There is nothing wrong with profiling. It eliminates a lot of people. If someone steals a Buck Owens album, I'm sure not gonna look for a black person. I would be wasting my time.
not wanting to talk to a police officer is one thing but when an officer asks you to identify yourself to him/her, you ARE required to provide your identification, beyond that (Identification) you're not required to tell them anything and thats exactly what happened in this situation. Once they ran your ID, they did not ask any other question, didn't bother you further and let you go. You've been reading too much constitution but been omitting some subtle minor details in it.
@reckz420 WRONG WRONG WRONG!!! You are NOT required by law to be part of any dialogue with law enforcement unless it is voluntary on your part, or you are a suspect in an on going investigation. The officers got annoyed because this guy didn't say............."Howdy" Cops are not gods. They are servants of the public who by the way pays their salaries. Note how the one cop says "don't touch me" after physically assaulting camera dude. Guy should have sued the dept for a bundle.
@ohannahdad: look at the context. Cops were looking for a suspect, they came across this guy sitting outside an apartment, how would they know if he was really the resident of that place? thats why they asked if he lives there. I agree cops have just way too much powers and at the spot, they in fact are the God and many of them do abuse their authority in any given instance, YT is full of such cases.
@reckz420 I never heard either cop say they were looking for a suspect. Howdy, and can you read & write, and did you graduate high school I heard. They had no right to approach this man in the manner that they did. They had searched another apartment which had nothing to do with this guy. Any lawyer with a brain will tell you do NOT talk to cops!!!
@ohannahdad: best way to deal with rouge cops is to keep ur head down and be pliant with them so as to keep interaction to minimum and not give them a chance to take it to next level. In this case, if the guy had answered the question and showed those pigs his ID right in the beginning, there wouldn't be any need for those assholes to gang up on him. He tried to use his constitutional rights but in the end wat happened, he got jumped by 3 cops, handcuffed and searched against his consent.
@reckz420 The best way to deal with rogue cops is make them do their job to the letter of the law. "I have a right to video/audio tape you, I will not answer any questions or give any information to you, I will not resist, should you place me under arrest." I will speak only upon the advice of my attorney. This is how you should deal with ALL cops.... rogue or otherwise!! If you know shit about law you know i am not misleading you.
@ohannahdad: and as for suing Police, well the video is there, wats stopping him, he prolly even tried to lodge complaint with police and got told more or less wat I said earlier. Like or not, police are God and they're the law, right or wrong, system works for them, against us civilians. Every now & then u read stories on CNN about someone being cleared of crime after 15/20 yrs jail time, why?cuz PD, DA and courts they all have common aim to win a conviction first, serving justice comes second.
@reckz420 We are all new at this. For decades we trusted the law and the judicial system. It is rearing an ugly head now, and we are all victims in one way or another. Politics has convicted many innocent people. It's called rush to judgement. That's why the 15/20 yrs jail time you mentioned. Thank god/science for DNA! This guy would not file a law suit. Fear ..intimidation and the unknown. Too scared. Damn shame! He could have made them squirm a bit............ Peace & prosperity!!
Cops are more and more hated. It's disgusting to see assholes like them just harrassing people. Who do they think they are.
Congratulation for your calm sir, i dont know if i would have been able to control myself the same way you did. I had problem not to break my computer screen.
@irish70111: The most intrusive parts of the PATRIOT Act have been found unconstitutional. For example, despite what the Act says, agents do not have the right to search you without consent, probable cause, or exigent circumstances away from the border or a port of entry.
@maverick10241: Fortunately for me, it's not like that where I live.
Maybe someone where you live should step up, provoke a well-documented incident with the police where the police clearly violate their rights, and sue the police officers, the police department, and the city.
I know that in many states, it is ILLEGAL for cities to hold private city council meetings, unless the discussion cannot be public, such as concerning personnel matters. What state do you live in?
Those cops are assholes,hope you got a lawyer.They don't have the right to do what they did.This isn't Nazi Germany,where the Gestapo,can do as they please.No wonder people are shooting these assholes.They need people skills.I have zero respect for animals like this,who other cops cry for and say he was such a nice guy.Yeah right!! We don't need to id ourselves to any useless cop who's trying to hit a jackpot.
seriously all the people commenting on this video saying that the officers in the right are ignorant. what would you white people say if the same happened to you? because i know that i would not stand for this either. the police are completely in the wrong here. listen to the way they talk down to him. they are not being polite in any way shape or form. if the officers were being polite and the black man a jerk it still doesn't change the fact that not saying hello is NOT A CRIME.
I would have to agree with Thejomogogo's comment......the officer has the legal right to ask for identification.......and anyone who refuses to show Identification he/she can be detained until a positive identification can be established......and this person refusing to provide ID resulted in the officers to act the way they acted because they do not know who they are dealing with..........OFFICER SAFETY!
@henrytrina then why didnt he go to jail , and why did the police un restrain him ? hmm i bet you feel real stupid , if youre handcuffed and you did something you usually go to jail , but im guessing they didnt want a lawsuit because they were wrong . and furthermore if an officer asked youu what you were doing in your neighborhood and wanting id and you didnt do anything , would you not demand answers and want to know why the people your tax money is paying for are harassing you?
@MrPANDPKENNELS I stand by my view.......you don't have to go to jail when you are detained.....and handcuffing is just a safety issue.......I am a minority and I still standby their actions here......
You will not understand how it feel like unless you are a minority. This hurts and I know how it feel like. I hate racist cops because they can hurt a citizen sooo many ways.
You were out latein an apartment complex, refused to show ID or identify yourself, acted like an asshole, the officer was right and you were wrong so fuck off.
@TheJomogogo the cops fucked off because they were wrong just like your dumb ass . and how late was it , are niggas supposed to be in the house by the time the streetlights come on. a grown man out too late ... all 3 cops walked past the other guys on the bench and didnt say anything , could that be because they were wrong , or are you too ignorant to put 2 and 2 together . why did the cop uncuff him and say youre picking on me , does that sound like a comment a justified cop would say or do?
Looks like you're the racist here!! Instead of just showing I.D. And then being on your way, you had to cause the incident by bating the cop! Look in the mirror son, you'll find the true racist! I bet you would have been totally complient with a black cop. Lose that race card son, its only holding you back and furthering racism!
@vjd968 thats the best you could come up with , white people are so fuckin stupid , the same shit for years " nigger , get a job , and welfare " come up with something new other than shit that was passed down by your ignorant ass family paleface .
First, when a LEO asks for ID, you are obligated by law to provide it. If you lie, it's obstruction (arrestable offense), your refusal to supply this information is also obstruction. You were given ample opportunity to comply with the law, you chose to break it. Once you are arrested, you are subject to search. Anything in your care and control are also subject to search. See Terry v. Ohio (392 US 1, 1968), see also Hiibel v. 6th Judicial Cir. of Nevada (542 US 177, 2004).
You then cite Lawson v. Kolender (461 US 352, 1983) as precedent. It would be precedent and might be cited in this instance you post above - HOWEVER, this specific issue was addressed as well in Hiibel, which in part overturned Lawson. It certainly overturned the application of which you attempt to rely. Thus, you were not "violated" - you're just trying to assert a misguided notion of "rights". Next time perhaps you should comply with the law and you won't be placed in cuffs.
@scubadogg Dude,you can't just ask a random person(while violating privite property)and ask for ID,and if you don't have it,arrest,handcuff,and search someone.
@scubadogg: You are NOT always obligated to provide ID when asked by a LEO.
Your Terry cite is misguided; the officers here did not have a reasonable and articulable suspicion of criminal activity, so they lacked the authority for even a pat-down.
Your Hiibel cite is misguided; the officers here were in California, which DOES NOT HAVE a stop-and-ID law.
Based on the evidence in this tape, the officers broke the law.
@DESERTEAGLE1970 another ignorant whiteface thinking times are like the old days,why did they let him go and say he was picking on them (the cops since youre probably too dumb to even get that right) when have you seen police uncuff someone then say your picking on me and walk away . what does that tell you crackerjack? youre just as ignorant as them , and apparently not as smart as the "negro". i like seeing the cops being outsmarted because they dont think that black folks know their rights .
The law may be written as "just /fair" but when one stop following the law which were meant to protect pple then that's when they revert to being themself. that's when racial profiling, and racism occur. im not refering2 any1 but if ur a minority..that explains why ur being pull over/hand-cuffed, having ur car search and thru all these humiliating acts.. u end up getting some B.S. $10 fine for not wearing ur seat belt.
You guys never see any vid's of felons and what they they do.......do you? Image if they show'd that. Here is whar would happen, it would show show how and why they were stopped.............why the questions were asked and how they responded.........You folk wanna see how it affects your community,,,,,drive with an officer....that means you ACLU folk too. We are not against a community, wer are just trying to make if all ..... AMERICAN......
@hughster41 said, "I can't tell you your not free to leave (detention) unless I have probable cause to believe you have or are about to commit a crime..."
Actually, you can briefly detain someone on only reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. (Terry v. Ohio)
dude... just answer the question!!! All you had to do is show them some I.D. and this video would never exsist!!! Problem overted!! Are you some trip and fall artist who's looking for hand outs because of something you started? You were being uncooperative to the point that you had to be escorted off because you wouldn't provide a simple piece of info... your i.d.
@mazdaguy42 i didn't know he lived and nazi germany, I thought it was police not the Gestapo. You want to give up your freedom and your rights go ahead. There is no law that states you have to tell a cop "how you're doing" When the cops question you, they are trying to detect a crime.
@mazdaguy42 then why was he uncuffed and the cops walked away , and why were they talking to a grown man like a retard?whites dont want blacks to stand up for themselves or they are criminals.im going to pay someones salary , so they can fuckin harass me for anything they feel.why did they say he was picking on them(3 cops that were trying to id someone that wasnt doing anything wrong)big picture is if he did something wrong he would have been jailed, but he wasnt even after being restrained
You can tell me I'm not free to leave if you are investigating. There are loopholes in the law regarding non-arrest detainment and that is one of them.
@hughster41 The police don't need probable cause in order to question you just like anyone else on the street can talk to you if they want. Sure, you can just walk away UNTIL the police officer tells you you are not free to leave and then you are required to stay. While you don't have to talk to them, as of June or July of this year (can't remember which), you now have to tell he officer you don't wish to speak to them. It's common courtesy and police don't like it if you aren't courteous.
@dovidox said, "as of June or July of this year (can't remember which), you now have to tell he officer you don't wish to speak to them.
