Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Kens 5 San Antonio)   Criminal justice major at bus stop videos police running a speed trap and posts to Facebook: "This is where your tax dollars are going, hard police work." Yes, that's an arresting   (kens5.com) divider line 116
    More: Asinine, San Antonio Police Department, Caught on Camera, Facebook, Let Me See, UTSA  
•       •       •

10057 clicks; posted to Main » on 01 Mar 2014 at 6:04 PM (52 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



116 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-03-01 07:09:45 PM  

jigger: Vangor: Thought this was relevant as well: Video of the initial altercation to remove the bike.

Hmm, well, the cop wasn't being too much of an ass at first and the recorder was. My real problem with the thing is when he says, "I'm ASKING you." Of course he's not just asking. It's not a request. Cops at least need to be honest about what they're doing.


Unfortunately it's all about the right words. What you do in that case is say "I understand, but no. If that's an order, I will." They can't get in trouble for asking you something they're not legally allowed to ask, but they can get in trouble for ordering you to do something they're not allowed to order (if you can make it stick).

Also, when filming police with a cell phone, have a dummy SD card inside your phone between the battery and battery cover, and immediately offer to turn that in if they want your phone ("Dude, just take the memory card, the phone is expensive"). Better yet, you can get good video off a deactivated phone from 2010-ish, and those go on ebay for $10.

/helped document occupy
//not sure why police brutality isn't prosecuted even when there are multiple videos from independent sources
//be polite, be efficient, have a plan to kiss everyone you meet
 
433 [TotalFark]
2014-03-01 07:15:35 PM  
"I've never been so dehumanized in my life."

Yeah, you should read what people are saying about you on the internet.  Also, are you hot?
 
2014-03-01 07:20:07 PM  

redmid17: Bit'O'Gristle: She was trolling them while they were making money for the state, and obviously they reacted just like she wanted them to. She was probably hoping they would beat her ass so she could cash in. In America, the police can film you, and thats legal, but if you film them, its wiretapping.

/Welcome to America, the home of the eroding freedoms.

Someone tell that to the DoJ.

http://images.politico.com/global/2013/03/08/garcia_doj_soi_03-04-13 .h tml


Came in to say that has already been addressed, but you did just fine there.

Unfortunately some police departments such as the Baltimore City PD haven't got the memo.

Even after the federal districts, Supreme Court, and DOJ said...hey, about that memo.

Still continues...
 
2014-03-01 07:22:27 PM  

Marcellinus: redmid17: Bit'O'Gristle: She was trolling them while they were making money for the state, and obviously they reacted just like she wanted them to. She was probably hoping they would beat her ass so she could cash in. In America, the police can film you, and thats legal, but if you film them, its wiretapping.

/Welcome to America, the home of the eroding freedoms.

Someone tell that to the DoJ.

http://images.politico.com/global/2013/03/08/garcia_doj_soi_03-04-13 .h tml

Came in to say that has already been addressed, but you did just fine there.

Unfortunately some police departments such as the Baltimore City PD haven't got the memo.

Even after the federal districts, Supreme Court, and DOJ said...hey, about that memo.

Still continues...


Yeah it took forever for that law to get overturned in IL, and cops were still harassing people who did it after the fact.
 
2014-03-01 07:22:56 PM  
She needs to go to jail for filming vertically with her phone. Turn the goddam thing to landscape, people. Haven't you ever SEEN a television?
 
2014-03-01 07:25:20 PM  

Gothnet: "Ikhinmwin was issued two citations at the scene: failure to obey a police officer and impeding traffic."

Failure to obey a police officer? Why is even a thing? WTF America?


Aggravated Being Black in Texas.
 
2014-03-01 07:26:13 PM  

Vangor: Thought this was relevant as well: Video of the initial altercation to remove the bike.

Not siding with police, as indicated in my above comment, but she was asked to remove the bike in previous days, now asked again, and gives a stupid excuse of not wanting to get her tires dirty (except one of them is in the dirt where she is standing) before being threatened with a citation and continuing to refuse, then being threatened with having her bike impounded and continuing to refuse.


"Where would I move it? This is extremely dirty; I'm trying to keep my tires clean."

OK, the fact that he didn't smack her right then shows extreme restraint on the cop's part.
 
2014-03-01 07:26:52 PM  

King Something: cgremlin: MylesHeartVodak: All that we are missing is a bicycle thread, beer snob thread, and another NY pizza vs Chicago style thread.  Maybe a hot sauce thread too.

