Court.
Get a Life and let it go. You not what you think you are, even if you did get a deploma from some dork university. If you haven't lived it, then you just don't know.
GOD I hate people.:cool:
-
oh snap, maverick and del strike a blow for po-po
Wow. This ghetto play-by-play really spices up the workday.
-
Originally posted by Engine
oh snap, maverick and del strike a blow for po-po
Wow. This ghetto play-by-play really spices up the workday.
I don't think that was a serve you can return.
-
It's been done a while. Tweety lost.
-
I go back to my earlier reply. If they put a small monitor, plugged into the car's computer, facing the rear seat "occupant" that automatically played a video of somebody reading off the Miranda rights when you put them in there...
y'alls whole arguement would be kinda null & void :)
-
Originally posted by TweetyBird
Police officers expertise is not law and prededent, its law enforcement.
Ignorance is bliss. Funny - when I went to the Police Academy (Suffolk County Police Academy NY - 6 Months) the New York State Penal Law was almost a 5 week topic with a 2 major block tests. IMO the cops I work with now the law better than most prosecuting attorney’s in the DAs office out here – especially when you are studying for a promotional exam.
Regarding your story Tweety – The officers acted in good faith with reasonable cause to believe that your nephew had a warrant. Not following department SOP is another matter and should be delt with accordingly by the departent's administration.
As far a Kidnapping charge goes – please – make me laugh some more. When he was placed under arrest – that’s when the handcuff’s where placed on him – he’s in custody as far as I’m concerned. When they realized their error they unarested him – its happened to guys on my job and nothing becomes of it as long as the cops acted in GOOD FAITH.
Question – What prompted the Officers to run data on your nephew?
-
Tweedy lost?? lol pfftt!
wtf?? When is this a competition? lol
I thought it was the first to start tossing insults that was always the loser...
At any level, nice post Tweedy.. Glad your kin was released.. Also, its good too see a poster keep their cool in the face of such dogpiling mental masturbation.. Keep up the good work Hoffa!
-
Originally posted by TheDudeDVant
Tweedy lost?? lol pfftt!
wtf?? When is this a competition? lol
I thought it was the first to start tossing insults that was always the loser...
At any level, nice post Tweedy.. Glad your kin was released.. Also, its good too see a poster keep their cool in the face of such dogpiling mental masturbation.. Keep up the good work Hoffa!
If your institution issued passes, would you qualify for a weekend pass, or chaperoned day pass only?
-
Originally posted by Martlet
If your institution issued passes, would you qualify for a weekend pass, or chaperoned day pass only?
Are you asking me for a date?? Cause certainly you qualify as a *****.. Your just not a cute enough ***** for me I dont think..
-
Originally posted by TheDudeDVant
Are you asking me for a date?? Cause certainly you qualify as a *****.. Your just not a cute enough ***** for me I dont think..
I was just wondering if you had company when your nose was that far up Tweety's rectum.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
I was just wondering if you had company when your nose was that far up Tweety's rectum.
You SURE you're not asking me for a date?? lol
-
Originally posted by TheDudeDVant
You SURE you're not asking me for a date?? lol
So, which is it? Do you get chaperoned or do you two get "private time"?
-
The officers acted in good faith with reasonable cause to believe that your nephew had a warrant.
Not crossreferencing his name vs his DL # could easily be construed as gross negligence.
Did the suspect (nephew) have the same name as the perp with the arrest warrant; if they ran the DL # shouldn't a name come up (you could be in backwater usa so i dont know; its all computers down here in south florida)
this is pretty cut and dry..(unless backwater usa defense and there are a few of those in our country with little budget for tech...)
If they did have a computer in the cruiser or called dispatch the non crossreferencing the suspects name vs his DL number could be a bad blow for acting in good faith defense..
DoctorYo
-
No he didn't have the same name same date of birth or anything close to the guy with the warrant. Then knew this when they got to the station and they couldn't pull up a warrant or any kind. Since the arresting had already informed us anoth jurisdiction would be picking him up at their lockup, imagine their suprise when they discovered no warrant to compel the other jurisdiction to do that. They knew this when they had his real name and denying anyone by that name was in lockup.
-
Martlet you get gross at the drop of a hat.
En4cer - you creep me out. I picture handcuffs and mannequines.
Maverick, are you claiming to be Robert Barr raising the bar yet again?
-
Originally posted by TweetyBird
Martlet you get gross at the drop of a hat.
En4cer - you creep me out. I picture handcuffs and mannequines.
Maverick, are you claiming to be Robert Barr raising the bar yet again?
Then stop dropping your hat.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
Then stop dropping your hat.
Or stop bending over to pick it up. :D
-
Originally posted by TweetyBird
Martlet you get gross at the drop of a hat.
En4cer - you creep me out. I picture handcuffs and mannequines.
Maverick, are you claiming to be Robert Barr raising the bar yet again?
I am not claiming anything. My name is not Robert either.
-
>>I am not claiming anything. My name is not Robert either.<<
Just checking..
-
>>Or stop bending over to pick it up.
Yea really, a parculiar fascination in orifices here. Some people's mind goes to the argument, others go to the butt.
Sure impressed me:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by TweetyBird
>>Or stop bending over to pick it up.
Yea really, a parculiar fascination in orifices here. Some people's mind goes to the argument, others go to the butt.
Sure impressed me:rolleyes:
What argument? You have no argument.