You are probably thinking of Berghuis v. Thompkins (decided June 1, 2010), where the U.S. Supreme Court said that after reading a suspect their Miranda rights, police are allowed to interrogate a suspect and use any statements against them, until the suspect explicitly invokes their right to remain silent.
However, you can STILL refuse to speak to officers.
@dovidox thats why he was uncuffed , and the police say he was picking on them ......and its not against the law not to speak to an officer you un educated clown especially if it had nothing to do with an investigation especially . i wish i could go around arresting people that didnt say hi to me all day because once we get those non speakers off the streets it will make the world a better place , now how petty does that sound?
This is the matrix. I took the right pill....so can you! The police is a gang just like the street gangs. But there are some good ones out there still. Its best to unite to fight against the real enemy.
Its funny how the cops constantly talked around him while wanting direct answers to their questions. He asked the cops why they were hounding him, no legitimate answer, but he turns and wants this guy to give his life story up until when he go to the complex? Fact: In every state in the U.S. you do not have to answer any questions by the cops. This should be made apparent to the person being questioned but officers don't tell you that. In my opinion cops have too many loop holes.
The officer stated what would happen if the cameraman didn't answer his question and followed through. This is no different than an officer saying "Get out of the car or I'll taze you" and following through. If the cameraman feels that he has a case, he should pursue it. If it got as far as the Supreme court we would have a modification of the law in Cameraman vs Mean Cop and the police officer would be cleared of all charges. Guys like this cameraman instigate trouble then whine at the reaction
@DavidForthoffer I disagree. The cameraman had no reason to be rolling tape in his camera (especially with it in his pocket) unless he was preparing to do something. The officer approaches him at the beginning of this video & he captured that from his pocket. If he was documenting the craziness at his neighbors unit, he would want a picture since the sound is too far away. According to the text, the officer turned off the camera at 1:23 but he didn't have enough time before that cut. Show more.
@dovidox: I disagree with your claim that the cameraman had no reason to be rolling tape in his camera unless he was preparing to do something. Maybe, just MAYBE, he had had experiences before of officers behaving illegally toward him (as I have had toward me) and wanted to document any potential encounter. It seems to me that the audio completely justifies that fear, and is consistent with the realization of that fear.
@DavidForthoffer I can see where you are coming from on that but if the cameraman feared the police, he wouldn't stand outside his house waiting for them to come to him, he would be inside trying to stay out of sight and out of mind. If approached by someone he feared, he would have ended the conversation as quickly as possible by answering that he does live there then leave. He aggressively ignored the officer's questions and went after them to answer his. That's not a sign of fear.
@DavidForthoffer On public property, in a heartbeat they acted illegal according to the footage. I believe that the officer acted in a way that could be argued as illegal owe to the circumstances but there is a gray area that could justify it since it took place on private community property in an apartment complex. As I've said from the beginning, I'd like to see the whole tape and know what was being searched for, who called the police, etc. There's gray area it could be argued either way.
@dovidox People like you that lay down and let your rights get violated by these pigs is the reason they do what they do.They know they will be cleared because there are weak people like you that are slaves to the "man".Keep living on your knees and see where that gets you.
@RockAfella73 Who said I lay down and allow my rights to be violated? When I was in my teens I had long hair, wore black all the time and was an idiot in many regards which constantly got me in trouble. Never once was I arrested even though I was hassled. What I realized though was that when caught and questioned, be honest and mater of fact but don't give away or elaborate. If a police officer questions you, they have an agenda so don't make it easier on them by "resisting" or being a jerk.
@RockAfella73 how the hell are American citizens supposed to do anything about it? tell me that! If you try to refuse a search of yourself or your car. THen believe me they WILL find a reason if they really want to search you. The police think they are always doing society a big favor. And that they deserve the benfit of the doubt every time no matter what.
So yea what are you going to do if police violate your rights? If you try to stop them they will kill you.
@qpwillie: I agree with you. Still, dealing with officers who are upset that you are not talking with them may be way better than answering questions that you don't have to answer, since those answers can get you in trouble, too.
I recommend watching the videos "Don't Talk to Cops, Part 1" and "Don't Talk to Cops, Part 2".
The fifth amendment doesn't apply here. It only applies to legal proceedings or after someone is in custody/Miranda rights are read. Pleading the fifth isn't the same as not speaking to a law enforcement officer. According to a Supreme Court ruling two months ago, 5th Amendment rights have to be evoked by saying you don't wish to talk. This video is dated in 2008 so it doesn't apply here. I'd say the officer behaved hastily but not illegally because of how the cameraman was responding to them.
The Fifth Amendment DOES apply here. You can exercise your right to remain silent without saying you are exercising those rights, with rare exceptions (relating to identifying yourself, or as a driver of a vehicle which has been legally stopped). You are misconstruing Berghius v. Thompkins; the point there was that police are allowed to continue to question a suspect until the suspect explicitly invokes his 5th Amendment right to be not interrogated. The officer illegally detained the cameraman.
There is an obvious cut in the tape at :34 right after the officer first greets and starts talking to you. You claim you were on your own private property but it looks to me like you are on apartment or condo property. At :34 the officer is responding to you disrespecting him by not speaking to him. You are acting suspicious so he wants to make sure you live there. You didn't cooperate. In CA, if you act suspicious, he was allowed to do a pat down search. They saw you lived there and let you go.
@dovidox: Officers should be trained well enough to ignore people who are disrespecting them. It also does not matter whether he is on his own property or someone else's property. Acting unusually or suspiciously is not a legal excuse to pat ANYONE down, in any state, unless the officer has REASONABLE and ARTICULABLE suspicion of CRIMINAL activity. Here, nothing shows the officer having any such evidence. Detaining and searching the videographer was illegal, based on what is shown.
@DavidForthoffer I'm a professional editor and could easily edit this entire thing to make the cameraman look like a complete jerk that should have been taken strait to jail. We don't know the body language of the cameraman nor do we know what happened during the :34 cut. If the officers did anything that could get them in trouble, they would have "accidentally" destroyed the tape or confiscated it. They could have had a reason for the questioning depending on what they were searching for.
@dovidox: I also could have edited this video to convey a different impression. However, we cannot listen to one version of one side of this story and reach truth or its consequences. I think it is more meaningful to take it on face value and try to learn from the story of this video as it is presented, rather than to speculate on what might have been.
@DavidForthoffer You're right when you say we can't reach truth by listening to one POV. My point regarding the cut at :34 is that something was missing from the story. The officer goes from being friendly and greeting the cameraman to responding to someone who is being rude to an officer trying to gather information. By cooperating and just answering "Yes, I live here" a lot of frustration could have been spared. The cameraman was looking for trouble and baiting the cop then hid it in an edit.
@DavidForthoffer There again I'd say it has to depend on the circumstances. Three officers are shown following the search and we don't know what they were searching for. If concerned residents had called 9-1-1 stating that there are nonresidents selling drugs, the police witnessed it and conducted a search of the fleeing suspect's apartment, it could have been justified. I can play devil's advocate until the end of time but it's pointless. Not seeing the entire tape seems like hiding something.
@DavidForthoffer I don't need to. On video the officer was asking him direct questions. After it was determined that he could communicate with the officer but chose not to, the officer gave him a warning that he would put him in the back of his car if he didn't answer. He chose to toy with the cop again and the officer did what he said he would. He didn't arrest him, he was just wanting an answer to whether or not he lived there for whatever reason. The 4th allows for reasonable searches.
@dovidox: In other words, the officer detained the videographer without any articulable suspicion that the videographer was involved in any criminal activity, since exercising one's Fifth Amendment never provides articulable suspicion of criminal activity. Therefore the officer behaved illegally, even though the officer did not arrest the videographer.
Actually, they do have the right to ask you for ID sir. Even though it's a bullshit charge, they could detain you for vagrancy or even trespassing at this point.
If someone called them complaining of your presence, and i"m assuming this is something you set up to prove your fallacious point, then you have to produce id...end of story. Your rights were not impeded on.
@paragod666: He would NOT have been legally required to produce ID even if someone complained of his presence. (Hiibel v. Nevada) California (where this incident took place) does not HAVE a stop-and-ID law. (Kolender v. Lawson) So under suspicious circumstances, officers are only allowed to QUESTION the suspect. (Terry v. Ohio) Even if arrested, he does not have to produce ID; a thumbprint is sufficient for the booking process. (California law)
@paragod666: I don't quote Wikipedia. It has too many errors. I read the full text of the original opinions. I'll narrow the issue for you. If an officer stops a pedestrian, the pedestrian need not answer UNLESS the state has a stop-and-ID law AND that law requires reasonable and articulable suspicion of criminal involvement AND the officer actually HAS reasonable and articulable suspicion of criminal involvement. In THIS case, the officer had no such articulable suspicion.
@paragod666: Quoting Brown v. Texas, referenced in one of my cites: "The application of Tex. Penal Code Ann., Tit. 8, 38.02 (1974), to detain appellant and require him to identify himself violated the Fourth Amendment because the officers lacked any reasonable suspicion to believe appellant was engaged or had engaged in criminal conduct. Accordingly, appellant may not be punished for refusing to identify himself, and the conviction is Reversed."
@DavidForthoffer Give me the evening to read up on these cases. I haven't seen this one in quite a while so it's logical that I know it before I respond further.
@paragod666: Thank you for your thoughtful response --- so rare on YouTube.
.
You may want to consider that California does not have a stop-and-ID law. It used to, as Penal Code 647(e), but that was ruled unconstitutional in Kolender v. Lawson, and later removed from the California code (with the former PC 647(f) becoming what is now 647(e)).
@DavidForthoffer It seems probably cause and reasonable suspicion are the key to this issue of his 4th amendment rights being violated. It an officer does have reasonable suspicion a crime is taking place, he does have to right to question or detain him. Even in Terry, that is supported. In Hiibel, they do have to id themselves but not necessarily with a photo.
I do understand your argument though but, like I said, I dont trust these videos, especially when I know the cops.
@paragod666: It is not enough for the officer to have a reasonable suspicion a crime is taking place. The officer must have reasonable suspicion that the person detained is involved in a past/present/future crime. Nothing in the video reveals a likelihood of any crime. So neither officer had enough for a Terry stop, much less searching him.
@DavidForthoffer I ask myself, why would 3 cops show up at one time without a complaint to prompt them? This leads me to believe that someone called thereby providing probable cause to ask the guy to id himself.
