Caught walking while Black

[fredtoast]

(11-07-2015, 05:21 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:  Again, you'll have to produce evidence of the "name calling" in my responses to you.  This is my second request for such proof, don't make me demand it!

Ahem 

(11-07-2015, 05:14 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Fred is a mystery to me at times.  He can be very erudite and persuasive in one post and completely full of shit in another.  I do concur, especially as it's one of my biggest pet peeves on the internets, that he has a staggering inability to admit and own it when he's proven wrong.  I find it's a common character flaw for many in the legal profession.

And now back to the point that you refuse to address.  You claimed that it was standard procedure for a police officer to get ID from every single person they come in contact with. How exactly is an officer supposed to carry out this "standard procedure" when there is no reason to suspect criminal activity and the person refuses to give ID?  

How can you make something a "standard procedure" if there is no way make it happen?  Are you trained to exceed your authority and force the person to produce it? 

[Belsnickel]

(11-08-2015, 02:10 AM)RoyleRedlegs Wrote: In the video it looks like both sides have them

I see that, now. I had not clicked on the link previously. So yes, according to Texas law, she should not have been walking in the street.

[fredtoast]

(11-08-2015, 11:56 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I see that, now. I had not clicked on the link previously. So yes, according to Texas law, she should not have been walking in the street.

This is really bizarre considering that the police officer did not tell her she had to walk on the sidewalks.  Instead he told her that when she was walking on the street she should be walking on the side facing traffic.

[RoyleRedlegs]

(11-08-2015, 04:43 PM)fredtoast Wrote: This is really bizarre considering that the police officer did not tell her she had to walk on the sidewalks.  Instead he told her that when she was walking on the street she should be walking on the side facing traffic.

Because walking against traffic is safer and unlikely to cause disruptions in traffic flow because you see the vehicles coming. Seems like the evil police were being even MORE generous than they had to be. 

[fredtoast]

(11-08-2015, 04:50 PM)RoyleRedlegs Wrote: Because walking against traffic is safer and unlikely to cause disruptions in traffic flow because you see the vehicles coming. Seems like the evil police were being even MORE generous than they had to be. 

You have missed the point once again.

All along I have been arguing that this was a "public safety" stop instead of any sort of an investigation of criminal activity.  And all along I have said that the police did nothing wrong until they requested her ID.

If the police stopped her for a violation of the law they were wrong to give her advice contrary to the law.

If it was just a "public safety" stop then the police were wrong to ask fer her ID.

Get it now?

[Belsnickel]

(11-08-2015, 04:43 PM)fredtoast Wrote: This is really bizarre considering that the police officer did not tell her she had to walk on the sidewalks.  Instead he told her that when she was walking on the street she should be walking on the side facing traffic.

Maybe they didn't want to issue a citation for it. Kind of like many minor things that police will let go if there is no other reason to pursue further action. Happens all the time.

[RoyleRedlegs]

(11-08-2015, 04:58 PM)fredtoast Wrote: You have missed the point once again.

All along I have been arguing that this was a "public safety" stop instead of any sort of an investigation of criminal activity.  And all along I have said that the police did nothing wrong until they requested her ID.

If the police stopped her for a violation of the law they were wrong to give her advice contrary to the law.

If it was just a "public safety" stop then the police were wrong to ask fer her ID.

Get it now?

Lol.
Your desperate grasping at straws in any topic is truly fun to watch. 
She was technically committing a criminal violation (as it has been pointed out to you many times but you keep ignoring it because, well, fred reasons)
They didn't feel it needed a citation. But asking for ID is still protocol especially when training someone. But in fredland, where being proven wrong just means everyone else missed the point...whatever you say fred. 

[fredtoast]

(11-08-2015, 05:01 PM)RoyleRedlegs Wrote: Lol.
Your desperate grasping at straws in any topic is truly fun to watch. 
She was technically committing a criminal violation (as it has been pointed out to you many times but you keep ignoring it because, well, fred reasons)
They didn't feel it needed a citation. But asking for ID is still protocol especially when training someone. But in fredland, where being proven wrong just means everyone else missed the point...whatever you say fred. 

So is it standard police procedure when stopping someone for a violation of the law to not inform them of the correct law?

If just walking on the road was enough to be a violation of the law then why would the police not tell her this?

[*PhilHos*]

(11-07-2015, 05:15 PM)fredtoast Wrote:  Of course an officer is entitled to request ID whenever he wants. 

(11-08-2015, 04:58 PM)fredtoast Wrote: And all along I have said that the police did nothing wrong until they requested her ID.

Make up your mind, man.

[fredtoast]

(11-08-2015, 05:11 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Make up your mind, man.

No contradiction in my commenst.

A police officer is entitled to ask you to strip naked by the side of the road for a body cavity search.  That does not mean it is right for him to ask.

[fredtoast]

(11-07-2015, 04:14 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Would a car load of white kids in a mostly black neighborhood be asked to produce ID?  I'm saying yes.  While you may not like it a person who is out of place arouses a certain level of curiosity or suspicion.  Defense lawyers like to pretend this kind of logic doesn't make sense.

Defense attorneys don't "pretend" anything.  They just ask that the police follow the rule of law.

Police are the ones who like to "pretend" that the law does not apply to them in these situations, and that they can consider a person "suspicious of criminal activity" based on nothing but the color of his skin.