BS has already been called on you. You refused to respond.
Now we're just laughing.
-
>>What argument? You have no argument.
BS has already been called on you. You refused to respond.
<<
No, you're talking about butts or being a drama queen pretending to reveal an identity without posting first name, dates on the Tucson PD, precinct, rank or badge number.
I've already responded. And you've revealed your main interest in a few posts (like the donkey cartoon a while back - don't druel over the word " back").
maybe its the anavar - that monkey blood will make you nuts.
-
Originally posted by TweetyBird
>>What argument? You have no argument.
BS has already been called on you. You refused to respond.
<<
No, you're talking about butts or being a drama queen pretending to reveal an identity without posting first name, dates on the Tucson PD, precinct, rank or badge number.
I've already responded. And you've revealed your main interest in a few posts (like the donkey cartoon a while back - don't druel over the word " back").
maybe its the anavar - that monkey blood will make you nuts.
Can't say I understood a word of that.
I did enjoy watching Maverick show you to be a fool, though.
-
Btw fellas Im not taking sides.... I appreciate law enforcement, I appreciate the freedoms in the good ole USA also.. I just want whats fair..
I think alot of good points came up here..
there is always two sides to a story.. and we only have tweety's so i cant vouge for its accuracy...
lawenforcement (without we would be in anarchy.. no doubt about it...)
tweety... (i would just ask for a written apology and drop it.. mistakes happen.. now if it was pattern then thats something else... and take action)
DoctorYo
PS now kiss and make up....
;)
-
( o )
-
Originally posted by DoctorYO
Btw fellas Im not taking sides.... I appreciate law enforcement, I appreciate the freedoms in the good ole USA also.. I just want whats fair..
I think alot of good points came up here..
there is always two sides to a story.. and we only have tweety's so i cant vouge for its accuracy...
lawenforcement (without we would be in anarchy.. no doubt about it...)
tweety... (i would just ask for a written apology and drop it.. mistakes happen.. now if it was pattern then thats something else... and take action)
DoctorYo
PS now kiss and make up....
;)
Thank God for DrYo's sage guidance- after all, he's been registered a long long time so he must have credibility.
Come back again any time Yo- whenever you see an impasse in a debate don't hesitate to tell all of us what to think. And thanks also for setting the record straight about those 13th TAS scallywags- here I had thought Rude, Toad, Bodhi and the rest of them were honorable men, albeit a bit misguided politically... I had no idea they were co-conspirators in Voss's flight sim scam, as you suggest. In fact I had interpeted their silence on the matter here as not wanting to engage in gossip (as you have done)...
But..like I said, you've been around a long long time, and sometimes tenure gives one an inflated opinion of their real value. ;)
-
look up a "Bivens" action this one seems ripe for it
-
There are no damages or reason for anything but an apology, which was given. Even the officers who were repsonsible for not following proper procedure were nowhere nere as junvenile as whats been posted here. It was a mistake, and as someone posted in the first day, a normal reaction to try to cover a mistake. But in the end, it was just a mistake. I'm just glad it wasn't a mistake about a felony warrant.
The irony is this whole incident came from video taping a high school religion project and the initial officer was not a regular police officer (actually a k9 handler). "Do you all have any weapons?"
"Er, a crossbow , a sword, and an apple."
Your "ripe for it" remark is apt :D
And Dr.Yo you are exactly right - I can only give my side. I'm sure the officers involved saw things differently - different perspective.
But there is one objective fact. My nephew was arrested only because a number was either spoken wrong or typed wrong, and no name or dob was called back to verify. The disposition of his case was a matter of tearing up the paper work. Now thats usual eh?
-
Originally posted by Martlet
Uh huh. :rolleyes:
I get 6 days off a month, one day in the middle of the week and every other Sunday. Gotta be there by noon on the Sundays I work.
for martlet only (http://www.abesonline.com/Life_Is_ShortLP.jpg)
:rolleyes:
I was in court for a traffic ticket very early, a mistake I made after losing my ticket. I was lucky that I remembered the date, I just kinda showed up. They were hearing DUI, CDV, public drunkeness cases, etc.
There were about 20 people that had been ticketed at a party down by the college for underage drinking. One lucky young lady had a lawyer. The officer began to present his case. He stated, again(she was about the 12th one up from the same incident), the circumstances surrounding his summons and arrival at the property. He had instructed her to stay on the porch of the house after confiscating her ID and then walked into the front yard to talk to another officer. He went back to her and began questioning her. This is where her lawyer stopped him. He asked for the opportunity to ask a few questions, the judge said OK.
He asked the Defendant if she felt that she was able to walk away from the officer that was questioning her. She said no. He asked if the officer told her that she was under arrest. She said no. He asked if the officer advised her of her rights to not answer his questions. She said no.
He proposed to the court that she was being held and questioned and that constituted an arrest of her civil liberties, and that she had not been advised of her right to not answer the officers questions.
The judge agreed.
The officers only evidence against her was what she told him in that conversation. It was not allowed as testimony. The charges against her were dropped.
The argument here is only a matter of semantics. "Arrest" as defined by procedure is not the same as "arrest" as defined by the liberties granted to all Americans. I agree with the semantics, but the stubbornness exhibited here by everyone is absurd.
Recognise this argument for what it is.
