Ohio Chatter DEV

LJ

Glory Days wrote: so just admit you are just trying to be an ass and waste their time.

Because I can? I'm not a fan of getting profiled or questioned for no reason.

Glory Days

you arent being questioned for no reason. A.) either you committed some sort of violation, or B.) the cop has a suspicion that you commited a crime, are committing are crime, will committ a crime, or have information about a crime.

LJ

Glory Days wrote: you arent being questioned for no reason. A.) either you committed some sort of violation, or B.) the cop has a suspicion that you commited a crime, are committing are crime, will committ a crime, or have information about a crime.

mmmhmmm, and their thinking may not align with reality.

Al Bundy

LJ wrote:
Glory Days wrote: you arent being questioned for no reason. A.) either you committed some sort of violation, or B.) the cop has a suspicion that you commited a crime, are committing are crime, will committ a crime, or have information about a crime.
mmmhmmm, and their thinking may not align with reality.

Police have a very difficult job. It is truly sad that some people want to make their job more difficult.

LJ

Al Bundy wrote:
LJ wrote:
Glory Days wrote: you arent being questioned for no reason. A.) either you committed some sort of violation, or B.) the cop has a suspicion that you commited a crime, are committing are crime, will committ a crime, or have information about a crime.
mmmhmmm, and their thinking may not align with reality.
Police have a very difficult job. It is truly sad that some people want to make their job more difficult.

And it's truly sad when cops want to talk about how difficult of a job they have and then those same cops turn around and are power grabbing assholes for no reason. I've had very very few run ins with cops in my time. Pulled over twice (once for illegal exhaust and the other I was profiled because I was driving a mustang within 10 miles of a giant street racing sting, both time they wanted to search my car, both times I said no). The only other encounter I have ever had, I was parked on my property doing some work on some fallen trees and the cop pulled into MY DRIVEWAY and decided to run the plates of my truck, proceed to get out of his car, walk all over my property to find me, then proceed to detain me and ask for identification, ask my questions as to what I was doing there, etc.

SQ_Crazies

Because you ride a high horse, not because you can.

LJ

SQ_Crazies wrote: Because you ride a high horse, not because you can.

I'm not on any high horse. If I got into an accident or something I would gladly offer up my ID. I offered up my ID when I was stopped for loud exhaust, because I knew that is what I was getting stopped for. The other 2 times, I didn't (the time I was on my property wasn't my choice, like I said, he detained my and my wallet was locked in the truck) immediately. If they are going to hassle me for a perception that I deem wrong, I am not going to give up my rights. I'm not on any high horse here. Why would just adhering to your rights be considered "on a high horse"? That's sad. Very very sad that people think that way "if you don't automatically give up all your rights, you are on a high horse".

SQ_Crazies

There is a huge difference between giving up your rights and showing a cop your ID.

BoatShoes

There is nothing wrong with requiring a police officer whom you've empowered to have a justifiable reason for seeing your ID. A more interesting question is "what is a justifiable reason?", In contrast to most contemporary liberals, I think it's up in the air as to whether a police officer on the Arizona border has a justifiable reason in asking a person for identification based solely on the fact that this person has brown skin, particularly tattered clothing, blood shot eyes that might suggest he's been up all night, a peculiar smell one might have if they'd been traveling a long way and hadn't showered in a while, an unclean shave, apprehensive behavior in the presence of police officers, darting eyes, little apparent aptitude for the english language, etc.

I've given up my most of my rights to defend my personal property to the police officer as a trustee to that right. Why see at as me wasting the cop's time if she has no reasonable suspicion (as I said before, "reasonable suspicion" is an area with a wide spectrum) that I may be endangering the health, safety or morals of her beneficiaries? She is wasting my time. If a cop asks me for my ID, I'd probably show her it...but it would be gracious of me to do so and a pleasantry if she had no justifiable reason.

Cops can have a difficult job...but their power has been granted to them by the very people they wield it over so have to keep in mind the line from Spider Man, methinks.

SQ_Crazies

If you have nothing to hide why wouldn't you? If you are required to provide your name then how is that different anyways? He's still going to find out everything about you.

SQ_Crazies

And this is a good example of something you just do if you have nothing to hide because it doesn't waste your time or his and the cop is generally going to be much friendlier if you don't make his job more difficult for no good reason.

LJ

SQ_Crazies wrote: There is a huge difference between giving up your rights and showing a cop your ID.

So then the supreme court did not rule that all you are required to do is give our name? It is not our right to not show ID?

Boatshoes said a little more of what I am trying to say. See, in the times where I did not show my ID, I did not feel that to be a reasonable need to know who I was. I've already said that I have shown my id when I felt it was needed, like when I knew I was wrong with my exhaust when I was 18. I also forgot about the time someone slammed into my rear end of my car and I gave up my ID right when the cop came, I didn't feel like sitting there repeating all my information to the cop while he wrote the report.

So my question is, since you seem to ignore what I have said about when I have and haven't shown my ID, do you feel that the 2 times I didn't that the cop had a reasonable need to see it? Especially the time that he trespassed onto my property?