[*PhilHos*]

(11-08-2015, 05:19 PM)fredtoast Wrote: No contradiction in my commenst.

A police officer is entitled to ask you to strip naked by the side of the road for a body cavity search.  That does not mean it is right for him to ask.

Actually, I'm pretty sure they're NOT entitled to ask me to strip naked by the side of the road for ANY reason.

[fredtoast]

(11-08-2015, 05:26 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Actually, I'm pretty sure they're NOT entitled to ask me to strip naked by the side of the road for ANY reason.

They can ASK anything they want.  The difference is in what they can MAKE you do.

Police always ask if they can search even when they don't have the authority to make you submit to a search.  

[*PhilHos*]

(11-08-2015, 05:33 PM)fredtoast Wrote: They can ASK anything they want.  The difference is in what they can MAKE you do.

Police always ask if they can search even when they don't have the authority to make you submit to a search.  

You need to either learn the definition of "entitled" and/or amend your statement about what police officers are "entitled" to do. If someone is entitled to something, then it can't be wrong for them to do the very thing they are entitled to do.

[fredtoast]

(11-08-2015, 11:43 PM)PhilHos Wrote: You need to either learn the definition of "entitled" and/or amend your statement about what police officers are "entitled" to do. If someone is entitled to something, then it can't be wrong for them to do the very thing they are entitled to do.

Police officer asks "Can I see your ID?".  He is allowed to do this.

If you say "no" then he can not make you produce ID or punish you in any way unless he has probable cause to believe you are involved in criminal activity.

He is allowed to ask.  He is not allowed to make you comply.

In fact almost every time an officers asks if he can search your car he has no authority to make you submit to the search.  People just don't know they can so "No" to a police officer.  Generally if they have the authority to search without your permission they don't even bother to ask.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-08-2015, 05:48 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Ahem 




And now back to the point that you refuse to address.  You claimed that it was standard procedure for a police officer to get ID from every single person they come in contact with. How exactly is an officer supposed to carry out this "standard procedure" when there is no reason to suspect criminal activity and the person refuses to give ID?  

How can you make something a "standard procedure" if there is no way make it happen?  Are you trained to exceed your authority and force the person to produce it? 

I find your lack of reading comprehension disturbing for one in the legal profession.  I said, distinctly, "In my responses to you".  That post was not a response to you but another poster.  Additionally, you made the initial name calling accusation prior to my making that post.  So, in summation, please find the post in which I engaged in name calling to you when you initially made the accusation.  I await with baited breath counselor.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-08-2015, 05:48 AM)fredtoast Wrote: And now back to the point that you refuse to address.  You claimed that it was standard procedure for a police officer to get ID from every single person they come in contact with. How exactly is an officer supposed to carry out this "standard procedure" when there is no reason to suspect criminal activity and the person refuses to give ID?  

How can you make something a "standard procedure" if there is no way make it happen?  Are you trained to exceed your authority and force the person to produce it? 

I will now address your second point.  When you establish contact with a person in an official capacity, i.e. you may be citing them for an infraction or more, it is standard operational procedure to establish the identity of the contactee.  Since this woman clearly falls under this definition I am, yet again, slightly mystified as to why you find their request for ID puzzling.  Or is it common practice in Tennessee to hand out citations to people without first confirming their actual identity?

[fredtoast]

(11-09-2015, 01:36 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I will now address your second point.  When you establish contact with a person in an official capacity, i.e. you may be citing them for an infraction or more, it is standard operational procedure to establish the identity of the contactee.  Since this woman clearly falls under this definition I am, yet again, slightly mystified as to why you find their request for ID puzzling.  Or is it common practice in Tennessee to hand out citations to people without first confirming their actual identity?

Don't know why you are puzzled.  I have already pointed out that i considered this to be a "public safety" stop instead of one that would justify any sort of citation.

In Tennessee we don't give out citations for people walking down the road who are not obstructing traffic.  If they do that in her state then I agree that the police had the right to ask for her ID.  But I just don't see it ever happen here.  And since the officer didn't mention anything about any legal violation and only talked about her safety I really don't think he felt he had any grounds to give her a citation.




Now will you agree that when you come in contact with a person, but have no cause to believe that he was involved in any criminal activity you don't have the right to make him give you his identification?  You said you were going to address this, but you actually didn't.

[fredtoast]

(11-09-2015, 01:33 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I find your lack of reading comprehension disturbing for one in the legal profession.  I said, distinctly, "In my responses to you".  That post was not a response to you but another poster.  Additionally, you made the initial name calling accusation prior to my making that post.  So, in summation, please find the post in which I engaged in name calling to you when you initially made the accusation.  I await with baited breath counselor.

I find your lack of reading comprehension disturbing for one who claims to be an officer of the law.  When I mentioned your tendency to resort to name calling I never limited it to direct responses to me.

And based on your history I am not surprised that you try to avoid any accountability for resorting to personal insults. 

[*bfine32*]

(11-09-2015, 02:00 AM)fredtoast Wrote: I find your lack of reading comprehension disturbing for one who claims to be an officer of the law.  When I mentioned your tendency to resort to name calling I never limited it to direct responses to me.

And based on your history I am not surprised that you try to avoid any accountability for resorting to personal insults. 

Maybe you need thicker skin...

But I agree: no need for personal insults.