-
And by the way, if I didn't mention it last Sunday morning, I have family members in law enforcement. I have nothing but respect for the guys and girls that put their arses on the line every day so we can all exist in relative safety. I hold great contempt for those that abuse that trust and respect and blemish the image of an overwhelmingly honorable group of people.
I have been held in jail for a falsely filed warrant. A simple traffic violation that had been dismissed was mistakenly reported as unpaid and a bench warrant was issued. I was stopped for something else, my license was run, and I was taken to jail. It was on a weekend and it took them awhile to contact the judge and verify that I was telling the truth. It was a simple mistake. Careless, but human. The judge did me a favor by dropping the original ticket. I just figured that I paid for that mistake that night. The phone call apologizing was nice too.
It did take me a few days to get to that point, but I got there, and there I still am.
It's a great feeling to have several friends raising hell to get you out of jail all night.:D
-
Originally posted by Lazerus
I get 6 days off a month, one day in the middle of the week and every other Sunday. Gotta be there by noon on the Sundays I work.
for martlet only (http://www.abesonline.com/Life_Is_ShortLP.jpg)
:rolleyes:
I was in court for a traffic ticket very early, a mistake I made after losing my ticket. I was lucky that I remembered the date, I just kinda showed up. They were hearing DUI, CDV, public drunkeness cases, etc.
There were about 20 people that had been ticketed at a party down by the college for underage drinking. One lucky young lady had a lawyer. The officer began to present his case. He stated, again(she was about the 12th one up from the same incident), the circumstances surrounding his summons and arrival at the property. He had instructed her to stay on the porch of the house after confiscating her ID and then walked into the front yard to talk to another officer. He went back to her and began questioning her. This is where her lawyer stopped him. He asked for the opportunity to ask a few questions, the judge said OK.
He asked the Defendant if she felt that she was able to walk away from the officer that was questioning her. She said no. He asked if the officer told her that she was under arrest. She said no. He asked if the officer advised her of her rights to not answer his questions. She said no.
He proposed to the court that she was being held and questioned and that constituted an arrest of her civil liberties, and that she had not been advised of her right to not answer the officers questions.
The judge agreed.
The officers only evidence against her was what she told him in that conversation. It was not allowed as testimony. The charges against her were dropped.
The argument here is only a matter of semantics. "Arrest" as defined by procedure is not the same as "arrest" as defined by the liberties granted to all Americans. I agree with the semantics, but the stubbornness exhibited here by everyone is absurd.
Recognise this argument for what it is.
Could you post a link to this?
-
I am the link. I was in the courtroom. That's all I got. It was in the City Of Charleston, SC in '93.
It made an impression on me. I still remember the color of the girls hair, the lawyers suit, the embarrassment of the officer when the judge explained what was happening. It was one of things in life that make you sit up and pay attention, and stay with you forever.
-
So.... you're saying you CAN'T post a link to it? I see....
:D
-
Originally posted by Lazerus
I am the link. I was in the courtroom. That's all I got. It was in the City Of Charleston, SC in '93.
It made an impression on me. I still remember the color of the girls hair, the lawyers suit, the embarrassment of the officer when the judge explained what was happening. It was one of things in life that make you sit up and pay attention, and stay with you forever.
Ahhh.
I was in a courtroom once, back when I was Director of the CIA, and distinctly remember a case where the judge declared you made it up.
-
Well, I told you from the start that I wouldn't. It's just a personal experience of mine that I was posting here. If you think I have a motive to return to this thread 4 days after my last response to post a fabricated story, then so be it.
-
Originally posted by Lazerus
Well, I told you from the start that I wouldn't. It's just a personal experience of mine that I was posting here. If you think I have a motive to return to this thread 4 days after my last response to post a fabricated story, then so be it.
Who said I thought that? I'm only repeating what a Judge factually stated.
-
for martlet only (http://www.abesonline.com/Life_Is_ShortLP.jpg)
Tell ya what. If you can find a site that I can reference court transcripts from the City of Charleston in 1993, post it here and I will reference my name to find the date, then I'll search for the trial that I saw. That's the best I can offer you. Other than that,
The argument here is only a matter of semantics. "Arrest" as defined by procedure is not the same as "arrest" as defined by the liberties granted to all Americans
this is all that really matters. A pissing contest over my integrity doesn't take the discussion anywhere.
-
Originally posted by Lazerus
for martlet only (http://www.abesonline.com/Life_Is_ShortLP.jpg)
this is all that really matters. A pissing contest over my integrity doesn't take the discussion anywhere.
Neither does arguing a point, then when unable to come up with a single case to bolster it, making one up.
-
C'mon, Martlett, is your argument really that shaky that you'd seriously accuse him of making it up?
When you first posted the CIA thing, I thought it was a funny joke that Lazerus was just being too serious about, but your subsequent responses make me doubt my original read.
-
Originally posted by Lazerus
A pissing contest over my integrity doesn't take the discussion anywhere.
........again.
Originally posted by Martlet then when unable to come up with a single case to bolster it
But I did. It's your choice to call me a liar. If that is what you choose to believe, then so be it, but...
The argument here is only a matter of semantics. "Arrest" as defined by procedure is not the same as "arrest" as defined by the liberties granted to all Americans
...you can choose to continue the discussion with the mutual understanding that my account of what happened in that courtroom is held invalid by yourself because you question my integrity, or continue to harp on the fact that you question my integrity.