LJ

BoatShoes wrote:
I've given up my most of my rights to defend my personal property to the police officer as a trustee to that right. Why see at as me wasting the cop's time if she has no reasonable suspicion (as I said before, "reasonable suspicion" is an area with a wide spectrum) that I may be endangering the health, safety or morals of her beneficiaries? She is wasting my time. If a cop asks me for my ID, I'd probably show her it...but it would be gracious of me to do so and a pleasantry if she had no justifiable reason.

Cops can have a difficult job...but their power has been granted to them by the very people they wield it over so have to keep in mind the line from Spider Man, methinks.

I won't give up any of my rights to the police. That is ridiculous to suggest so.

LJ

SQ_Crazies wrote: If you have nothing to hide why wouldn't you? If you are required to provide your name then how is that different anyways? He's still going to find out everything about you.

SQ_Crazies wrote: And this is a good example of something you just do if you have nothing to hide because it doesn't waste your time or his and the cop is generally going to be much friendlier if you don't make his job more difficult for no good reason.

Because they have no need to see it and it's my right to deny it. If I feel like they have a need to see it, I will show it. I will not give up my rights on the whim of a police officer.

SQ_Crazies

God, you're just going wayyyyyyyyyyy overboard. I'm done with this discussion.

BoatShoes

SQ_Crazies wrote: There is a huge difference between giving up your rights and showing a cop your ID.

But is there really? However slight, and certainly not worthy of an opinion from Antonin Scalia, a cop whom I've empowered, in a short 5 minutes on a sidewalk asking me to reveal my identity for no reason apparent to myself, peering at me with his badge on his chest signifying the executive power of the State, to who's social contract I am privy, to take away my liberty if it be in the state's compelling interest to do so, is tip toeing with my rights under the 5th and 14th Amendment.

LJ

BoatShoes wrote:
SQ_Crazies wrote: There is a huge difference between giving up your rights and showing a cop your ID.
But is there really? However slight, and certainly not worthy of an opinion from Antonin Scalia, a cop whom I've empowered, in a short 5 minutes on a sidewalk asking me to reveal my identity for no reason apparent to myself, peering at me with his badge on his chest signifying the executive power of the State, to who's social contract I am privy, to take away my liberty if it be in the state's compelling interest to do so, is tip toeing with my rights under the 5th and 14th Amendment.

and the 4th.

BoatShoes

LJ wrote: I won't give up any of my rights to the police. That is ridiculous to suggest so.

Well, I see what you're saying but c'mon now, if you're a citizen of one of the 50 states you have indeed contracted away some, if not most of your power to defend your personal property to the State which uses these powers through local and state police forces.

LJ

BoatShoes wrote:
LJ wrote: I won't give up any of my rights to the police. That is ridiculous to suggest so.
Well, I see what you're saying but c'mon now, if you're a citizen of one of the 50 states you have indeed contracted away some, if not most of your power to defend your personal property to the State which uses these powers through local and state police forces.

Somewhat. But at the same time, the cop who entered my property and detained me on my property for no reason was reassigned to a different portion of the county. It's not like they have taken away ALL of our rights. In Texas you have the right to protect your property with lethal force. In Ohio you have the right to protect yourself inside your home and car with lethal force. I have not contracted away all my rights. I still have my right to my privacy on my property and so on.

BoatShoes

LJ wrote:
BoatShoes wrote:
LJ wrote: I won't give up any of my rights to the police. That is ridiculous to suggest so.
Well, I see what you're saying but c'mon now, if you're a citizen of one of the 50 states you have indeed contracted away some, if not most of your power to defend your personal property to the State which uses these powers through local and state police forces.
Somewhat. But at the same time, the cop who entered my property and detained me on my property for no reason was reassigned to a different portion of the county. It's not like they have taken away ALL of our rights. In Texas you have the right to protect your property with lethal force. In Ohio you have the right to protect yourself inside your home and car with lethal force. I have not contracted away all my rights. I still have my right to my privacy on my property and so on.

Right, I agree with everything you're saying...I was thinking more along the the lines of things such as "self help" and going out and finding a guy who vandalized your car and instead of calling the police to detain him, you just went and beat him up. As an aside, I tend to be sympathetic towards those "castle doctrines" as opposed to laws in some jurisdictions that require you to flee if you have you can.

LJ

BoatShoes wrote:
LJ wrote:
BoatShoes wrote:
LJ wrote: I won't give up any of my rights to the police. That is ridiculous to suggest so.
Well, I see what you're saying but c'mon now, if you're a citizen of one of the 50 states you have indeed contracted away some, if not most of your power to defend your personal property to the State which uses these powers through local and state police forces.
Somewhat. But at the same time, the cop who entered my property and detained me on my property for no reason was reassigned to a different portion of the county. It's not like they have taken away ALL of our rights. In Texas you have the right to protect your property with lethal force. In Ohio you have the right to protect yourself inside your home and car with lethal force. I have not contracted away all my rights. I still have my right to my privacy on my property and so on.
Right, I agree with everything you're saying...I was thinking more along the the lines of things such as "self help" and going out and finding a guy who vandalized your car and instead of calling the police to detain him, you just went and beat him up. As an aside, I tend to be sympathetic towards those "castle doctrines" as opposed to laws in some jurisdictions that require you to flee if you have you can.