And of course a "ketchup on hot dogs" thread.

We'd also need an "Evolution vs Intelligent Design" thread, a "put the toilet paper over vs put the toilet paper under" thread, and a "PC Master Race vs Console Peasants" thread before we can call it a day.


We need to tack on a circumsicion thread too.
 
2014-03-01 07:28:13 PM  

spiritplumber: //not sure why police brutality isn't prosecuted even when there are multiple videos from independent sources


Because they're effectively above the law? Even if by some miracle they are prosecuted the judge will let them off with some line of bullshiat.
 
2014-03-01 07:29:07 PM  

Gothnet: "Ikhinmwin was issued two citations at the scene: failure to obey a police officer and impeding traffic."

Failure to obey a police officer? Why is even a thing? WTF America?


Cops are authorized to give people orders to protect public safety. Orders like, "move your bike out of the road; it's blocking traffic." You have to obey them. They can't just order you around for no reason, but they can make you not act like a farking moron if you're endangering other people. If you think they've exceeded their authority, you can sue.
 
2014-03-01 07:32:59 PM  
 
2014-03-01 07:33:00 PM  

cgremlin: MylesHeartVodak: All that we are missing is a bicycle thread, beer snob thread, and another NY pizza vs Chicago style thread.  Maybe a hot sauce thread too.

And of course a "ketchup on hot dogs" thread.


Actually, we never had the "I own that parking space after clearing away all the snow" thread.

I was really looking forward to all the city Farkers bellyaching about the "literally hours of backbreaking labor" it took them to shovel out a space slightly larger than a car.
 
2014-03-01 07:33:57 PM  

Agent Smiths Laugh: Mark Ratner: Serves her right for interfering with police work. LET THEM DO THERE JOB! :-/

Okay Trollsy, explain to how exactly how she was interfering with his duties.


She kept distracting him with that sweet rack?
 
2014-03-01 07:37:34 PM  
Never interfere with ruling class revenue generation. Just sayin'.
 
2014-03-01 07:39:38 PM  

doloresonthedottedline: MylesHeartVodak: Oh jeez.  Two Ukraine threads, a knife thread turned into a gun thread, Caturday, and now the mandatory anti-cop thread.  All that we are missing is a bicycle thread, beer snob thread, and another NY pizza vs Chicago style thread.  Maybe a hot sauce thread too.

There was a paleo thread with some fat hating last night, too.


"Fat hating"?? The discussion was whether someone could be eating a reasonably low number of calories over twenty years and still be overweight enough to cause a doctor to recommend weight loss surgery.

It wasn't about hating anyone; it was about reality vs. Imaginary physics.

If you care about someone, don't buy into (let alone promote) a false and impossible delusion that is killing them.
 
2014-03-01 07:41:15 PM  

Hobodeluxe: Sanguine Dawn: The way I read that, it seems like she was trolling the cops to harrass her for the static she was giving them with violating the speed limit. Cops did what cops do when their authority is questioned, they extend the full force of the "law" whereby nearly any innocuous action is justification for a police encounter. Rest assured, when this intentional encounter occurs, they will be the one to amp up the tension to a dramatic level, usually by a show of force through arms. Especially when there's a large group of people nearby. While this officer is intentionally instigating an encounter they can justify their escalation of the level of violence based on the size (and likely, ethnicity) of the crowd nearby and then use the presence of the weapon to intimidate the person with whom they are instigating this encounter. This is to say, police officers will intentionally threaten a large group of people with weapons to justify their presence to someone by whom they are disrespected. This is criminal behavior that is covered by a corrupt union and a system intentionally designed to cover up this corruption and make actual consequences for the officers in-question disappear.

not so much the union as the dept's liability insurance. you can get rid of bad cops. unions aren't covering this stuff with bogus Internal Affairs "investigations".


Um, there is no insurance for most intentional torts like police misconduct or civil rights claims. And the city (i.e., taxpayers) pay the judgments and settlements, not the actual departments. The cops themselves have qualified immunity for lawsuits; and even if the immunity is pierced, most cities still have to pay the cops' judgements under local law. And there lies the problem, no actual fear of lawsuit by the rank and file cop. On the other hand, lame-brained politicos pay off the bogus claims as soon as the Jesse Jackson types show up, just to make the bad PR go away. And there are a lot of bogus claims.