I do not argue the fact that there are statutory procedures to legaly place a person under arrest. I am arguing that these procedures are superceded by an individuals constitutional rights, that detaining a person deprives that person of their freedom, and this in fact places them in a state of 'arrest'.
You obviously don't agree. Explain to me why.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
C'mon, Martlett, is your argument really that shaky that you'd seriously accuse him of making it up?
When you first posted the CIA thing, I thought it was a funny joke that Lazerus was just being too serious about, but your subsequent responses make me doubt my original read.
Nah, I don't think he'd make it up. I do, however, question the accuracy of a 12 year old story when the facts are unverifiable and I can't find any other instances of similar judgements to back it up.
I think he just has his facts wrong, and since they can't be verified won't accept it.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
Nah, I don't think he'd make it up. I do, however, question the accuracy of a 12 year old story when the facts are unverifiable and I can't find any other instances of similar judgements to back it up.
I think he just has his facts wrong, and since they can't be verified won't accept it.
Why don't you just call everyone who disagrees with you a poopy head and take your ball home?
At its most basic level, that's what your current argument sounds like. Classical schoolyard debate tactic. If you can't respond to something with a fact that disproves it, attack the source.
"...I'm just saying, it's obvious that he should piss fuel all over the cave entrance to the Decepticon lair and light it on fire. That'll take care of them, episode 22 showed clearly that they can't take flame heat. Any moron can see this is the obvious way to deal with them."
"Interesting idea, but according to the Transformers fan club book, Optimus Prime runs on atomic batteries, not diesel."
"Yeah? Well, your haircut makes you look like a homo. How 'bout THEM fumes?"
-
Originally posted by Martlet
I do, however, question the accuracy of a 12 year old story when the facts are unverifiable and I can't find any other instances of similar judgements to back it up.
I think he just has his facts wrong, and since they can't be verified won't accept it.
Originally posted by Lazerus It made an impression on me. I still remember the color of the girls hair, the lawyers suit, the embarrassment of the officer when the judge explained what was happening. It was one of things in life that make you sit up and pay attention, and stay with you forever.
If I was unsure or 'hazy' on any of the facts, I would have included that originally.
But none of this matters. There's a question up there a few posts ago for ya. I'll check back in a few minutes.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
At its most basic level, that's what your current argument sounds like. Classical schoolyard debate tactic. If you can't respond to something with a fact that disproves it, attack the source.
Actually, you're quite wrong on this are in fact the one looking stupid. I did post facts that proved my case, and he cited a personal story with no ability to verify it as contrary evidence.
Try going back and reading the thread again, then saying something remotely accurate.
-
Originally posted by Lazerus
If I was unsure or 'hazy' on any of the facts, I would have included that originally.
But none of this matters. There's a question up there a few posts ago for ya. I'll check back in a few minutes.
It all matters. I've cited actual code to support my statement. It's verifiable. To prove me wrong, you recall an unverifiable personal experience. Since it directly contradicts my verifiable facts, the only conclusion I can draw is that a: you're lying, or b: you're memory isn't accurate. I've never had any dealings in the past with you that would lead me to believe you're anything but honest, so I'll follow the assumption that you are just mistaken.
I do not argue the fact that there are statutory procedures to legaly place a person under arrest. I am arguing that these procedures are superceded by an individuals constitutional rights, that detaining a person deprives that person of their freedom, and this in fact places them in a state of 'arrest'.
You obviously don't agree. Explain to me why.
That's a completely different context. If I understanding your statement correctly, you are arguing that by definition she was "arrested". That is completely different from what I was arguing, which was a legal definition. The two aren't always synonymous. The discussion you entered was based on the legal definition.
-
Respectfully, there is some dumb stuff here.
Lets all do some self-examination.
That said, FU everybody who disagees!
-
Martlett, do you realize you've insulted every single person who disagreed with you in this thread?
Just let that hang out there a second -its weighty..
-
Originally posted by Martlet
It all matters. I've cited actual code to support my statement. It's verifiable.
Well, I went back and read the thread again. I can't find a single code that you've posted. I did find a link to an article in the Washington Post in reference to a persons right to not talk to government officials. This (http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/police/Publications/policecontacts.%20html#How%20long%20can%20an%20Officer%20detain%20me%3Cbr%20/%3E?) link was also in the same post.
The original argument was Why should they tell anyone that calls who they have in custody?
The reason stated for withholding this information was privacy. It was assumed that the person in custody had not been arrested, and therefore his detainment was not part of the public record.
The person in question had been handcuffed and transported to the jail. He could very well have agreed to allow the officers to do this, but it is more likely that they told him he was under arrest as they were placing him in handcuffs. It is from this point that he is legaly under arrest, not when the paperwork gets filed down at the station.
The point that a person may be held for questioning without arresting them is valid, but false in the original scenario. He was placed under arrest and taken to the jail.
In most states the officer may legally detain you for investigative purposes.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=arrest
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=detain
We agree on the fact that it is legal for a law enforcement official to detain you for questioning without formaly placing you under arrest. I believe that you are by definition under arrest if you are being detained.
-
Originally posted by Lazerus
We agree on the fact that it is legal for a law enforcement official to detain you for questioning without formaly placing you under arrest. I believe that you are by definition under arrest if you are being detained.
Which is fine for you to believe. However, legally, that is untrue. We are talking about the law. At least I am. If you aren't, then it's a completely different discussion.
-
Originally posted by TweetyBird
Martlett, do you realize you've insulted every single person who disagreed with you in this thread?
