• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

F is for Fascism (Ferguson MO)

SCDeac13 said:
Bingo. If people just used common sense like this there would be less needless arrests and deaths. To steal from Jim Jefferies, a good life goal is to just "don't be a c**t".
Click to expand...

So your fallback position from "cops are legally allowed to see ID from people if they ask" when that came out as incorrect is now "well just do what the cops say even though you're not legally required to do so." There are plenty of reasons why you wouldn't want to talk to a cop and plenty of times it's not as cut and dry as "I know I've lived a squeaky clean life and absolutely nothing can go wrong if I just provide my name."
 
SCDeac13 said:
Do you have any stats to back up your claim that they "only ask black passengers"? My first instinct isn't to pull the race card on everything unlike some others. IMO that is thrown around way too often and diminishes when racism is actually the problem, so I'd like to see support before making any strong accusations like that.
Click to expand...

Oh for the love of Christ. Strike the word only. I think we can all agree that police ask for ID from black people more than white people right? You saw the stop-and-frisk stats that were posted a few pages ago.

So I ask again, if policing are using the color of a person's skin to determine what action they take against the person, don't you think that's a problem?
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
So your fallback position from "cops are legally allowed to see ID from people if they ask" when that came out as incorrect is now "well just do what the cops say even though you're not legally required to do so." There are plenty of reasons why you wouldn't want to talk to a cop and plenty of times it's not as cut and dry as "I know I've lived a squeaky clean life and absolutely nothing can go wrong if I just provide my name."
Click to expand...

There was no fallback position. And I was not wrong about cops being able to request a passenger's ID in certain cases. I did some research after watching the video to confirm that, because it did seem unusual.
 
SCDeac13 said:
There was no fallback position. And I was not wrong about cops being able to request a passenger's ID in certain cases. I did some research after watching the video to confirm that, because it did seem unusual.
Click to expand...

Yes in certain cases. I don't believe the case that was being talked about on the last page in Georgia fits that criteria. You said that the person was arrested for failure to identify. She was a passenger and there was nothing but a broken tail light. Sure your position of "if a cop asks you to do something then just do it" falls under this category but under Georgia law it doesn't look like passengers in a car are required to identify themselves unless police have reasonable suspicion to believe that they committed a crime. Refusing to show ID as a passenger in a car when the cop pulls the car over for a broken tail light should never result in an arrest of the passenger unless there is another crime going on.
 
It's scary that someone believes people should surrender their rights so the government won't have a reason to physically abuse them.
 
Makes me really curious about SC's position on the Second Amendment and other constitutional rights for one.
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
Yes in certain cases. I don't believe the case that was being talked about on the last page in Georgia fits that criteria. You said that the person was arrested for failure to identify. She was a passenger and there was nothing but a broken tail light. Sure your position of "if a cop asks you to do something then just do it" falls under this category but under Georgia law it doesn't look like passengers in a car are required to identify themselves unless police have reasonable suspicion to believe that they committed a crime. Refusing to show ID as a passenger in a car when the cop pulls the car over for a broken tail light should never result in an arrest of the passenger unless there is another crime going on.
Click to expand...

this is an honest question, not a #bluelives defense thing. so the law clearly gives the officer the ability to make a judgement call to bring someone who fails to ID themselves. the video seems like an obvious abuse of power, but what should a police officer do in this situation with no way to verify whether the person in his/her hands is a wanted criminal or just some kid?
 
Using the logic that any person might be a wanted criminal, any cop could stop any person on the street, at a restaurant or anywhere and demand ID or arrest them. Anyone might be wanted somewhere for something.
 
RJKarl said:
Using the logic that any person might be a wanted criminal, any cop could stop any person on the street, at a restaurant or anywhere and demand ID or arrest them. Anyone might be wanted somewhere for something.
Click to expand...

yeah, so? that's a power they already have, not a hypothetical situation
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
Makes me really curious about SC's position on the Second Amendment and other constitutional rights for one.
Click to expand...

Since you asked, despite being a libertarian on most issues (tend to be more pragmatic than idealists), I do think the 2nd amendment is outdated and should be revised. I think you should have the right to have a basic firearm for protection and for hunting. But people don't need assault rifles. The 2nd amendment was for the specific purpose of fighting against an oppressive government. With the advancement of technology, no one stands a reasonable chance of fighting against drones and tanks. We've come a long way from the days of muskets, and that amendment needs to be revised to fit modern times to better our society as a whole.
 
ImTheCaptain said:
this is an honest question, not a #bluelives defense thing. so the law clearly gives the officer the ability to make a judgement call to bring someone who fails to ID themselves. the video seems like an obvious abuse of power, but what should a police officer do in this situation with no way to verify whether the person in his/her hands is a wanted criminal or just some kid?
Click to expand...

You mean in a situation where two people in a car get pulled over for a broken tail light and that's it? Where the passenger may or may not be a wanted criminal?

If that's the situation you're asking about, my position is that the police doesn't need to verify if the person in their hands is a wanted criminal or just some kid because they don't have the right to stop or detain the passenger without reasonable suspicion. Obviously there's reasonable suspicion, at the least, to identify the driver but that doesn't grant carte blanche to ID everyone in the car.
 
Long story short, police need reasonable suspicion to detain someone. Suspicion has to be particularized to the specific individual.
 
I got knocked around by a cop once for yelling out of a window. Dude was an Iraq vet who told me he wanted to kick my ass and get shot up by drug dealers while he watched.

I've also watched cops mace an entire neighborhood picnic with hundreds of people, including many children, and toss dozens of people into a paddy wagon.

It's not just about killing people, it's about the daily interactions that most all of you guys probably don't deal with. The shit is real.
 
ImTheCaptain said:
i get that, but what are we do about the question of human judgement?
Click to expand...

It's just really fact specific. Fourth Amendment case law is expansive. I don't really understand what you're asking about human judgment I don't think.
 
Last edited:
Wakeforest22890 said:
It's just really fact specific. Fourth Amendment case law is expansive. I don't really understand what you're asking about human judgment I don't think.
Click to expand...

i understand we're having a "who's watching the watchmen" conversation here but all we can do for this kind of thing is push the line back on what constitutes reasonable suspicion, right? I'm trying to understand what people think a practical police force's abilities should be.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top