But are you required to report such things as vandalism and the like?

Glory Days

LJ wrote:
SQ_Crazies wrote: There is a huge difference between giving up your rights and showing a cop your ID.
So then the supreme court did not rule that all you are required to do is give our name? It is not our right to not show ID?

Boatshoes said a little more of what I am trying to say. See, in the times where I did not show my ID, I did not feel that to be a reasonable need to know who I was. I've already said that I have shown my id when I felt it was needed, like when I knew I was wrong with my exhaust when I was 18. I also forgot about the time someone slammed into my rear end of my car and I gave up my ID right when the cop came, I didn't feel like sitting there repeating all my information to the cop while he wrote the report.

So my question is, since you seem to ignore what I have said about when I have and haven't shown my ID, do you feel that the 2 times I didn't that the cop had a reasonable need to see it? Especially the time that he trespassed onto my property?

i bet there are a lot of people in jail right now because they were picked up on outstanding warrants who didnt think it was unreasonable to know who they were. (haha not saying you are a criminal like that).

plus, imagine how much smoother the situation where the cop came onto your property would have went if you werent trying to hide your identity(like many criminals do). also, was this property your house or was it a vacant lot or something? could be that this particular cop patrolled that area often and had never seen anyone on that property. one day he drives by and sees a guy in his personal truck chopping up some tree. might be reason to stop and see what is going on.

LJ

Glory Days wrote:
LJ wrote:
SQ_Crazies wrote: There is a huge difference between giving up your rights and showing a cop your ID.
So then the supreme court did not rule that all you are required to do is give our name? It is not our right to not show ID?

Boatshoes said a little more of what I am trying to say. See, in the times where I did not show my ID, I did not feel that to be a reasonable need to know who I was. I've already said that I have shown my id when I felt it was needed, like when I knew I was wrong with my exhaust when I was 18. I also forgot about the time someone slammed into my rear end of my car and I gave up my ID right when the cop came, I didn't feel like sitting there repeating all my information to the cop while he wrote the report.

So my question is, since you seem to ignore what I have said about when I have and haven't shown my ID, do you feel that the 2 times I didn't that the cop had a reasonable need to see it? Especially the time that he trespassed onto my property?
i bet there are a lot of people in jail right now because they were picked up on outstanding warrants who didnt think it was unreasonable to know who they were. (haha not saying you are a criminal like that).

plus, imagine how much smoother the situation where the cop came onto your property would have went if you werent trying to hide your identity(like many criminals do). also, was this property your house or was it a vacant lot or something? could be that this particular cop patrolled that area often and had never seen anyone on that property. one day he drives by and sees a guy in his personal truck chopping up some tree. might be reason to stop and see what is going on.

He was a new cop to the area. Sherriff's department had given him his own cruiser 2 months beforehand. It was fenced off land with a LOCKED gate. My truck was parked just barely visible from the street. The cop jumped the fence and came in. Like I said, i couldn't show him ID because it was in my wallet in my truck,wouldn't have mattered anyways, my address wasn't the same, all he had to call in was my name and figure out I had the same last name as the trustee ( I keep everything in a trust and my sister is the trustee) making me a certified agent for the property. He refused to believe so. The cop was "reprimanded internally" for jumping my fence and entering my property.

If I had a warrant I wouldn't find it unreasonable for a cop to be suspicious of who I was because I would probably be carrying myself oddly.

Mr. 300

Time to back on topic and not let LJ go off on another one of his detours.

I have a question for everyone. Who rights are being trampled on......the American citizens who are having to pay for the illegals being here, dealing with the gangs and drugs that the border jumpers bring with them, the jobs that they are taking from US citizens and then not paying their proper share in taxes on those wages made, and now healthcare for all???

Or are the rights of those that are of Mexican decent, brown skin, south of the border, latinos that are dettained who are here illegally and jailed for it??

Please, I want to know, if they are here illegally, how are their civil rights violated??

The local/state/and federal gov'ts need to crack down on the business owners that hire these scumbags as well.

LJ

Mr. 300 wrote: Time to back on topic and not let LJ go off on another one of his detours.

It's not a detour.... it's extremely relevant to this topic. If they allow the police there to REQUIRE someone to PROVE who they are with written papers, it is a slippery slope.

I posted this on another forum

he Hiibel case states that during a Terry stop (reasonable suspicion) that you don't have to provide anything but your name. If the cop wants to investigate that themselves through the system, fine, but to make it that someone must SHOW proof of being here legally (providing a physical ID) would be a violation of that. In other words, one can argue that the cops must provide the proof that the person is not who or what they say they are, not the other way around. It's just like when a cop runs a warrant search on you. When you get stopped you don't have to automatically prove you don't have warrants in order to not be arrested, the cop has to show that you have warrants in order to be arrested. Same thing.

Archive

New Arizona law on immigration is stirring it up