Just let that hang out there a second -its weighty..
You've insulted everyone on here whether they agreed with you or not with your lies and hypocrisy.
THAT'S been hanging out there for a few days now.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
You've insulted everyone on here whether they agreed with you or not with your lies and hypocrisy.
I can actually HEAR Skuzzy locking the thread. Pre-emptively, I think we're one step from an accidental realization of Godwin's Law.
Martlet, be sure to wear a nametag to the next con, I think you owe a round of drinks.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
I can actually HEAR Skuzzy locking the thread. Pre-emptively, I think we're one step from an accidental realization of Godwin's Law.
Martlet, be sure to wear a nametag to the next con, I think you owe a round of drinks.
Are you old enough to drink? I noticed you skipped the acknowledgement that you were completely wrong, and went straight for the ad hom.
good job.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
We are talking about the law. At least I am.
I'm talking about both. But I can stick to one.
Originally posted by Lazerus
The point that a person may be held for questioning without arresting them is valid, but false in the original scenario. He was placed under arrest and taken to the jail.
So, legaly, where do you stand on this. Was the fact that he was in custody a matter of public record when he was placed under arrest, or when the paperwork was filed, or when they felt like telling someone?
-
Originally posted by Martlet
Are you old enough to drink? I noticed you skipped the acknowledgement that you were completely wrong, and went straight for the ad hom.
good job.
That's not... entirely.... accurate.
You discounted his personal experience because it didn't have the weighty presence of a URL. I think your basic supposition that an internet reference would, by its very nature, automatically trump an eye witness is flawed.
In regards to the ad hominem, I'd like to suggest that you've got that category sewed up. When you call someone a liar and another person childish as debate techniques, it fits the definition pretty much exactly. If we were competing, I'd have to concede that title to you immediately.
-
Originally posted by Lazerus
I'm talking about both. But I can stick to one.
So, legaly, where do you stand on this. Was the fact that he was in custody a matter of public record when he was placed under arrest, or when the paperwork was filed, or when they felt like telling someone?
Where I originally stood, or where I stand now?
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
That's not... entirely.... accurate.
You discounted his personal experience because it didn't have the weighty presence of a URL. I think your basic supposition that an internet reference would, by its very nature, automatically trump an eye witness is flawed.
In regards to the ad hominem, I'd like to suggest that you've got that category sewed up. When you call someone a liar and another person childish as debate techniques, it fits the definition pretty much exactly. If we were competing, I'd have to concede that title to you immediately.
Actually, it's entirely accurate. As I stated earlier, and you chose to ignore, you should go back and read the thread.
Code was posted that backed up my claim. He tried to refute my claim with an unverifiable personal story. He couldn't even find another case to back up his claim.
If verifiable evidence is presented, it carries more weight than a contradictory tale.
-
Still didn't find that code you posted.
I know where you stood based on what you said earlier, but I was just clarifying some points. Do you not care to answer?
-
Well, I don't have a stake in this either way, so I'm busting out of this thread for now. In your book, you might count this as a victory, but it's more of a 'whatever'. With all due respect, this has grown tiresome.
A parting comment, anyone who sets up an absolute is askin' for a beating. I read your statement as saying 'Lazerus's standard has never been demonstrated in court EVAR". Your infallibility is limited by the effort others are willing to exercise in finding the exception. It exists (really, think of how many different judges there are in this country) and may even be the accepted rule.
At this point, you might start hoping that someone finds it and posts it to counter your statement. If they don't, it could be argued that nobody finds you important enough to refute. If they DO post it, then you might smart a little for a moment, but at least you'll know that someone cares.
Regards,
CB
-
Originally posted by Lazerus
Still didn't find that code you posted.
I know where you stood based on what you said earlier, but I was just clarifying some points. Do you not care to answer?
On page 2 I linked a few cases, one of which was a SC decision on detention. Then I requoted this code from Maverick:
State of TEXAS
§ 38.04. EVADING ARREST OR DETENTION. (a) A person
commits an offense if he intentionally flees from a person he knows
is a peace officer attempting lawfully to arrest or detain him.
It's not that I don't care to answer, I asked a specific clarifying question. Are you asking me what the original stance I was defending in regards to public record, or my stance is now. I believe my original stance on public record was inaccurate.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Well, I don't have a stake in this either way, so I'm busting out of this thread for now. In your book, you might count this as a victory, but it's more of a 'whatever'. With all due respect, this has grown tiresome.
A parting comment, anyone who sets up an absolute is askin' for a beating. I read your statement as saying 'Lazerus's standard has never been demonstrated in court EVAR". Your infallibility is limited by the effort others are willing to exercise in finding the exception. It exists (really, think of how many different judges there are in this country) and may even be the accepted rule.
At this point, you might start hoping that someone finds it and posts it to counter your statement. If they don't, it could be argued that nobody finds you important enough to refute. If they DO post it, then you might smart a little for a moment, but at least you'll know that someone cares.
Regards,
CB
Translation: Oops. He was right. My original ad hom was misdirected, and I should have read the thread before making a fool of myself.
-
The subjects of this topic has been changed. The subjects were:
1. Tweety's story of his nephew being mistakenly arrested and transported without reasonable identity verification.
2. Tweety having to enlist the aid of the chief and 2 judges to verify his nephew was in custody.
3. The point that those without the benefit of being able to enlist the aid of influential intermediaries may not have gotten the situation resolved as quickly.
