Cop Lands Helicopter To Harass Woman.

[Purlina]

They don't know who you are, you could be a kidnapper with an outstanding warrant, a parole violator, someone helping the fugitive evade arrest, or just simply an ordinary woman picking up rocks. Being cooperative while asserting your rights is just being courteous.

I don't see why that's relevant. A kidnapper is not going to identify himself as a kidnapper...

[Tinykong]

I don't see why that's relevant. A kidnapper is not going to identify himself as a kidnapper...

No, but lots of felons/fugitives have been picked up by cops checking people's names. The police aren't collecting your name and information for some super secret database to track your movements, they are checking to make sure you don't have a warrant.

[Grizzly Willy]

What if she just burried a body?

"What if" isn't enough to justify an action.

[xylophone]

Personally, I just see it as overkill. Haven't had a chance to watch vid with audio. Does he start to search her, she says something, then he stops? Or does he just finish going through her stuff?

[braxx]

A cop doing his job obviously. And I don't see why the woman did not let him search her if she had nothing that would make her being arrested. An helicopter landing for a cop to question you must feel weird but...
Nothing to see here, move along kids.

[Tinykong]

A cop doing his job obviously. And I don't see why the woman did not let him search her if she had nothing that would make her being arrested. An helicopter landing for a cop to question you must feel weird but...
Nothing to see here, move along kids.

Letting the police search you is a little unreasonable, imo, giving them your name and why you are in a certain place isn't.

[xylophone]

A cop doing his job obviously. And I don't see why the woman did not let him search her if she had nothing that would make her being arrested. An helicopter landing for a cop to question you must feel weird but...
Nothing to see here, move along kids.

Do you approve of the Patriot Act by chance?

[smelltheglove]

A cop doing his job obviously. And I don't see why the woman did not let him search her if she had nothing that would make her being arrested. An helicopter landing for a cop to question you must feel weird but...
Nothing to see here, move along kids.

ever heard of the 4th amendment?

[Deleted]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ma...ino_County.svg

I don't think you searched very well. It is more then just a few kilometers.

Fair enough, still I don't see the deal. So he saw someone in the desert and wanted to check their id. Big deal... seriously, sometimes people treat the minor things like it's the end of the world and then you ignore true breaches in your liberties, like CISPA.

[braxx]

Do you approve of the Patriot Act by chance?

No I don't think I do, but I don't know much about it and there is enough problems in my country to be occupied all day already.
But a little serious here please. Playing the law like a criminal attorney is a rather stupid thing to do, let the cop do his job. And picking on a simple cop for the comfort of the argument is silly.

[Deleted]

Damnit that guy looks like he couldn't hurt a fly and YET or maybe because of that the women shows absolutely no respect and even makes this video public. I don't really know how it is elsewhere but where I live people have respect before the police. And if they want something while being serious and not unreasonable offensive (asking questions and taking a look in your belongings in the middle of nowhere while being filmed is NOT offensive) it would be just rude to play the "being equal and trying how far I get respected"-card. It doesn't matter what the cop was doing there in the sky but obviously he did not land because he wanted to touch some unknown (often creamtainted :x) bag of some random women. She wanted attention. She got it. He was a harmless, weak guy and because of that his video is now online. He should have taken the cam. He should have been more scary. He should have played the position he was in yet he stayed polite correct or even lacked in being correct in a positive way.

Interesting. Humans are all the same and all equal. And in the depths he laughs.

[xylophone]

No I don't think I do, but I don't know much about it and there is enough problems in my country to be occupied all day already.
But a little serious here please. Playing the law like a criminal attorney is a rather stupid thing to do, let the cop do his job. And picking on a simple cop for the comfort of the argument is silly.

I would never be deliberately antagonistic towards a cop, but I wouldn't consent to a search either.

[Sayl]

You are also jumping to all of these conclusions based on a video that tells us nothing about the situation.

This indeed seems to be the repeating pattern.

Looking beyond the same points that keep getting rehashed as the thread progresses, what I'd like to know is this: ultimately, what's the purpose of the thread or the direction of its discussion? While emphasizing that I'm no constitutional scholar, I don't see anything egregious in this incident -- again, bearing in mind we don't know the whole story. But let's say I'm completely off-base just for the sake of argument, and let's explore the worst-case scenario that her rights were violated. Then what? Are we to alert the ACLU? Organize a protest or start a petition? Is there an actual legal argument to be presented or a specific demand for reform?

Seriously, what's the next step, and why?

Merely saying "OMG look what this cop did!" when nobody was hurt or arrested or even handcuffed... well, doesn't make for much of a conversation.