I am able to see it from your perspective though, if he was randomly sought out, then they've done more than just violated his 4th Amendment, they'd be in violating the California Constitution as well. In fact, these guys would have been fired.
@paragod666: It seems to me from the expanded description below this video that the police were leaving a man's house for a probation check. That seems to be why they were in the area, and that it had nothing to do with the videographer. I also think far more police violate people's constitutional rights than get fired. Did you know Los Angeles Internal Affairs has found that no LAPD officers have used excessive force, even including against Rodney King?
@paragod666: I didn't make myself clear. I didn't mean that police violating rights exceeded "good" arrests. I meant that the number of police violating rights far exceeded the number of police who get fired. In other words, a policeman who violates a person's rights is unlikely to get fired.
.
I also suspect the number of constitutional stops and constitutional arrests exceeds the number of unconstitutional stops and arrests. I.e., most police behave well most of the time, I believe.
@DavidForthoffer Thank you for claifying that. I am curious though how many DUI stops end up dismissed due to violating one's 4th Amendment protection?
This is very interesting when I think more into it.
@paragod666: I suspect that a fair amount of DUI stops end up dismissed for 4th Amendment reasons, because those are serious enough that the defendent hires a lawyer. On the other hand, I suspect that approximately zero license/registration/insurance stops are dismissed for 4th Amendment reasons, because that is the kind of right that one must intelligently assert, and few drivers have the knowledge, skills, and time to assert it.
@DavidForthoffer While I didn't read this case I would agree that if reasonable suspicion does not exist, then there's a problem. Imagine how many Blacks were arrested/tried/convicted/sentenced merely because of this profiling? I do understand and agree with the premise of your argument and appreciate that some Americans do stand up and question the laws and those who enforce them. Kuddos.
@DavidForthoffer I didn't even hear a word about this video tape. Stockton is an area in which any civil rights violations wouldn't have gone unnoticed. So, like I said before, I truly believe there is much more to this situation than meets the eye.
To digress a bit, how to you think this will affect Arizona's immigration laws?
@paragod666: I think this video will not affect Arizona's immigration laws. I am also happy that Judge Bolton stopped the part of SB1070 that allowed police to keep people in jail until they proved they were innocent of the crime of being an illegal alien.
@DavidForthoffer I didn't mean for this vid to have any effect on Arizona's situation but I wanted to point out how Arizona's laws will be enforced.
I'm curious as to how the laws regarding homeland security will be affected as well. The Patriot Act as well. They all seem to border potential bill of rights violations.
This is a great conversation David, I appreciate it.
@paragod666: As for the Patriot Act, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that its searches at international borders are "reasonable", and conversely, despite the Patriot Act authorizing unrestricted searches of vehicles or detentions within 100 miles of the border, all searches of vehicles or detentions away from borders and ports of entry must be based on probable cause or consent. United States v. Brignoni-Ponce
.
Other portions of the Patriot Act have also been found unconstitutional.
@DavidForthoffer I'm not well versed on the Patriot Act but I'm sure I will as I begin my law studies this Sept. I hope you stick around to discuss, debate, and pick your brain a tad. You are very well versed on the law or have some darn good resources, I'm impressed. You're definitely not the "usual Youtuber"
@paragod666: FYI, I have had a habit of attending traffic court trial sessions. 99+% of defendents have no clue how to defend themselves. They say things like, "I couldn't have been going that fast." The judge almost always believes the officer over the citizen. I have had some success myself fighting the legality of the speed limit, especially when radar is involved. But California lends itself to that, because the speed limit under 55 is not absolute.
@DavidForthoffer Very interesting.....Yes, it's hard to beat a cop in court in many cases however, when human error can raise reasonable doubt or in your discussions, illegal stop, I'd agree it can be done.
I hope you're around as well. Our correspondence has been very educational, I thank you.
@paragod666: "Reasonable doubt" is hardly ever an issue in minor traffic cases. Very often, traffic courts are presided over by commissioners or judges who are elected. It is very difficult to win an election without the backing of the local police organization. So they tend to resolve all issues of fact in the favor of the police. I would win by attacking the legality of the speed limits (for California Vehicle Code 22350).
@paragod666: When you attend law school, you may find that except for constitutional or federal law, they tend to teach common law. For example, "battery" in common law is "unwanted touching without consent or privilege", while in California it is "any willful and unlawful use of force or violence upon the person of another". When you pass the bar, you will be ill-suited for practicing law, but well-suited for quickly learning the law in your area of practice.
@DavidForthoffer It's going to be pretty interesting as I change into that mode of thinking. I bought my first year books and have been digging into torts and it's all pretty interesting. I have a friend who's a deputy AG and I'm going to spend some time with him and learn what I can. Yes, the first year bar is supposedly a bitch but I'll be ready. I agree, learning in school is not learning how to do the job but, I'll have to tools at least. I plan to practice employment law.
lol, with the thugs in this city it's amazing more of this shit isnt on the Internet.
Oh, esp now that SPD nailed a 16 year old escaped felon driving a stolen van running from the cops and backing up @ the officers. SPD shoots him and kills the thug.
Since you seem to have all the makings of a jailhouse lawyer, why don't you clean your act up, apply to a police department and start workin the streets to see what people will do. THEN, when you have seen this crap first hand, go to law school, become a REAL lawyer and apply the law to your experiences and do the math. But, if you get caught up in someone setting you up on video and get screwed, don't come crying to me.
Once they get to the questioning part, if the 'suspect' becomes uncooperative, they now have reasonable suspicion which needs to be satisfied. But again, WE DONT KNOW WHY THEY WERE THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE, which makes all other arguments moot, until that is revealed. It MAY be, that HE was guilty of something and just put the video up there to take a pot shot at police. Conversely, it MAY also be, that he didn't do shit, and they were fuckin up. Until the whole story is revealed, we don't know.
@MaBell37: "reasonable suspicion" in legal discussions is short for "reasonable and articulable suspicion of involvement in criminal activity". "Not cooperating" such as by exercising one's Fifth Amendment rights does not contribute to suspicion of criminal activity. The officer may be annoyed that her questions are not being answered, but officers should be trained to uphold the U.S. Constitution.
And, as usual, you have COMPLETELY missed the issue. The issue IS whether they had a right to be there, as you put it, because it is the lead-in to any/all actions they choose to take from there, right/wrong or otherwise. If they had responded to a call they have the right to be there. If they didn't find their 'suspect' upon initial investigation, it then becomes time to look for the 'suspect' or witnesses. If they come across someone resembling their suspect, they have the right to question.
I have seen waaaay too many staged videos/stories where, a person INTENTIONALLY set events in motion to elicit a certain response from law enforcement, only to selectively video certain aspects OF that response to put them in a bad light. And then were later proven to have committed a crime(s). In the meantime, everyone persecuted the officers due to, at best, shoddy video(s) with a lack of what led up to the events that unfolded.
And, not for nothin? But, as long as y'all want to find fault with the officers and try to prove they were wrong, I will spend my time, defending them (even if they WERE wrong) simply because YOU weren't there (and neither was I) and this video does NOT, in any way/shape or form, prove anything, one way or another. Bring me more evidence, more video, and when it is PROVEN they were dickin' around, I'll gleefully jump on the bandwagon. Until that time, pfft.
The bottom line is, all of you arguing this, are quoting cases where a man was harrassed by officers, for no reason, and the officers had not just come from, or been called to, or saw this or that. They were simply screwin with someone because they could. In this situation, a search has already been done. For what? Drugs? Murderer? Rapist? Again, WE don't know why there were there or what dispatched calls they received.
Oh and, by the way? Since he DID admit to these officers coming from searching a man's apartment, I think this WELL establishes that they had sufficient reason for being there in the first place, though again, he doesn't provide us with whether that search was part of 'Hot Pursuit' or simply an 'unlawful search & seizure.' What we ALSO don't know is, where is this apt they just searched? 10 ft away or on the other side of the community? Think about it folks, it does NOT take a rocket scientist.
@MaBell37: In conclusion, your 8 consecutive posts did not suggest ANY reason why the police were there that would justify the police officer's behavior in this video. Then you twist the issue. The issue is NOT whether the police had a right to be there. The issue is NOT whether the police had a right to question him. The issue IS whether the police had a right to search him without his consent.
Did this guy have something to hide and that's why he figured not talking to the cops at all would alleviate suspicion? Was he hiding aliens in his other pocket and didn't want the cops to find em? Who the hell knows. All we have is this VERY one sided video, that had OBVIOUSLY been edited. Why? WHO KNOWS. I presume guilt in situations like this specifically because I don't like others determining what is pertinent and what is not. Show me it all and let ME come to my own decision.
All of you can argue semantics all you want, but, until you know ALL of the circumstances behind what happened here, every arguement is subjective, including mine. This video is too conveniently edited to show the worst possible scenario. How do we know that there weren't 50 Officers who showed up to that area due to gang violance, or a murder/rape? How do we know that they weren;t simply canvassing the neighborhood. They just came from searching a man's apartment? Why? What did search for?
It really is fruitless to come up with all these stupid inane arguements, as I have already said once before, as we don't know the whole story to this. Again, this video shows specific parts of the incident with no video evidence of what led UP to this incident. And, just because this guy SAYS he was on his private property doesn't make it so. Additionally, AGAIN, we don't know why the officers were there in the first place.
"It has long been settled that the Fourth Amendment prohibits the seizure and detention or search of an individual's person unless there is probable cause to believe that he has committed a crime."
Well, no. The police CAN seize a person without even a suspicion of a crime, in certain cases. United States v. Martinez-Fuerte
If you had been sociable and neighborly instead of trying to be a badass, maybe they would have left you alone. Remember, their first words were "Howdy," not "show me your papers." You're just another punk looking for a problem, so you found one.
MaBell, I beg to differ. Crime or not, if they have probable cause they will certainly be able to provide you with it. "you fit the description." I'm sorry, if the police show up at my door and ask me for ID, if they cannot provide me with sufficient probable cause I'm slamming the door in their face. Just because you have nothing to hide that does not give them the right to poll every single person in that complex. There WAS no probable cause.
And, just for shits and grins...what was the big problem with identifying yourself to an officer anyway? The private and personal questions they asked you were to establish who you were and asking for ID confirms what you tell them. The catch is, if you told them truthful information to begin with.