Martlet has changed the subject continually to suit his argumentative nature. His 'Dog Snot Diaries' certainly are evidence of an immature, foul-mouthed person. Very disturbing for someone who looks to be in his thirties.
-
Originally posted by Rolex
The subjects of this topic has been changed. The subjects were:
1. Tweety's story of his nephew being mistakenly arrested and transported without reasonable identity verification.
2. Tweety having to enlist the aid of the chief and 2 judges to verify his nephew was in custody.
3. The point that those without the benefit of being able to enlist the aid of influential intermediaries may not have gotten the situation resolved as quickly.
Martlet has changed the subject continually to suit his argumentative nature. His 'Dog Snot Diaries' certainly are evidence of an immature, foul-mouthed person. Very disturbing for someone who looks to be in his thirties.
HOLY STALKERS BATMAN!
Care to give an example or two of my subject changes?
-
Originally posted by Martlet
On page 2 I linked a few cases, one of which was a SC decision on detention.
That wasn't a link to code, that was a link to an article about a citizens right of rufusal, or lack of at least. The other link in the same post doesn't work.
I believe my original stance on public record was inaccurate.
So we agree that police have the authority to detain someone for a limited amount of time for questioning, and that once you are told that you are under arrest it becomes public record. That wasn't all that hard, was it?
Ok, screw the 'code'. Look at the Constitution.
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
So, in your opinion, if you are detained by police, is your right to liberty being taken away without due process of law? Your detention is not public record, there is no paperwork records that have to be filed. Where is the due process of law?
Oh, please notice the "in your opinion" part. I don't want someone else's opinion stated in code or case ruling, I want to know what you think.
-
Originally posted by Rolex
The subjects of this topic has been changed. The subjects were:
1. Tweety's story of his nephew being mistakenly arrested and transported without reasonable identity verification.
2. Tweety having to enlist the aid of the chief and 2 judges to verify his nephew was in custody.
3. The point that those without the benefit of being able to enlist the aid of influential intermediaries may not have gotten the situation resolved as quickly.
Martlet has changed the subject continually to suit his argumentative nature. His 'Dog Snot Diaries' certainly are evidence of an immature, foul-mouthed person. Very disturbing for someone who looks to be in his thirties.
Astute observation Rolex.
Martlet likes to argue even to the point of continually modifying his position and insisting that was what it was all along as well as fabricating someone elses position for them and then accusing them of lying. Sorry Martlet, you seem like a decent guy but I'm sure you will benefit from revisiting your values.
-
Originally posted by Lazerus
That wasn't a link to code, that was a link to an article about a citizens right of rufusal, or lack of at least. The other link in the same post doesn't work.
No, that wasn't a link to code. That was a link to the case for detenion I initially pointed out. Then someone said you are able to walk away from detention if you choose, so I reposted the code to show that you couldn't. I reposted it AGAIN for you just now. How many times must I keep posting it?
Ok, screw the 'code'. Look at the Constitution.
"screw the code"? Why? Because it blatantly disagrees with what you want to be correct?
So, in your opinion, if you are detained by police, is your right to liberty being taken away without due process of law? Your detention is not public record, there is no paperwork records that have to be filed. Where is the due process of law?
Of course there is due process. The law states you may be detained for varying amounts of time (depending on the state) and under varing conditions (again, depending on the state). If you're detained in accordance with the law, and the Constitution says you MAY be deprived of liberty in accordance with the law, what is your argument?
That you disagree with the law? Challenge it, then. I don't even know what your argument is anymore.
-
Originally posted by rabbidrabbit
Astute observation Rolex.
Martlet likes to argue even to the point of continually modifying his position and insisting that was what it was all along as well as fabricating someone elses position for them and then accusing them of lying. Sorry Martlet, you seem like a decent guy but I'm sure you will benefit from revisiting your values.
More whining, absent of any examples, though.
Typical.
-
might I point you to our Lobster debate? Whats the point? If that was any example you will either ignore the direct quotes, deny they are there despite observable fact or twist the point around. It's your arguement style not your point that folks have issue with.
-
Originally posted by rabbidrabbit
might I point you to our Lobster debate? Whats the point? If that was any example you will either ignore the direct quotes, deny they are there despite observable fact or twist the point around. It's your arguement style not your point that folks have issue with.
I give you a 4.5.
Your initial troll was good, your ad homs were a little weak, but your follow through was abysmal.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
No, that wasn't a link to code. That was a link to the case for detenion I initially pointed out. Then someone said you are able to walk away from detention if you choose, so I reposted the code to show that you couldn't. I reposted it AGAIN for you just now. How many times must I keep posting it?
Well, I hate to tell ya, the only link I've seen in your posts were to an article relating to a persons right to refuse to give information to an officer of the government. And you only posted that link once.
Are you old enough to drink??
"screw the code"? Why? Because it blatantly disagrees with what you want to be correct?
Because I didn't want your opinion from a law that has been passed, I wanted your opinion of the application of the pertinent part of the Constitution that I posted to the question I asked you. You seem unable to seperate statutes that have been passed from a simple study of the Constitution.
The rest of your post is just more evading and ignoring a simple question.
I don't even know what your argument is anymore.
That's the problem, I'm not arguing.
-
Originally posted by Lazerus
Well, I hate to tell ya, the only link I've seen in your posts were to an article relating to a persons right to refuse to give information to an officer of the government. And you only posted that link once.
