Three more officers executed...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoePa

Sky' - let me make a few points - first off their was no crime committed - the cop even stated this - second - the black lady did not have to give the cop her id - she has the right not to - when the cop broke the law by assaulting her because she wouldn't give her id at that point the cop was no longer a police officer doing his duty - because it was an unlawful order - when this happens a person can legally resist a cop - in fact if a cop oversteps his legal responsibilities and causes a citizen to truly fear for his life that citizen can legally defend himself - to a point of shooting the cop - http://theantimedia.org/state-makes-...e-your-rights/

In the situation we are discussing the cop should have let it go - and went for donuts

If I'm walking down the sidewalk and a cop stops me and asks me for id I would tell him no I ain't giving it to him - if he asks me where I am going I'd tell him it is none of his business - I still live in a free country and not in Nazi Germany where you had to show the jackboots your "papers"

---

Joe....relax, take a deep breath and THINK. The lady was driving erratically per the complaintant and struck her window and was screaming at the complaintant, per the complaintant.

Although private parking lots can get into grey area WRT damages and police reports, crime is still crime when determinable.

The cop is a mistaken. Aggressive driving, assaultive behavior and screaming is disorderly conduct and disturbing the piece at the least the agressive driving could be a sign of impaired driving.

All of this may be a lie from the comlaintant or half truths, maybe she was the agressor. A cop won't know anything until he investigates. Meaning he must speak to the other party(s).

The law of the land states one must comply for request for ID made by a police officer that has reasonable suspicion that a crime was committed. Just because the cop didn't really want to fool with a petty dustup doesn't mean a crime was committed.

I would have taken both D.L. and run them for wants or warrants and if nothing there, I'd advise them to chill and have a nice day. However if I get disorderly conduct on top of and parallel with what the complaintant already witnessed, she's going to cause herself grief. I'm just trying to understand the situation and determine what happened and if a crime was actually committed or not.

So, you are incorrect. read Hiibel v 6th district, Nevada I think and it will explain why you are wrong about cops and IDs.

The officer may have been under the impression that no crime was committed when speaking with the complainant. Upon speaking to the suspect, that assumption may have changed. Bottom line is, comply with LEO. If you feel you were unfairly treated, there are avenues to deal with that at a later time. Being an arse to an officer or resisting only escalates tensions.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rick_iles

The officer may have been under the impression that no crime was committed when speaking with the complainant. Upon speaking to the suspect, that assumption may have changed. Bottom line is, comply with LEO. If you feel you were unfairly treated, there are avenues to deal with that at a later time. Being an arse to an officer or resisting only escalates tensions.....

---

Exactly Rick.

As a cop, you don't know until you hear all sides, sometimes it takes going back and forth between each party to get to the bottom of what actually happened. The public not knowing the laws and their correct legal rights, being disorderly, which leads to resistance and disturbing the peace is not likely to help your cause.

We all carried business cards and I handed them out all the time after an interaction so that if ANY felt mistreated, they had my info AND THE SHIFT CAPTAIN'S direct phone line.

Well - at the point where the cop grabs the lady's arm - what crime has she committed - what crime did he charge her for - did the cop tell her what crime she committed - no - the cop got mad because she wouldn't id herself - and he is the one who escalated the situation

And as far as cops knowing the law that is debatable for sure - time and time you see videos where cops don't even know that it is perfectly legal to film them yet they threaten people with arrest if they continue to film - I have made it a point to know my rights - spent a lot of time reading about this subject - if I was that woman I would file a complaint and get myself a good lawyer - with the money I get I would buy myself a new Lund 18 ft. boat -

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoePa

Well - at the point where the cop grabs the lady's arm - what crime has she committed - what crime did he charge her for - did the cop tell her what crime she committed - no - the cop got mad because she wouldn't id herself - and he is the one who escalated the situation

And as far as cops knowing the law that is debatable for sure - time and time you see videos where cops don't even know that it is perfectly legal to film them yet they threaten people with arrest if they continue to film - I have made it a point to know my rights - spent a lot of time reading about this subject - if I was that woman I would file a complaint and get myself a good lawyer - with the money I get I would buy myself a new Lund 18 ft. boat -

---

Well, the cop should have never said "no crime" before he even got started investigating and it went down hill from there.
Either leave all parties alone(if there was no crime)or investigate and interview the two.

If he was conducting himself properly to start with(meaning investigating to determine criminality), he could charge her with...take your pick

before the physical contact
1. interferring with a police officer.Obstructing
2. disobeying a lawful order
3. disorderly conduct
4. disturbing the peace.

after the contact

5. resisting

Now her car could be inventoried(seized/searched), towed at her expense and possibly other charges added.

The video didn't run long enough to hear any charges.

Buy the Lund, I looked a one with a 25 merc on it a few minutes ago.

Yea - I priced a Lund last year - with everything I would like it would run close to 32K - I have a 91 Bass Tracker now 17ft deep V - it's kinda beat up but still is sea worthy and does the job - the one thing about a new boat you have to be so careful with it so it doesn't get scratched or banged up - with an old boat there is a lot less stress - maybe I'll get one some day when a cop pulls me over and does something wrong - I'm all ready with the filming and everything

I meant to ask you - there is a skypilot on the Lance Owners forum - I was wondering if that is you or is there another skypilot around

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoePa

Yea - I priced a Lund last year - with everything I would like it would run close to 32K - I have a 91 Bass Tracker now 17ft deep V - it's kinda beat up but still is sea worthy and does the job - the one thing about a new boat you have to be so careful with it so it doesn't get scratched or banged up - with an old boat there is a lot less stress - maybe I'll get one some day when a cop pulls me over and does something wrong - I'm all ready with the filming and everything

I meant to ask you - there is a skypilot on the Lance Owners forum - I was wondering if that is you or is there another skypilot around

---

Spend the money, you deserve it and fishing only adds to our days. Better yet take a cop fishing but bring him back.......

The boat I looked at was more of a fishing, hunting ducks type of hull, however a nice boat, swivel seats, livewell, etc.

No sir, that wouldn't be me on that forum. anyway, I have a Keystone Springdale.

Hey Sky' - what you think of this one -http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/07/21/south-florida-police-shoot-autistic-mans-caretaker-as-lies-in-street.html

That officer needs to be flippin' burgers at McDonalds !!!!! Goes to show you how jumpy LEOs are now. I predicted it would get worse !!!!

I didn't view the video, I briefly saw a media report earlier. It would seem to be negligence unless the cop is stupid enough to purposefully shoot in that situation.

I would be curious to know if it was a Glock sidearm. I've seen a few accidental/negligent discharge/ shootings with a Glock.

One was cop on cop after a slip on wet grass and a fall with a .40 Glock and numerous NDs on the range.

Not sure why a cop would have a gun drawn on an austistic escapee(and the caretaker) anyway, but I don't have all the details.