Ok, this is just plain dumb. Not gonna bother quoting cases, you use them out of context anyway. Do YOU know why THEY were there? No. Do YOU know if THEY had probable cause to question people who MAY have fit a description of someone who DID commit a crime? No. That, really, should be, 'nuff said.
Next time, submit something with BOTH sides of a story, not just yours.
@MaBell37: It does not matter whether why the police were there. California has no law requiring a person (not driving a vehicle) to show ID. The police may have had the right to question him, but they did not have the right to punish him for not answering.
@DavidForthoffer Actually, California just HAPPENS to be where I worked as a police officer when I got out of the Marine Corps. And yes, they actually DO have a law, requiring citizens to properly identify themselves to a police officer if asked to establish residency/reason for being where they are. Commonly referred to as 'Stop and Identify' police officers have the right to question people, especially in close proximity to a known crime scene.
@MaBell37: Since you worked as a police officer in California, I am surprised you were not able to cite the actual law.
Maybe you were an officer long ago when Penal Code 647(e) said that. But 647(e) was found unconstitutional in 1983. Kolender v. Lawson (Now 647(e) is what used to be 647(f).
@DavidForthoffer Further, let's not forget (again) that a KNOWN crime had occurred, and when the police do not have an opportunity to have 'eyes-on' they only have a description to go off of, it is their responsibility, nay, DUTY to question any and all persons resembling (however closely) the description given. A person being so question, only arouses more suspicion when they refuse to cooperate. It's a simple concept, just cooperate and let them figure out for themselves who you are.
@MaBell37: You are mistaking a duty to QUESTION with a duty to PUNISH for not cooperating. People have a RIGHT to not cooperate, in most cases, including this. At worst, they need only identify themselves, which does not require an ID card. It is certainly not suspicious of any criminal behavior for a person to not respond to, "Howdy." Not cooperating cannot be legally be construed as probable cause of criminal behavior.
@DavidForthoffer And one MORE thing. It became READILY obvious to me that the people in that area (not only because of experience) were not exactly model citizens to begin with, so, their lack of cooperation for a speedy resolution to the investigation only makes themselves look worse with every resistance to cooperation they displayed. And yes, it DOES matter why the police were there, most especially if they were responding to a call. C'mon folks, you can't POSSIBLY be THAT stupid.
@DavidForthoffer It really is fruitless to come up with all these stupid inane arguements, as I have already said once before, as we don't know the whole story to this. Again, this video shows specific parts of the incident with no video evidence of what led UP to this incident. And, just because this guy SAYS he was on his private property doesn't make it so. Additionally, AGAIN, we don't know why the officers were there in the first place.
all you had to do was answer them in the first place. you were suspect from the get go cause you were acting suspicious. all you people cry about police brutality until you need them. then you wonder why they don't want to come and help. profiling works. how else are you supposed to do it. Mexican gangs usually don't have white and black people. is that profiling? no it is common sense dip shit!!! maybe if you assholes got jobs and stopped creeping around at night outside of apt complexes.
Anyuniformed peace officer shall wear a badge,nameplate or other device which bears clearly on it's face the information number or the name of the officer...
What I don't undestand, is you want them to identify them selfs , but you wont.... I guess do what I say not as I do...
Hey, street lawyer. When they say "Hello, what's up?" Thats called a casual contact. When you started to act like a fool and being a shit head. It went to a detention. To figure out who you are... There is a saying " Sometimes knowing too much is a dangerous thing".. In you case it's a true STATEMENT...
ok, 1st amendment right to free speach NOT VIOLATED. 4th Amendment search and seizure NOT VIOLATED. And the 5th Amendment self incrimating statements .. NOT VIOLATED..
You are a full blown IDOT.. You need to use all that energy and clean you funky ass apt.. Handcuffs are not built for comfort... You really showed your IGNORANCE... Do yourself a favor, stay in school get all the HELP you can . Cuz , buddy you need it.......
Dude had a Camera ON , then went OUT OF HIS WAY to attract police attention. This guys INTENT was to get the cops attention, that's not profiling...the only thing he "exposed" was his OWN dumb ass.
We live in a polite society and when someone offers a greeting and cop or not, you return it.
That's an apt. complex and some dude is trying to AVOID contact???? Even if I just lived there as a person I'd be suspicious, as a cop I want to know what this guy is hiding, Which BTW, IS PC for a stop.
you have to show an officer your ID... that is law...Their are a few question you must answer an officer, and that is where you live and any personal information about yourself. You were not cooperating so he took you in. Please be aware of your rights before posting stupid vids. To him it might of been suspicious that you would not answer him. I hate pigs as much as the next person, but if your gonna try to do stuff like this, do it right.
no moron you don't have to tell the cop shit unless you are being investigated for committing or are in the act of committing a crime. know your rights before you speak.
Since 9/11 It is illegal to not have government ID on you at all times, an officer has the right to check your ID at any time for no reason. Furthermore these 3 questions are the only ones you are legally obligated to answer:
What is your name?
Where do you live?
Have you got any identification?
YOU ARE WRONG, im a fucking law major, so go do some research and go fuck yourself. i know my rights mother fucker
@macchef01, Though there is no current law requiring citizens to carry Identification, You MUST however PROVIDE ID to the police when asked, that IS the law. I can arrest you print you and hold you for 24 hours or until you are identified. BUT, this is only after you've put yourself in the position to draw my attention. I can just walk up to someone out of the blue and say cough up your ID, but THIS guy in the vid was out LOOKING for cops, his camera was on and his GOAL was to get stopped.
There is nothing wrong with profiling. It eliminates a lot of people. If someone steals a Buck Owens album, I'm sure not gonna look for a black person. I would be wasting my time.
JawsJaws 1 month ago
dude the cop is asking you nicely just fucking show your id your not a 2 year old omfg
hitopo906 1 month ago
i see crack and weed in a baggie in your pocket lol dont tell me thats not funny
MrShotblok 1 month ago
not wanting to talk to a police officer is one thing but when an officer asks you to identify yourself to him/her, you ARE required to provide your identification, beyond that (Identification) you're not required to tell them anything and thats exactly what happened in this situation. Once they ran your ID, they did not ask any other question, didn't bother you further and let you go. You've been reading too much constitution but been omitting some subtle minor details in it.
reckz420 7 months ago
@reckz420: You are NEVER required to provide your identification when asked by police.
California once had such a law, but it was struck down as unconstitutional.
Nevada has a law requiring you to SAY your name IF the officer has reasonable suspicion you are involved in a crime.
Texas has a law also requiring you to SAY your name and contact info if you are a witness to a crime.
No law even says you have to CARRY proof of identification, if you are a U.S. citizen.
DavidForthoffer 7 months ago
@reckz420 WRONG WRONG WRONG!!! You are NOT required by law to be part of any dialogue with law enforcement unless it is voluntary on your part, or you are a suspect in an on going investigation. The officers got annoyed because this guy didn't say............."Howdy" Cops are not gods. They are servants of the public who by the way pays their salaries. Note how the one cop says "don't touch me" after physically assaulting camera dude. Guy should have sued the dept for a bundle.
ohannahdad 4 months ago
@ohannahdad: look at the context. Cops were looking for a suspect, they came across this guy sitting outside an apartment, how would they know if he was really the resident of that place? thats why they asked if he lives there. I agree cops have just way too much powers and at the spot, they in fact are the God and many of them do abuse their authority in any given instance, YT is full of such cases.
reckz420 4 months ago
@reckz420 I never heard either cop say they were looking for a suspect. Howdy, and can you read & write, and did you graduate high school I heard. They had no right to approach this man in the manner that they did. They had searched another apartment which had nothing to do with this guy. Any lawyer with a brain will tell you do NOT talk to cops!!!
ohannahdad 4 months ago
@ohannahdad: best way to deal with rouge cops is to keep ur head down and be pliant with them so as to keep interaction to minimum and not give them a chance to take it to next level. In this case, if the guy had answered the question and showed those pigs his ID right in the beginning, there wouldn't be any need for those assholes to gang up on him. He tried to use his constitutional rights but in the end wat happened, he got jumped by 3 cops, handcuffed and searched against his consent.
reckz420 4 months ago
@reckz420 The best way to deal with rogue cops is make them do their job to the letter of the law. "I have a right to video/audio tape you, I will not answer any questions or give any information to you, I will not resist, should you place me under arrest." I will speak only upon the advice of my attorney. This is how you should deal with ALL cops.... rogue or otherwise!! If you know shit about law you know i am not misleading you.
ohannahdad 4 months ago
@ohannahdad: and as for suing Police, well the video is there, wats stopping him, he prolly even tried to lodge complaint with police and got told more or less wat I said earlier. Like or not, police are God and they're the law, right or wrong, system works for them, against us civilians. Every now & then u read stories on CNN about someone being cleared of crime after 15/20 yrs jail time, why?cuz PD, DA and courts they all have common aim to win a conviction first, serving justice comes second.
reckz420 4 months ago
@reckz420 We are all new at this. For decades we trusted the law and the judicial system. It is rearing an ugly head now, and we are all victims in one way or another. Politics has convicted many innocent people. It's called rush to judgement. That's why the 15/20 yrs jail time you mentioned. Thank god/science for DNA! This guy would not file a law suit. Fear ..intimidation and the unknown. Too scared. Damn shame! He could have made them squirm a bit............ Peace & prosperity!!
ohannahdad 4 months ago
Cops are more and more hated. It's disgusting to see assholes like them just harrassing people. Who do they think they are.
Congratulation for your calm sir, i dont know if i would have been able to control myself the same way you did. I had problem not to break my computer screen.
Those 2 fuckers need an ajustment.
Marcel1157 8 months ago
@davidforthoffer actually guy go read the patriot act you have lost most of your rights and don't even know it
irish70111 9 months ago
@irish70111: The most intrusive parts of the PATRIOT Act have been found unconstitutional. For example, despite what the Act says, agents do not have the right to search you without consent, probable cause, or exigent circumstances away from the border or a port of entry.
DavidForthoffer 7 months ago
Comment removed
maverick10241 6 months ago
@maverick10241: Fortunately for me, it's not like that where I live.
Maybe someone where you live should step up, provoke a well-documented incident with the police where the police clearly violate their rights, and sue the police officers, the police department, and the city.
I know that in many states, it is ILLEGAL for cities to hold private city council meetings, unless the discussion cannot be public, such as concerning personnel matters. What state do you live in?