Are you old enough to drink??
I'm sorry. Reading obviously isn't your strong point. Here. Let me quote it for you again.
State of TEXAS
§ 38.04. EVADING ARREST OR DETENTION. (a) A person
commits an offense if he intentionally flees from a person he knows
is a peace officer attempting lawfully to arrest or detain him.
If you didn't see it that time, let me know. I'll bold it for you. It's only been posted half a dozen times.
Because I didn't want your opinion from a law that has been passed, I wanted your opinion of the application of the pertinent part of the Constitution that I posted to the question I asked you. You seem unable to seperate statutes that have been passed from a simple study of the Constitution.
Again, I answered it. The problem is becoming obvious. I'm talking over your head. I'll slow it down for you.
The Constitution says you won't be deprived of liberty without due process. Due process of what? Of law. The law states that you may be detained within certain guidelines. If follow those guidelines, are you being deprived of liberty? Yes. Is it with due process? Yes.
Can you understand it now? Let me know if I need to slow it down further.
The rest of your post is just more evading and ignoring a simple question.
I've answered every question you've put forth. If you feel I've missed one, feel free to toss it out there.
That's the problem, I'm not arguing.
Then what are you doing?
-
>>You've insulted everyone on here whether they agreed with you or not with your lies and hypocrisy.
THAT'S been hanging out there for a few days now.<<
And you have quoted not one. I figure its because you're lieing or you're lazy.
-
Laz,
I hope you don't intend to have a legit discussion with Martlet. He'll just troll you along twisting turning insulting and baiting all the way.. It's how he get his jollies.. Kinda makes him feel that special tingly feeling
-
Naa, I'm just waiting for him to post that code that supported his position.
-
Martlet, Maverick et al, you have no conception of the interpretation of the constitution being fluid and not set in stone, making questions of "detainment" almost always left to a judge to decide if they are legal. You just don't get it. You think "well I googled "detainment" and Florida says you can hold someone for 60 minutes etc etc" and you think its set in stone black and white. Well you just keep a thinkin that and telling everyone who doesn't believe it how dumb they are. You're an expert on constitutional law - you've googled "detainment" and have the expertise of "may have been" police officers to fall back on.
-
>>I hope you don't intend to have a legit discussion with Martlet. He'll just troll you along twisting turning insulting and baiting all the way.. It's how he get his jollies.. Kinda makes him feel that special tingly feeling
<<
I mostly suspected that but was hoping he was steadfast to the point of ignorance. I just wonder iwhy if he was trolling he plays the consummate conservative isnstead of a peta fanatic or something. He's kinda preaching to the choir here.
-
>>Care to give an example or two of my subject changes?<<
I'll give one - when it was proven you were flat out wrong about someone having to be booked to make an arrest public record you began an insult barrage .
But hey - whats new? Thats your MO and it seems others think so as well.
-
Martlet - hows this for lucidity? What has your panties in a wad is I told you - in direct response to *you* "I'm not anybody."
That boiled you to the core, because this world has room for only one special person, and you believe its you :D
-
It took Martlet seven posts to get on the subject of sodomy..
>>Getting behind guys is nothing new for you.<<
He returned to it later. I find it interesting... or not.
-
Originally posted by TweetyBird
And you have quoted not one. I figure its because you're lieing or you're lazy.
What is it with you nutcases and your third grade reading levels? I haven't quoted one? I certainly did. If refusing to give personal information in the same comment you demand it of someone else isn't hypocrisy, I don't know what is. Not surprising you ignore it, though. It's all the same with you guys. You figure if you say something often enough, people will just assume it's fact.
I hope you don't intend to have a legit discussion with Martlet. He'll just troll you along twisting turning insulting and baiting all the way.. It's how he get his jollies.. Kinda makes him feel that special tingly feeling
I knew it would be too much to ask you to back up your claims.
I'm lowering your rank to an even 3.0. That one barely made it on the board.
Naa, I'm just waiting for him to post that code that supported his position.
Oh, I get it now. If you pretend I just didn't post it again in the last thread, it doesn't really exist. I guess being wrong really bothers you.
Martlet, Maverick et al, you have no conception of the interpretation of the constitution being fluid and not set in stone
The old "you just don't get it" defense. That's an old one. Unfortunately, the facts just aren't on your side, as numerous people have shown.
I'll give one - when it was proven you were flat out wrong about someone having to be booked to make an arrest public record you began an insult barrage .
That's a false statement. Quote it.
You were shown to be a fool. Your self important ego was bruised. You back pedaled. Then you made stuff up. Then when proven wrong, you impugned Maverick's character.
You got owned. It hurts you. So now you'll sit around and cry about it.
Much like Lazerus, who can't even respond anymore.
-
>>quote it<<
ok..
>>Correct. When they are charged and booked it becomes public record. When they are detained, it is not.
<<
Wrong, Its public record before they are charged or booked. Its public record when they are in custody. In really busy cities it can be 24 hours or more before they are charged or booked. Its public record when they are in custody. And the whole point is the fact you were trying to say they wouldn't tell "anyone" whether or not they had someone in custody because that person hadn't been booked yet. That was completely wrong. Then you tried to save your wrong self by saying they didn't have to reveal a minor in custody which had nothing to do with anything.
I get the feeling you don't like being wrong :D
>>You got owned.<<
You need to get GED'ed.