For the record, I have worked both sides of police litigation.
 
2014-03-01 07:44:36 PM  

StanTheMan: The time to mess with cops is not in the field. It is with Internal Affairs and lawsuits.


The time for the police to mess with me (or anyone else) is not in the "field".  It is through the court system after quickly, properly, politely and professionally issuing a summons.
 
2014-03-01 07:46:01 PM  

StanTheMan: Hobodeluxe: Sanguine Dawn: The way I read that, it seems like she was trolling the cops to harrass her for the static she was giving them with violating the speed limit. Cops did what cops do when their authority is questioned, they extend the full force of the "law" whereby nearly any innocuous action is justification for a police encounter. Rest assured, when this intentional encounter occurs, they will be the one to amp up the tension to a dramatic level, usually by a show of force through arms. Especially when there's a large group of people nearby. While this officer is intentionally instigating an encounter they can justify their escalation of the level of violence based on the size (and likely, ethnicity) of the crowd nearby and then use the presence of the weapon to intimidate the person with whom they are instigating this encounter. This is to say, police officers will intentionally threaten a large group of people with weapons to justify their presence to someone by whom they are disrespected. This is criminal behavior that is covered by a corrupt union and a system intentionally designed to cover up this corruption and make actual consequences for the officers in-question disappear.

not so much the union as the dept's liability insurance. you can get rid of bad cops. unions aren't covering this stuff with bogus Internal Affairs "investigations".

Um, there is no insurance for most intentional torts like police misconduct or civil rights claims. And the city (i.e., taxpayers) pay the judgments and settlements, not the actual departments. The cops themselves have qualified immunity for lawsuits; and even if the immunity is pierced, most cities still have to pay the cops' judgements under local law. And there lies the problem, no actual fear of lawsuit by the rank and file cop. On the other hand, lame-brained politicos pay off the bogus claims as soon as the Jesse Jackson types show up, just to make the bad PR go away. And there are a lot of bogus claims.

...


I always felt like city attorneys could more or less be replaced with little white flags and magic 8 balls that provide "public uses" for eminent domain  Maybe you could put the flags and eight ball together in a swivel chair for the complete effect
 
2014-03-01 07:47:30 PM  

mbillips: Cops are authorized to give people orders to protect public safety. Orders like, "move your bike out of the road; it's blocking traffic." You have to obey them. They can't just order you around for no reason, but they can make you not act like a farking moron if you're endangering other people. If you think they've exceeded their authority, you can sue.


Then she should get charged with whatever the issue was (blocking traffic) not for her failure to obey a cop, surely?

It just seems authoritarian and crazy.
 
2014-03-01 07:48:45 PM  
redmid17:Someone tell that to the DoJ.

http://images.politico.com/global/2013/03/08/garcia_doj_soi_03-04-13 .h tml


"The United States is concerned that discretionary charges, such as disorderly conduct, loitering, disturbing the peace, and resisting arrest, are all too easily used to curtail expressive conduct or retaliate against individuals for exercising their First Amendment rights. The United States believes that courts should view such charges skeptically to ensure that individuals' First Amendment rights are protected. Core First Amendment conduct, such as recording a police officer performing duties on a public street, cannot be the sole basis for such charges."

AMEN to that.
 
2014-03-01 07:48:51 PM  

jigger: Vangor: Thought this was relevant as well: Video of the initial altercation to remove the bike.

Not siding with police, as indicated in my above comment, but she was asked to remove the bike in previous days, now asked again, and gives a stupid excuse of not wanting to get her tires dirty (except one of them is in the dirt where she is standing) before being threatened with a citation and continuing to refuse, then being threatened with having her bike impounded and continuing to refuse.

Hmm, well, the cop wasn't being too much of an ass at first and the recorder was. My real problem with the thing is when he says, "I'm ASKING you." Of course he's not just asking. It's not a request. Cops at least need to be honest about what they're doing.


Honestly it ain't never gonna happen!

Honesty is the first casualty of becoming a cop!!

Without lies, hypocrisy, deception, and dishonesty in general cops would have nothing to do!!!
 
2014-03-01 07:51:25 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: Vangor: Um... not a criminal justice major, but being she was simply given two citations, and being she is from Texas in particular, would not Brown v. Texas say she cannot be arrested for failure to produce identification without reasonable cause to her committing a criminal act?