DavidForthoffer 6 months ago
@DavidForthoffer i was told to remove the comment i posted and not make any more comments concerning what i posted.but thanks for the advice.
maverick10241 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Much ado about nothing
zoso1234 9 months ago
Those cops are assholes,hope you got a lawyer.They don't have the right to do what they did.This isn't Nazi Germany,where the Gestapo,can do as they please.No wonder people are shooting these assholes.They need people skills.I have zero respect for animals like this,who other cops cry for and say he was such a nice guy.Yeah right!! We don't need to id ourselves to any useless cop who's trying to hit a jackpot.
TrollHunter8 10 months ago
seriously all the people commenting on this video saying that the officers in the right are ignorant. what would you white people say if the same happened to you? because i know that i would not stand for this either. the police are completely in the wrong here. listen to the way they talk down to him. they are not being polite in any way shape or form. if the officers were being polite and the black man a jerk it still doesn't change the fact that not saying hello is NOT A CRIME.
leemonkey25 10 months ago
THE ONLY THING THAT WAS HURT WAS YOUR PRIDE! GET OVER IT, HOT-SHOT!
400lbGuerrilla 10 months ago
Do yourself a favor and don't purposely make yourself look suspect. Please change the video title to 'Mock outrage caught on tape"
wyckydsceptre2099 10 months ago
@wyckydsceptre2099 how did he make himself look suspicious , by stating his rights and demanding answers? we see ur a fuckin ignorant waste of skin.
MrPANDPKENNELS 10 months ago
I would have to agree with Thejomogogo's comment......the officer has the legal right to ask for identification.......and anyone who refuses to show Identification he/she can be detained until a positive identification can be established......and this person refusing to provide ID resulted in the officers to act the way they acted because they do not know who they are dealing with..........OFFICER SAFETY!
henrytrina 11 months ago
@henrytrina then why didnt he go to jail , and why did the police un restrain him ? hmm i bet you feel real stupid , if youre handcuffed and you did something you usually go to jail , but im guessing they didnt want a lawsuit because they were wrong . and furthermore if an officer asked youu what you were doing in your neighborhood and wanting id and you didnt do anything , would you not demand answers and want to know why the people your tax money is paying for are harassing you?
MrPANDPKENNELS 10 months ago
@MrPANDPKENNELS I stand by my view.......you don't have to go to jail when you are detained.....and handcuffing is just a safety issue.......I am a minority and I still standby their actions here......
henrytrina 10 months ago
You will not understand how it feel like unless you are a minority. This hurts and I know how it feel like. I hate racist cops because they can hurt a citizen sooo many ways.
2010THEDRAGON 11 months ago
You were out latein an apartment complex, refused to show ID or identify yourself, acted like an asshole, the officer was right and you were wrong so fuck off.
TheJomogogo 11 months ago
@TheJomogogo the cops fucked off because they were wrong just like your dumb ass . and how late was it , are niggas supposed to be in the house by the time the streetlights come on. a grown man out too late ... all 3 cops walked past the other guys on the bench and didnt say anything , could that be because they were wrong , or are you too ignorant to put 2 and 2 together . why did the cop uncuff him and say youre picking on me , does that sound like a comment a justified cop would say or do?
MrPANDPKENNELS 10 months ago
Looks like you're the racist here!! Instead of just showing I.D. And then being on your way, you had to cause the incident by bating the cop! Look in the mirror son, you'll find the true racist! I bet you would have been totally complient with a black cop. Lose that race card son, its only holding you back and furthering racism!
Interceptor1255 11 months ago
If you would've been at work.... this wouldn't have happened in the first place......lmao!
vjd968 1 year ago
@vjd968 thats the best you could come up with , white people are so fuckin stupid , the same shit for years " nigger , get a job , and welfare " come up with something new other than shit that was passed down by your ignorant ass family paleface .
MrPANDPKENNELS 10 months ago
First, when a LEO asks for ID, you are obligated by law to provide it. If you lie, it's obstruction (arrestable offense), your refusal to supply this information is also obstruction. You were given ample opportunity to comply with the law, you chose to break it. Once you are arrested, you are subject to search. Anything in your care and control are also subject to search. See Terry v. Ohio (392 US 1, 1968), see also Hiibel v. 6th Judicial Cir. of Nevada (542 US 177, 2004).
scubadogg 1 year ago
You then cite Lawson v. Kolender (461 US 352, 1983) as precedent. It would be precedent and might be cited in this instance you post above - HOWEVER, this specific issue was addressed as well in Hiibel, which in part overturned Lawson. It certainly overturned the application of which you attempt to rely. Thus, you were not "violated" - you're just trying to assert a misguided notion of "rights". Next time perhaps you should comply with the law and you won't be placed in cuffs.
scubadogg 1 year ago
@scubadogg: Hiibel did not overturn Kolender v. Lawson to ANY extent.
The next time the police violate rights like this, it might be good to take the evidence to the grand jury.
DavidForthoffer 1 year ago
@scubadogg Dude,you can't just ask a random person(while violating privite property)and ask for ID,and if you don't have it,arrest,handcuff,and search someone.
mrpops123123 1 year ago
@mrpops123123 so if your at home and a cop asks for your id , you wouldnt ask questions why , and want to know whats going on?
MrPANDPKENNELS 10 months ago
@MrPANDPKENNELS Uh,I don't think you understood my comment lol
mrpops123123 10 months ago
@scubadogg: You are NOT always obligated to provide ID when asked by a LEO.
Your Terry cite is misguided; the officers here did not have a reasonable and articulable suspicion of criminal activity, so they lacked the authority for even a pat-down.
Your Hiibel cite is misguided; the officers here were in California, which DOES NOT HAVE a stop-and-ID law.
Based on the evidence in this tape, the officers broke the law.
DavidForthoffer 1 year ago
another Negro trying to look wise......... criminal profiling isn't the same as racial profiling .... obviously the pigs knew you was a Negro ...
DESERTEAGLE1970 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DESERTEAGLE1970 "obviously the pigs knew you was a Negro" only if only you knew how to read and write. shut up and sit down in a corner some where.
conceitedessence 1 year ago
@DESERTEAGLE1970 another ignorant whiteface thinking times are like the old days,why did they let him go and say he was picking on them (the cops since youre probably too dumb to even get that right) when have you seen police uncuff someone then say your picking on me and walk away . what does that tell you crackerjack? youre just as ignorant as them , and apparently not as smart as the "negro". i like seeing the cops being outsmarted because they dont think that black folks know their rights .
MrPANDPKENNELS 10 months ago
lol love watching white people get mad b/c they're being out smarted by what they would say "some dumb black guy"
Soulja1785 1 year ago
Comment removed
RottenPrince407 1 year ago
looks like some weed was in the pocket the phone was in at the begining
RottenPrince407 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The law may be written as "just /fair" but when one stop following the law which were meant to protect pple then that's when they revert to being themself. that's when racial profiling, and racism occur. im not refering2 any1 but if ur a minority..that explains why ur being pull over/hand-cuffed, having ur car search and thru all these humiliating acts.. u end up getting some B.S. $10 fine for not wearing ur seat belt.
Sundincubus 1 year ago
You guys never see any vid's of felons and what they they do.......do you? Image if they show'd that. Here is whar would happen, it would show show how and why they were stopped.............why the questions were asked and how they responded.........You folk wanna see how it affects your community,,,,,drive with an officer....that means you ACLU folk too. We are not against a community, wer are just trying to make if all ..... AMERICAN......
dewercsinla 1 year ago
@dewercsinla Yes we do see vids of felons. It's on a show called COPS. ; P
cursivedragon 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You guys never see any vid's of felons and what they they do.......do you? Image if they show'd that.
dewercsinla 1 year ago
You guys never see any vid's of felons and what what they they do.......do you? Image if they show'd that.
dewercsinla 1 year ago
I'll bet you guys think it's Roddney King all over again for your show.....Nice try. You baited and no go....WPOS.
dewercsinla 1 year ago
@hughster41 said, "I can't tell you your not free to leave (detention) unless I have probable cause to believe you have or are about to commit a crime..."
Actually, you can briefly detain someone on only reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. (Terry v. Ohio)
DavidForthoffer 1 year ago
dude... just answer the question!!! All you had to do is show them some I.D. and this video would never exsist!!! Problem overted!! Are you some trip and fall artist who's looking for hand outs because of something you started? You were being uncooperative to the point that you had to be escorted off because you wouldn't provide a simple piece of info... your i.d.
mazdaguy42 1 year ago
@mazdaguy42 i didn't know he lived and nazi germany, I thought it was police not the Gestapo. You want to give up your freedom and your rights go ahead. There is no law that states you have to tell a cop "how you're doing" When the cops question you, they are trying to detect a crime.
phillycopwatch09 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mazdaguy42 said, "dude... just answer the question!!! All you had to do is show them some I.D. and this video would never exsist!!!"
Send me money. All you have to do is to cooperate and send me money, and I won't make sarcastic comments about your desire to give up your rights.
DavidForthoffer 1 year ago
@mazdaguy42 then why was he uncuffed and the cops walked away , and why were they talking to a grown man like a retard?whites dont want blacks to stand up for themselves or they are criminals.im going to pay someones salary , so they can fuckin harass me for anything they feel.why did they say he was picking on them(3 cops that were trying to id someone that wasnt doing anything wrong)big picture is if he did something wrong he would have been jailed, but he wasnt even after being restrained
MrPANDPKENNELS 10 months ago
You can tell me I'm not free to leave if you are investigating. There are loopholes in the law regarding non-arrest detainment and that is one of them.
dovidox 1 year ago
@hughster41 The police don't need probable cause in order to question you just like anyone else on the street can talk to you if they want. Sure, you can just walk away UNTIL the police officer tells you you are not free to leave and then you are required to stay. While you don't have to talk to them, as of June or July of this year (can't remember which), you now have to tell he officer you don't wish to speak to them. It's common courtesy and police don't like it if you aren't courteous.
dovidox 1 year ago
@dovidox it's also common courtesy not to question someone just because they are not white!
J1NDA 1 year ago
I agree. But that's not what happened here.
dovidox 1 year ago
@dovidox said, "as of June or July of this year (can't remember which), you now have to tell he officer you don't wish to speak to them.
You are probably thinking of Berghuis v. Thompkins (decided June 1, 2010), where the U.S. Supreme Court said that after reading a suspect their Miranda rights, police are allowed to interrogate a suspect and use any statements against them, until the suspect explicitly invokes their right to remain silent.
However, you can STILL refuse to speak to officers.