-
Tweety Bird.....
I don't know where you live, God I hope its not near me!
Just because I'm detaining you doesn't mean I need to call the flipping news paper and report it.
God I still hate people.....
The correct answer is 42.
-
Can you two get a room please?
-
Originally posted by Martlet
Then someone said you are able to walk away from detention if you choose, so I reposted the code to show that you couldn't.
I just feel the need to chime in on this point.
One *is* able to walk away from detention. In certain states, say, Texas for example, if one *chooses* to walk away from detention they may be arrested/charged. At that point it is no longer detention. duh.
:aok
-
>>Just because I'm detaining you doesn't mean I need to call the flipping news paper and report it.
<<
Which has absolutely nothing to do with something being public record.
>>Tweety Bird.....
I don't know where you live, God I hope its not near me!
<<
lol - I'm sure its not - I think we should trade California :D
(juuuuustttt kidding)
-
>>Can you two get a room please?
<<
We have one - its called "Arrest Mistake"
Should you be in here?
-
FALSE IMPRISONMENT - Any intentional detention of the person of another not authorized by law is false imprisonment. It is any illegal imprisonment, without any process whatever, or under color of process wholly illegal, without regard to the question whether any crime has been committed or a debt due.
But I like this one.... Nonconsensual its a big word..so look it up if you got to.
Under California law, false imprisonment is the 'nonconsensual, intentional confinement of a person, without lawful privilege, for an appreciable length of time, however short.' Fermino v. Fedco, Inc., 872 P.2d 559, 567 (Cal.'94)
more here
False Imprisonment
The detainment or arrest of a person without a warrant, with an illegal warrant, or with a warrant illegally executed. So long as the person is deprived of his personal liberty, the amount of time actually detained is inconsequential. see, e.g. Schenck v. Pro Choice Network
-
Originally posted by Shane
I just feel the need to chime in on this point.
One *is* able to walk away from detention. In certain states, say, Texas for example, if one *chooses* to walk away from detention they may be arrested/charged. At that point it is no longer detention. duh.
:aok
I might add to that by saying again....
If one *does* choose to walk away , one *will* be visiting Tobey and the boys on the local cellblock.
Lots of things on paper mean less than nothing when you are dining on Oscar Meyer for the evening. It`s reality that counts at that time and most just don`t care to, or have time to, hold a debate with you on the letter of the law.
-
Not necessarily. It does force an officer to supposedly exercise his judgement, tho' and make a decison. Any ensuing consequence(s) will very likely be handled by those who's job it *is* debating the letter of the law.
Nice try with the scare tactic, tho' . The initial holding cell is not normally the "local cellblock" with Tobey looking for a girlfriend for the next week. And remember, kids, it varies state to state with the "laws" regarding detention.
-
Originally posted by Shane
I just feel the need to chime in on this point.
One *is* able to walk away from detention. In certain states, say, Texas for example, if one *chooses* to walk away from detention they may be arrested/charged. At that point it is no longer detention. duh.
:aok
Well, no crap. One may shoot somebody, one may drive drunk, one may shoplift.
We're talking legality.
Originally posted by Raider179
FALSE IMPRISONMENT - .....
I'd like to see the link on the last example. Every other example clearly states outside the body of law or illegally. It has nothing to do with legal detainment.
Originally posted by Shane
Not necessarily. It does force an officer to supposedly exercise his judgement, tho' and make a decison. Any ensuing consequence(s) will very likely be handled by those who's job it *is* debating the letter of the law.
Nice try with the scare tactic, tho' . The initial holding cell is not normally the "local cellblock" with Tobey looking for a girlfriend for the next week. And remember, kids, it varies state to state with the "laws" regarding detention.
You're correct, it apparently depends on the state. However, it doesn't neccessarily have to be a tough decision. Take the code I quoted that Lazerus can't see for example. It says avoiding arrest or detainment. If you witness a homicide and the police tell you to stay put for questioning, you've done nothing wrong at this point. You decide instead that your Constitutional rights are being violated, flip off the cop, and run away to go call your "connections" because you're "not just anybody".
Now you've broken the law.
-
Quite entertaining.. Proven wrong on so many different counts, yet continue to argue.. The only redeeming quality here is the determination.. Even to the point of idoicy.. But still entertaining! lmao
-
Originally posted by TheDudeDVant
Quite entertaining.. Proven wrong on so many different counts, yet continue to argue.. The only redeeming quality here is the determination.. Even to the point of idoicy.. But still entertaining! lmao
HEY! The peanut gallery. Completely ignored the questions I asked regarding his previous and presented new ones. Let's see if he'll continue his overt troll, or pony up.
Name "so many " counts on which I've been proven wrong.
So far your 3.0 is a gift. It's falling fast.
-
lmao
-
Originally posted by TheDudeDVant
lmao
Just as I thought.
2.4
-
Well, since you didnt quote any questions or examples of questions to me.. You must be lying!! hehehehe
-
Originally posted by TheDudeDVant
Well, since you didnt quote any questions or examples of questions to me.. You must be lying!! hehehehe
Still nothing, huh?
:aok
-
Well, what do you want? You've not asked for anything?? I told you that i DONT want a date with you.. What else?
Ahh,, and dont bring no handcuffs and try and detain me! Cuase I'll just give ya the .i.. and walk way.. haha
-
Getting really tired of people who cannot control what they say on this bulletin board.