[Porcell]

Merely saying "OMG look what this cop did!" when nobody was hurt or arrested or even handcuffed... well, doesn't make for much of a conversation.

So far this has made for quite the conversation, where we can explore what our rights are as American citizens, and what kind of police actions might violate those rights. Maybe someone in this thread grew up with the "I have to tell the police everything and answer their questions" mentality, and maybe they've read one of mine (or others) posts and been informed that you do have a right to privacy, you do have a right against unlawful searches and seizures (4th Amendmend), and that you do NOT have to identify yourself to the police just because they act.

I would call that very worthy of discussion.



Everyone should watch this video.

[Sayl]

So far this has made for quite the conversation, where we can explore what our rights are as American citizens, and what kind of police actions might violate those rights. Maybe someone in this thread grew up with the "I have to tell the police everything and answer their questions" mentality, and maybe they've read one of mine (or others) posts and been informed that you do have a right to privacy, you do have a right against unlawful searches and seizures (4th Amendmend), and that you do NOT have to identify yourself to the police just because they act.

I would call that very worthy of discussion.

Let's not sugar-coat it too much. My point was that we were presented with incomplete information that was framed in a misleading way, and for the nth time many participants only jumped in to post ill-formed conclusions as a result instead of even trying to view the situation objectively.

Of course knowing your rights is of paramount importance. There's a difference however between knowing your rights and being unnecessarily hostile to the police. I get the distinct impression that a number of people on this forum are more interested in how to achieve the latter than understand the former.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc

Everyone should watch this video.

It's been linked so frequently on this forum that I'd be surprised if anyone hasn't seen it.

[Tinykong]

So far this has made for quite the conversation, where we can explore what our rights are as American citizens, and what kind of police actions might violate those rights. Maybe someone in this thread grew up with the "I have to tell the police everything and answer their questions" mentality, and maybe they've read one of mine (or others) posts and been informed that you do have a right to privacy, you do have a right against unlawful searches and seizures (4th Amendmend), and that you do NOT have to identify yourself to the police just because they act.

I would call that very worthy of discussion.

snip

Everyone should watch this video.

The Supreme Court has upheld that State laws that require people to give the police their name and ID are not a violation of the 4th amendment. Unless you are absolutely sure, it would be unwise to refuse their demand for your name and or ID. Even if you aren't required to give it, you could still be arrested and have to put up with having your night ruined.

[lockedout]

The Supreme Court has upheld that State laws that require people to give the police their name and ID are not a violation of the 4th amendment. Unless you are absolutely sure, it would be unwise to refuse their demand for your name and or ID. Even if you aren't required to give it, you could still be arrested and have to put up with having your night ruined.

Different states have different vagrancy laws. However if you are not suspected of committing a crime you don't have to answer any questions and should not be detained. You would have to be charged with a crime to be arrested which means they would have to lie. I'm not saying this doesn't happen. If more people were aware of their rights and exercised them police wouldn't be able to get away with what they do. They are trained to use any information they get from you against you.

[Tinykong]

Different states have different vagrancy laws. However if you are not suspected of committing a crime you don't have to answer any questions and should not be detained. You would have to be charged with a crime to be arrested which means they would have to lie. I'm not saying this doesn't happen. If more people were aware of their rights and exercised them police wouldn't be able to get away with what they do. They are trained to use any information they get from you against you.

As I said, some states it is illegal to not provide your name to police, I believe the charge is obstruction of justice without violence. Even in states where it's not illegal, you could still be arrested (illegally) and who wants to deal with that? I sure don't. I'm not letting them search me, but I'll give them my name and be courteous.

[lockedout]

As I said, some states it is illegal to not provide your name to police, I believe the charge is obstruction of justice without violence. Even in states where it's not illegal, you could still be arrested (illegally) and who wants to deal with that? I sure don't. I'm not letting them search me, but I'll give them my name and be courteous.

There is no state where you have to provide your name to police if you aren't committing a crime. Some states require you to carry ID but you only have to present the ID if you are being detained for a crime. Otherwise I have to show a cop my ID as much as I would have to show it to you if you asked me.

[Tinykong]

There is no state where you have to provide your name to police if you aren't committing a crime. Some states require you to carry ID but you only have to present the ID if you are being detained for a crime. Otherwise I have to show a cop my ID as much as I would have to show it to you if you asked me.

You might want to brush up:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_identify_statutes

First one in the list:
http://law.justia.com/codes/alabama/...4/15-5-30.html

Obviously, you can fight the law by calling in to question the cop's reasoning for thinking you were/might/did commit a crime, but I'll say again, is spending even a few hours at a police station while they sort things out worth it just to prove a point about your rights? My time is certainly more valuable, which is why I'll be happy to identify myself, and assert my other rights.