DavidForthoffer 1 year ago
@dovidox thats why he was uncuffed , and the police say he was picking on them ......and its not against the law not to speak to an officer you un educated clown especially if it had nothing to do with an investigation especially . i wish i could go around arresting people that didnt say hi to me all day because once we get those non speakers off the streets it will make the world a better place , now how petty does that sound?
MrPANDPKENNELS 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
SPD are not your friends.
1rarerecordz 1 year ago
This is the matrix. I took the right pill....so can you! The police is a gang just like the street gangs. But there are some good ones out there still. Its best to unite to fight against the real enemy.
teddet87 1 year ago
Its funny how the cops constantly talked around him while wanting direct answers to their questions. He asked the cops why they were hounding him, no legitimate answer, but he turns and wants this guy to give his life story up until when he go to the complex? Fact: In every state in the U.S. you do not have to answer any questions by the cops. This should be made apparent to the person being questioned but officers don't tell you that. In my opinion cops have too many loop holes.
raventakayama 1 year ago
The officer stated what would happen if the cameraman didn't answer his question and followed through. This is no different than an officer saying "Get out of the car or I'll taze you" and following through. If the cameraman feels that he has a case, he should pursue it. If it got as far as the Supreme court we would have a modification of the law in Cameraman vs Mean Cop and the police officer would be cleared of all charges. Guys like this cameraman instigate trouble then whine at the reaction
dovidox 1 year ago
@dovidox: The police officer was the one instigating trouble here.
DavidForthoffer 1 year ago
@DavidForthoffer I disagree. The cameraman had no reason to be rolling tape in his camera (especially with it in his pocket) unless he was preparing to do something. The officer approaches him at the beginning of this video & he captured that from his pocket. If he was documenting the craziness at his neighbors unit, he would want a picture since the sound is too far away. According to the text, the officer turned off the camera at 1:23 but he didn't have enough time before that cut. Show more.
dovidox 1 year ago
@dovidox: I disagree with your claim that the cameraman had no reason to be rolling tape in his camera unless he was preparing to do something. Maybe, just MAYBE, he had had experiences before of officers behaving illegally toward him (as I have had toward me) and wanted to document any potential encounter. It seems to me that the audio completely justifies that fear, and is consistent with the realization of that fear.
DavidForthoffer 1 year ago
@DavidForthoffer I can see where you are coming from on that but if the cameraman feared the police, he wouldn't stand outside his house waiting for them to come to him, he would be inside trying to stay out of sight and out of mind. If approached by someone he feared, he would have ended the conversation as quickly as possible by answering that he does live there then leave. He aggressively ignored the officer's questions and went after them to answer his. That's not a sign of fear.
dovidox 1 year ago
@dovidox: I didn't say he feared them. I said maybe he had had experiences before of officers behaving illegally toward him. There's a difference.
Suppose this tape recorded the entire conversation between him and them. Do you agree that the officers behaved illegally?
DavidForthoffer 1 year ago
@DavidForthoffer On public property, in a heartbeat they acted illegal according to the footage. I believe that the officer acted in a way that could be argued as illegal owe to the circumstances but there is a gray area that could justify it since it took place on private community property in an apartment complex. As I've said from the beginning, I'd like to see the whole tape and know what was being searched for, who called the police, etc. There's gray area it could be argued either way.
dovidox 1 year ago
@dovidox: I'm glad we agree that, based solely on this tape, if this were public property the officers behaved illegally.
I suppose it would help to see more of what happened or didn't happen, though that might make the tape a lot more boring.
DavidForthoffer 1 year ago
@dovidox People like you that lay down and let your rights get violated by these pigs is the reason they do what they do.They know they will be cleared because there are weak people like you that are slaves to the "man".Keep living on your knees and see where that gets you.
RockAfella73 1 year ago
@RockAfella73 Who said I lay down and allow my rights to be violated? When I was in my teens I had long hair, wore black all the time and was an idiot in many regards which constantly got me in trouble. Never once was I arrested even though I was hassled. What I realized though was that when caught and questioned, be honest and mater of fact but don't give away or elaborate. If a police officer questions you, they have an agenda so don't make it easier on them by "resisting" or being a jerk.
dovidox 1 year ago
@RockAfella73 how the hell are American citizens supposed to do anything about it? tell me that! If you try to refuse a search of yourself or your car. THen believe me they WILL find a reason if they really want to search you. The police think they are always doing society a big favor. And that they deserve the benfit of the doubt every time no matter what.
So yea what are you going to do if police violate your rights? If you try to stop them they will kill you.
STeroidsnicca 1 year ago
I don't care who you are or what color you are, if you refuse to talk to cops like that, they're going to be upset.
qpwillie 1 year ago
@qpwillie: I agree with you. Still, dealing with officers who are upset that you are not talking with them may be way better than answering questions that you don't have to answer, since those answers can get you in trouble, too.
I recommend watching the videos "Don't Talk to Cops, Part 1" and "Don't Talk to Cops, Part 2".
DavidForthoffer 1 year ago
The fifth amendment doesn't apply here. It only applies to legal proceedings or after someone is in custody/Miranda rights are read. Pleading the fifth isn't the same as not speaking to a law enforcement officer. According to a Supreme Court ruling two months ago, 5th Amendment rights have to be evoked by saying you don't wish to talk. This video is dated in 2008 so it doesn't apply here. I'd say the officer behaved hastily but not illegally because of how the cameraman was responding to them.
dovidox 1 year ago
The Fifth Amendment DOES apply here. You can exercise your right to remain silent without saying you are exercising those rights, with rare exceptions (relating to identifying yourself, or as a driver of a vehicle which has been legally stopped). You are misconstruing Berghius v. Thompkins; the point there was that police are allowed to continue to question a suspect until the suspect explicitly invokes his 5th Amendment right to be not interrogated. The officer illegally detained the cameraman.
DavidForthoffer 1 year ago
Comment removed
dovidox 1 year ago
There is an obvious cut in the tape at :34 right after the officer first greets and starts talking to you. You claim you were on your own private property but it looks to me like you are on apartment or condo property. At :34 the officer is responding to you disrespecting him by not speaking to him. You are acting suspicious so he wants to make sure you live there. You didn't cooperate. In CA, if you act suspicious, he was allowed to do a pat down search. They saw you lived there and let you go.
dovidox 1 year ago
@dovidox: Officers should be trained well enough to ignore people who are disrespecting them. It also does not matter whether he is on his own property or someone else's property. Acting unusually or suspiciously is not a legal excuse to pat ANYONE down, in any state, unless the officer has REASONABLE and ARTICULABLE suspicion of CRIMINAL activity. Here, nothing shows the officer having any such evidence. Detaining and searching the videographer was illegal, based on what is shown.
DavidForthoffer 1 year ago
@DavidForthoffer I'm a professional editor and could easily edit this entire thing to make the cameraman look like a complete jerk that should have been taken strait to jail. We don't know the body language of the cameraman nor do we know what happened during the :34 cut. If the officers did anything that could get them in trouble, they would have "accidentally" destroyed the tape or confiscated it. They could have had a reason for the questioning depending on what they were searching for.
dovidox 1 year ago
@dovidox: I also could have edited this video to convey a different impression. However, we cannot listen to one version of one side of this story and reach truth or its consequences. I think it is more meaningful to take it on face value and try to learn from the story of this video as it is presented, rather than to speculate on what might have been.
DavidForthoffer 1 year ago
@DavidForthoffer You're right when you say we can't reach truth by listening to one POV. My point regarding the cut at :34 is that something was missing from the story. The officer goes from being friendly and greeting the cameraman to responding to someone who is being rude to an officer trying to gather information. By cooperating and just answering "Yes, I live here" a lot of frustration could have been spared. The cameraman was looking for trouble and baiting the cop then hid it in an edit.
dovidox 1 year ago
@dovidox: Even supposing the cameraman baited the officer and hid it in an edit, it would still not justify the officer's response and behavior.
If the cameraman did something even more egregious, it seems likely to me that the officer would have subsequently mentioned it.
DavidForthoffer 1 year ago
@DavidForthoffer There again I'd say it has to depend on the circumstances. Three officers are shown following the search and we don't know what they were searching for. If concerned residents had called 9-1-1 stating that there are nonresidents selling drugs, the police witnessed it and conducted a search of the fleeing suspect's apartment, it could have been justified. I can play devil's advocate until the end of time but it's pointless. Not seeing the entire tape seems like hiding something.
dovidox 1 year ago
@dovidox: Can you hypothesize ANYTHING that might have happened before the video or during the 0:34 gap that would legalize the officer's behavior?
DavidForthoffer 1 year ago
@DavidForthoffer I don't need to. On video the officer was asking him direct questions. After it was determined that he could communicate with the officer but chose not to, the officer gave him a warning that he would put him in the back of his car if he didn't answer. He chose to toy with the cop again and the officer did what he said he would. He didn't arrest him, he was just wanting an answer to whether or not he lived there for whatever reason. The 4th allows for reasonable searches.
dovidox 1 year ago
@dovidox: In other words, the officer detained the videographer without any articulable suspicion that the videographer was involved in any criminal activity, since exercising one's Fifth Amendment never provides articulable suspicion of criminal activity. Therefore the officer behaved illegally, even though the officer did not arrest the videographer.
DavidForthoffer 1 year ago
fuck the cops let them die
slyrader1 1 year ago
Actually, they do have the right to ask you for ID sir. Even though it's a bullshit charge, they could detain you for vagrancy or even trespassing at this point.
If someone called them complaining of your presence, and i"m assuming this is something you set up to prove your fallacious point, then you have to produce id...end of story. Your rights were not impeded on.
paragod666 1 year ago
@paragod666: He would NOT have been legally required to produce ID even if someone complained of his presence. (Hiibel v. Nevada) California (where this incident took place) does not HAVE a stop-and-ID law. (Kolender v. Lawson) So under suspicious circumstances, officers are only allowed to QUESTION the suspect. (Terry v. Ohio) Even if arrested, he does not have to produce ID; a thumbprint is sufficient for the booking process. (California law)
DavidForthoffer 1 year ago
Comment removed
paragod666 1 year ago
@paragod666: I don't quote Wikipedia. It has too many errors. I read the full text of the original opinions. I'll narrow the issue for you. If an officer stops a pedestrian, the pedestrian need not answer UNLESS the state has a stop-and-ID law AND that law requires reasonable and articulable suspicion of criminal involvement AND the officer actually HAS reasonable and articulable suspicion of criminal involvement. In THIS case, the officer had no such articulable suspicion.
DavidForthoffer 1 year ago
@paragod666: Quoting Brown v. Texas, referenced in one of my cites: "The application of Tex. Penal Code Ann., Tit. 8, 38.02 (1974), to detain appellant and require him to identify himself violated the Fourth Amendment because the officers lacked any reasonable suspicion to believe appellant was engaged or had engaged in criminal conduct. Accordingly, appellant may not be punished for refusing to identify himself, and the conviction is Reversed."
DavidForthoffer 1 year ago
@DavidForthoffer Give me the evening to read up on these cases. I haven't seen this one in quite a while so it's logical that I know it before I respond further.
paragod666 1 year ago
@paragod666: Thank you for your thoughtful response --- so rare on YouTube.
.
You may want to consider that California does not have a stop-and-ID law. It used to, as Penal Code 647(e), but that was ruled unconstitutional in Kolender v. Lawson, and later removed from the California code (with the former PC 647(f) becoming what is now 647(e)).
DavidForthoffer 1 year ago
@DavidForthoffer It seems probably cause and reasonable suspicion are the key to this issue of his 4th amendment rights being violated. It an officer does have reasonable suspicion a crime is taking place, he does have to right to question or detain him. Even in Terry, that is supported. In Hiibel, they do have to id themselves but not necessarily with a photo.
I do understand your argument though but, like I said, I dont trust these videos, especially when I know the cops.
paragod666 1 year ago
@paragod666: It is not enough for the officer to have a reasonable suspicion a crime is taking place. The officer must have reasonable suspicion that the person detained is involved in a past/present/future crime. Nothing in the video reveals a likelihood of any crime. So neither officer had enough for a Terry stop, much less searching him.
DavidForthoffer 1 year ago
@DavidForthoffer I ask myself, why would 3 cops show up at one time without a complaint to prompt them? This leads me to believe that someone called thereby providing probable cause to ask the guy to id himself.
I am able to see it from your perspective though, if he was randomly sought out, then they've done more than just violated his 4th Amendment, they'd be in violating the California Constitution as well. In fact, these guys would have been fired.
paragod666 1 year ago
@paragod666: It seems to me from the expanded description below this video that the police were leaving a man's house for a probation check. That seems to be why they were in the area, and that it had nothing to do with the videographer. I also think far more police violate people's constitutional rights than get fired. Did you know Los Angeles Internal Affairs has found that no LAPD officers have used excessive force, even including against Rodney King?
DavidForthoffer 1 year ago
@DavidForthoffer I cant agree with you insofar as police violating rights exceeds "good" arrests, at least not in my experience.
As far as the LAPD goes, I'm not affiliated with them, so I do not judge.
paragod666 1 year ago
@paragod666: I didn't make myself clear. I didn't mean that police violating rights exceeded "good" arrests. I meant that the number of police violating rights far exceeded the number of police who get fired. In other words, a policeman who violates a person's rights is unlikely to get fired.
.
I also suspect the number of constitutional stops and constitutional arrests exceeds the number of unconstitutional stops and arrests. I.e., most police behave well most of the time, I believe.
DavidForthoffer 1 year ago
@DavidForthoffer Thank you for claifying that. I am curious though how many DUI stops end up dismissed due to violating one's 4th Amendment protection?
This is very interesting when I think more into it.
paragod666 1 year ago
@paragod666: I suspect that a fair amount of DUI stops end up dismissed for 4th Amendment reasons, because those are serious enough that the defendent hires a lawyer. On the other hand, I suspect that approximately zero license/registration/insurance stops are dismissed for 4th Amendment reasons, because that is the kind of right that one must intelligently assert, and few drivers have the knowledge, skills, and time to assert it.
DavidForthoffer 1 year ago
@DavidForthoffer While I didn't read this case I would agree that if reasonable suspicion does not exist, then there's a problem. Imagine how many Blacks were arrested/tried/convicted/sentenced merely because of this profiling? I do understand and agree with the premise of your argument and appreciate that some Americans do stand up and question the laws and those who enforce them. Kuddos.
paragod666 1 year ago
@DavidForthoffer I didn't even hear a word about this video tape. Stockton is an area in which any civil rights violations wouldn't have gone unnoticed. So, like I said before, I truly believe there is much more to this situation than meets the eye.
To digress a bit, how to you think this will affect Arizona's immigration laws?
paragod666 1 year ago
@paragod666: I think this video will not affect Arizona's immigration laws. I am also happy that Judge Bolton stopped the part of SB1070 that allowed police to keep people in jail until they proved they were innocent of the crime of being an illegal alien.
DavidForthoffer 1 year ago
@DavidForthoffer I didn't mean for this vid to have any effect on Arizona's situation but I wanted to point out how Arizona's laws will be enforced.
I'm curious as to how the laws regarding homeland security will be affected as well. The Patriot Act as well. They all seem to border potential bill of rights violations.
This is a great conversation David, I appreciate it.
paragod666 1 year ago
@paragod666: As for the Patriot Act, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that its searches at international borders are "reasonable", and conversely, despite the Patriot Act authorizing unrestricted searches of vehicles or detentions within 100 miles of the border, all searches of vehicles or detentions away from borders and ports of entry must be based on probable cause or consent. United States v. Brignoni-Ponce
.
Other portions of the Patriot Act have also been found unconstitutional.
DavidForthoffer 1 year ago
@DavidForthoffer I'm not well versed on the Patriot Act but I'm sure I will as I begin my law studies this Sept. I hope you stick around to discuss, debate, and pick your brain a tad. You are very well versed on the law or have some darn good resources, I'm impressed. You're definitely not the "usual Youtuber"
paragod666 1 year ago
@paragod666: FYI, I have had a habit of attending traffic court trial sessions. 99+% of defendents have no clue how to defend themselves. They say things like, "I couldn't have been going that fast." The judge almost always believes the officer over the citizen. I have had some success myself fighting the legality of the speed limit, especially when radar is involved. But California lends itself to that, because the speed limit under 55 is not absolute.
.
P.S. I hope to be around for years.
DavidForthoffer 1 year ago
@DavidForthoffer Very interesting.....Yes, it's hard to beat a cop in court in many cases however, when human error can raise reasonable doubt or in your discussions, illegal stop, I'd agree it can be done.
I hope you're around as well. Our correspondence has been very educational, I thank you.
paragod666 1 year ago
@paragod666: "Reasonable doubt" is hardly ever an issue in minor traffic cases. Very often, traffic courts are presided over by commissioners or judges who are elected. It is very difficult to win an election without the backing of the local police organization. So they tend to resolve all issues of fact in the favor of the police. I would win by attacking the legality of the speed limits (for California Vehicle Code 22350).
DavidForthoffer 1 year ago
Comment removed
DavidForthoffer 1 year ago
@paragod666: When you attend law school, you may find that except for constitutional or federal law, they tend to teach common law. For example, "battery" in common law is "unwanted touching without consent or privilege", while in California it is "any willful and unlawful use of force or violence upon the person of another". When you pass the bar, you will be ill-suited for practicing law, but well-suited for quickly learning the law in your area of practice.
DavidForthoffer 1 year ago
@DavidForthoffer It's going to be pretty interesting as I change into that mode of thinking. I bought my first year books and have been digging into torts and it's all pretty interesting. I have a friend who's a deputy AG and I'm going to spend some time with him and learn what I can. Yes, the first year bar is supposedly a bitch but I'll be ready. I agree, learning in school is not learning how to do the job but, I'll have to tools at least. I plan to practice employment law.
paragod666 1 year ago
lol, with the thugs in this city it's amazing more of this shit isnt on the Internet.
Oh, esp now that SPD nailed a 16 year old escaped felon driving a stolen van running from the cops and backing up @ the officers. SPD shoots him and kills the thug.
Now SPD is the bad guy.
GuardianAngel5150 1 year ago
brillant video , love love love 3:06 !
Meant777 1 year ago
pigs always abuse the constitutional rights..typical..!
fleiva30 1 year ago
Favorited
ArrestAJudgeKit 1 year ago
Since you seem to have all the makings of a jailhouse lawyer, why don't you clean your act up, apply to a police department and start workin the streets to see what people will do. THEN, when you have seen this crap first hand, go to law school, become a REAL lawyer and apply the law to your experiences and do the math. But, if you get caught up in someone setting you up on video and get screwed, don't come crying to me.
MaBell37 1 year ago
Once they get to the questioning part, if the 'suspect' becomes uncooperative, they now have reasonable suspicion which needs to be satisfied. But again, WE DONT KNOW WHY THEY WERE THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE, which makes all other arguments moot, until that is revealed. It MAY be, that HE was guilty of something and just put the video up there to take a pot shot at police. Conversely, it MAY also be, that he didn't do shit, and they were fuckin up. Until the whole story is revealed, we don't know.
MaBell37 1 year ago
@MaBell37: "reasonable suspicion" in legal discussions is short for "reasonable and articulable suspicion of involvement in criminal activity". "Not cooperating" such as by exercising one's Fifth Amendment rights does not contribute to suspicion of criminal activity. The officer may be annoyed that her questions are not being answered, but officers should be trained to uphold the U.S. Constitution.
DavidForthoffer 1 year ago
And, as usual, you have COMPLETELY missed the issue. The issue IS whether they had a right to be there, as you put it, because it is the lead-in to any/all actions they choose to take from there, right/wrong or otherwise. If they had responded to a call they have the right to be there. If they didn't find their 'suspect' upon initial investigation, it then becomes time to look for the 'suspect' or witnesses. If they come across someone resembling their suspect, they have the right to question.
MaBell37 1 year ago
I have seen waaaay too many staged videos/stories where, a person INTENTIONALLY set events in motion to elicit a certain response from law enforcement, only to selectively video certain aspects OF that response to put them in a bad light. And then were later proven to have committed a crime(s). In the meantime, everyone persecuted the officers due to, at best, shoddy video(s) with a lack of what led up to the events that unfolded.
MaBell37 1 year ago
And, not for nothin? But, as long as y'all want to find fault with the officers and try to prove they were wrong, I will spend my time, defending them (even if they WERE wrong) simply because YOU weren't there (and neither was I) and this video does NOT, in any way/shape or form, prove anything, one way or another. Bring me more evidence, more video, and when it is PROVEN they were dickin' around, I'll gleefully jump on the bandwagon. Until that time, pfft.
MaBell37 1 year ago
The bottom line is, all of you arguing this, are quoting cases where a man was harrassed by officers, for no reason, and the officers had not just come from, or been called to, or saw this or that. They were simply screwin with someone because they could. In this situation, a search has already been done. For what? Drugs? Murderer? Rapist? Again, WE don't know why there were there or what dispatched calls they received.
MaBell37 1 year ago
@MaBell37 I believe it was a probation check?
zoso1234 1 year ago
Oh and, by the way? Since he DID admit to these officers coming from searching a man's apartment, I think this WELL establishes that they had sufficient reason for being there in the first place, though again, he doesn't provide us with whether that search was part of 'Hot Pursuit' or simply an 'unlawful search & seizure.' What we ALSO don't know is, where is this apt they just searched? 10 ft away or on the other side of the community? Think about it folks, it does NOT take a rocket scientist.
MaBell37 1 year ago
@MaBell37: In conclusion, your 8 consecutive posts did not suggest ANY reason why the police were there that would justify the police officer's behavior in this video. Then you twist the issue. The issue is NOT whether the police had a right to be there. The issue is NOT whether the police had a right to question him. The issue IS whether the police had a right to search him without his consent.
DavidForthoffer 1 year ago
Did this guy have something to hide and that's why he figured not talking to the cops at all would alleviate suspicion? Was he hiding aliens in his other pocket and didn't want the cops to find em? Who the hell knows. All we have is this VERY one sided video, that had OBVIOUSLY been edited. Why? WHO KNOWS. I presume guilt in situations like this specifically because I don't like others determining what is pertinent and what is not. Show me it all and let ME come to my own decision.
MaBell37 1 year ago
All of you can argue semantics all you want, but, until you know ALL of the circumstances behind what happened here, every arguement is subjective, including mine. This video is too conveniently edited to show the worst possible scenario. How do we know that there weren't 50 Officers who showed up to that area due to gang violance, or a murder/rape? How do we know that they weren;t simply canvassing the neighborhood. They just came from searching a man's apartment? Why? What did search for?
MaBell37 1 year ago
It really is fruitless to come up with all these stupid inane arguements, as I have already said once before, as we don't know the whole story to this. Again, this video shows specific parts of the incident with no video evidence of what led UP to this incident. And, just because this guy SAYS he was on his private property doesn't make it so. Additionally, AGAIN, we don't know why the officers were there in the first place.
MaBell37 1 year ago
"It has long been settled that the Fourth Amendment prohibits the seizure and detention or search of an individual's person unless there is probable cause to believe that he has committed a crime."
Well, no. The police CAN seize a person without even a suspicion of a crime, in certain cases. United States v. Martinez-Fuerte
DavidForthoffer 1 year ago
If you had been sociable and neighborly instead of trying to be a badass, maybe they would have left you alone. Remember, their first words were "Howdy," not "show me your papers." You're just another punk looking for a problem, so you found one.
mrtmoose 1 year ago
MaBell, I beg to differ. Crime or not, if they have probable cause they will certainly be able to provide you with it. "you fit the description." I'm sorry, if the police show up at my door and ask me for ID, if they cannot provide me with sufficient probable cause I'm slamming the door in their face. Just because you have nothing to hide that does not give them the right to poll every single person in that complex. There WAS no probable cause.
Jasmer1996 1 year ago
And, just for shits and grins...what was the big problem with identifying yourself to an officer anyway? The private and personal questions they asked you were to establish who you were and asking for ID confirms what you tell them. The catch is, if you told them truthful information to begin with.
MaBell37 1 year ago
Ok, this is just plain dumb. Not gonna bother quoting cases, you use them out of context anyway. Do YOU know why THEY were there? No. Do YOU know if THEY had probable cause to question people who MAY have fit a description of someone who DID commit a crime? No. That, really, should be, 'nuff said.
Next time, submit something with BOTH sides of a story, not just yours.
MaBell37 1 year ago
@MaBell37: It does not matter whether why the police were there. California has no law requiring a person (not driving a vehicle) to show ID. The police may have had the right to question him, but they did not have the right to punish him for not answering.
DavidForthoffer 1 year ago
@DavidForthoffer Actually, California just HAPPENS to be where I worked as a police officer when I got out of the Marine Corps. And yes, they actually DO have a law, requiring citizens to properly identify themselves to a police officer if asked to establish residency/reason for being where they are. Commonly referred to as 'Stop and Identify' police officers have the right to question people, especially in close proximity to a known crime scene.
MaBell37 1 year ago
@MaBell37: Since you worked as a police officer in California, I am surprised you were not able to cite the actual law.
Maybe you were an officer long ago when Penal Code 647(e) said that. But 647(e) was found unconstitutional in 1983. Kolender v. Lawson (Now 647(e) is what used to be 647(f).
DavidForthoffer 1 year ago
@DavidForthoffer Further, let's not forget (again) that a KNOWN crime had occurred, and when the police do not have an opportunity to have 'eyes-on' they only have a description to go off of, it is their responsibility, nay, DUTY to question any and all persons resembling (however closely) the description given. A person being so question, only arouses more suspicion when they refuse to cooperate. It's a simple concept, just cooperate and let them figure out for themselves who you are.
MaBell37 1 year ago
@MaBell37: You are mistaking a duty to QUESTION with a duty to PUNISH for not cooperating. People have a RIGHT to not cooperate, in most cases, including this. At worst, they need only identify themselves, which does not require an ID card. It is certainly not suspicious of any criminal behavior for a person to not respond to, "Howdy." Not cooperating cannot be legally be construed as probable cause of criminal behavior.
DavidForthoffer 1 year ago
@DavidForthoffer And one MORE thing. It became READILY obvious to me that the people in that area (not only because of experience) were not exactly model citizens to begin with, so, their lack of cooperation for a speedy resolution to the investigation only makes themselves look worse with every resistance to cooperation they displayed. And yes, it DOES matter why the police were there, most especially if they were responding to a call. C'mon folks, you can't POSSIBLY be THAT stupid.
MaBell37 1 year ago
@MaBell37: Can you hypothesize ANY reason why the police were there that would justify the police officer's behavior shown in this video?
DavidForthoffer 1 year ago
@DavidForthoffer It really is fruitless to come up with all these stupid inane arguements, as I have already said once before, as we don't know the whole story to this. Again, this video shows specific parts of the incident with no video evidence of what led UP to this incident. And, just because this guy SAYS he was on his private property doesn't make it so. Additionally, AGAIN, we don't know why the officers were there in the first place.
MaBell37 1 year ago
keep up the good work man
AnarchistActivist 1 year ago
all you had to do was answer them in the first place. you were suspect from the get go cause you were acting suspicious. all you people cry about police brutality until you need them. then you wonder why they don't want to come and help. profiling works. how else are you supposed to do it. Mexican gangs usually don't have white and black people. is that profiling? no it is common sense dip shit!!! maybe if you assholes got jobs and stopped creeping around at night outside of apt complexes.
jetdr 1 year ago
The fact that you can pick any random night for this to record shows how biggist police are
tigab37 1 year ago
"Land of unlimited freedom". My ass.
s4m112211 1 year ago
PC 830.10 says:
Anyuniformed peace officer shall wear a badge,nameplate or other device which bears clearly on it's face the information number or the name of the officer...
What I don't undestand, is you want them to identify them selfs , but you wont.... I guess do what I say not as I do...
rob31449 1 year ago
Hey, street lawyer. When they say "Hello, what's up?" Thats called a casual contact. When you started to act like a fool and being a shit head. It went to a detention. To figure out who you are... There is a saying " Sometimes knowing too much is a dangerous thing".. In you case it's a true STATEMENT...
rob31449 1 year ago
ok, 1st amendment right to free speach NOT VIOLATED. 4th Amendment search and seizure NOT VIOLATED. And the 5th Amendment self incrimating statements .. NOT VIOLATED..
You are a full blown IDOT.. You need to use all that energy and clean you funky ass apt.. Handcuffs are not built for comfort... You really showed your IGNORANCE... Do yourself a favor, stay in school get all the HELP you can . Cuz , buddy you need it.......
rob31449 1 year ago
it's not CLETS . CLETS is for stolen prop...
rob31449 1 year ago
your a dip shit... theres no 4th adm violation
rob31449 1 year ago
thanks for copwatching :)
salers2 1 year ago
Dude had a Camera ON , then went OUT OF HIS WAY to attract police attention. This guys INTENT was to get the cops attention, that's not profiling...the only thing he "exposed" was his OWN dumb ass.
We live in a polite society and when someone offers a greeting and cop or not, you return it.
That's an apt. complex and some dude is trying to AVOID contact???? Even if I just lived there as a person I'd be suspicious, as a cop I want to know what this guy is hiding, Which BTW, IS PC for a stop.
tubesteakdynamo 1 year ago
you have to show an officer your ID... that is law...Their are a few question you must answer an officer, and that is where you live and any personal information about yourself. You were not cooperating so he took you in. Please be aware of your rights before posting stupid vids. To him it might of been suspicious that you would not answer him. I hate pigs as much as the next person, but if your gonna try to do stuff like this, do it right.
Deathy666x 1 year ago
no moron you don't have to tell the cop shit unless you are being investigated for committing or are in the act of committing a crime. know your rights before you speak.
macchef01 1 year ago 2
Since 9/11 It is illegal to not have government ID on you at all times, an officer has the right to check your ID at any time for no reason. Furthermore these 3 questions are the only ones you are legally obligated to answer:
What is your name?
Where do you live?
Have you got any identification?
YOU ARE WRONG, im a fucking law major, so go do some research and go fuck yourself. i know my rights mother fucker
Deathy666x 1 year ago
So next time you wanna type a comment make sure you know wtf your talking about asshole
Deathy666x 1 year ago
@macchef01, Though there is no current law requiring citizens to carry Identification, You MUST however PROVIDE ID to the police when asked, that IS the law. I can arrest you print you and hold you for 24 hours or until you are identified. BUT, this is only after you've put yourself in the position to draw my attention. I can just walk up to someone out of the blue and say cough up your ID, but THIS guy in the vid was out LOOKING for cops, his camera was on and his GOAL was to get stopped.
tubesteakdynamo 1 year ago
@macchef01 You don't have to say nothing at all. You can ask for your lawyer or public defender then shut up.
cursivedragon 1 year ago
@macchef01 funny how you yourself dont even know the law.
You dont need to say ANYTHING to a police officer. EVER.
Know YOUR rights before you speak.
tronclay 1 year ago