A cop can't just go up and ask for ID.  But if he's writing you a ticket for something, even a minor thing like jay walking, he can THEN ask you for an ID to confirm your identity.


Mostly false. A cop can ask for ID during a "Terry stop" (Terry v. Ohio). If you're standing around a car at 3AM in a high crime neighborhood with lots of break-ins, a cop can ask you for ID and FI you. Or stop your car if you are weaving, even if it doesn't constitute a traffic violation. That is far short of the probable cause needed for an arrest or citation. There is a third state of being between "under arrest" and "free to go." (it's called reasonable suspicion). See, Hiibel v. Nevada
 
2014-03-01 07:52:56 PM  
i have an indoor/outdoor cat, but it's so cold she's been spending a lot of time indoors and now I noticed she's making a mess of some of the furniture. I'm thinking she's needs declawed.
 
2014-03-01 07:55:19 PM  

pedrop357: StanTheMan: The time to mess with cops is not in the field. It is with Internal Affairs and lawsuits.

The time for the police to mess with me (or anyone else) is not in the "field".  It is through the court system after quickly, properly, politely and professionally issuing a summons.


Great, but if the police don't act that way, I hope you enjoy pepper spray and a jail cell if you challenge their authority. And lawsuits and complaints against cops always go better for the plaintiff when he has been courteous and respectful. Ask me how I know.
 
2014-03-01 07:56:11 PM  

OregonVet: i have an indoor/outdoor cat, but it's so cold she's been spending a lot of time indoors and now I noticed she's making a mess of some of the furniture. I'm thinking she's needs declawed.


Just don't let somebody with a criminal justice degree do it. They'll screw it up and get ketchup all over the hotdogs.
 
2014-03-01 08:02:59 PM  
She was standing in the way of their radar gun when they were trying to catch criminals, interference with official acts.
She did not lick his boots immediately upon his approach, resisting arrest.
She is Nigerian, Terrorist acts.
She was filming him when he wasn't doing anything wrong, wire tapping.

They had lots of reasons to pull her in an keep her there!
 
2014-03-01 08:15:07 PM  
Criminal justice major at bus stop videos police

marriagelifeministries.org

/ welcome to Smartass/Dumbass - Population: YOU
 
2014-03-01 08:16:48 PM  
Why I support Photography is not a crime.com
 
2014-03-01 08:22:38 PM  
Fat white cop?  Check.
Brown victim?  Check.

Did anyone else notice the tattoos on the cop's arm?

media.screened.com

I guess skinheads all gotta get real jobs someday, right?
 
2014-03-01 08:29:19 PM  

NephilimNexus: Fat white cop?  Check.
Brown victim?  Check.

Did anyone else notice the tattoos on the cop's arm?

[media.screened.com image 600x357]

I guess skinheads all gotta get real jobs someday, right?


Cop looked and sounded Hispanic to me.
 
2014-03-01 08:36:05 PM  

Vangor: Um... not a criminal justice major, but being she was simply given two citations, and being she is from Texas in particular, would not Brown v. Texas say she cannot be arrested for failure to produce identification without reasonable cause to her committing a criminal act?


Happened about a week ago in Austin to a jogger who couldn't hear the police telling her to stop because she had earbuds in.
http://www.dailytexanonline.com/news/2014/02/20/woman-arrested-on-24 th -street-after-crossing-intersection
 
433 [TotalFark]
2014-03-01 08:43:31 PM  

santadog: Happened about a week ago in Austin to a jogger who couldn't hear the police telling her to stop because she had earbuds in.
http://www.dailytexanonline.com/news/2014/02/20/woman-arrested-on-24 th -street-after-crossing-intersection


I had not read that she was wearing headphones until now.  It does not excuse her behavior, but it does allow me to have some benefit of the doubt in regard to her confusion.  The following tantrum, still unnecessary.
 
2014-03-01 09:02:14 PM  
Sounds like if she'd just moved her damn bike off the road like the cop had asked there wouldn't be a problem. Instead, she continues to antagonize and argue with the officer. Even when she's arguing with him you can see her bike is still half on the road. She refused to give ID, which, given the fact she was breaking the law repeatedly in front of the police, was a legitimate request. At what point am I supposed to be outraged here?
 
2014-03-01 09:04:32 PM  

fusillade762: Sounds like she certainly learned a bit about criminal "justice" that day.

[i2.kym-cdn.com image 680x530]


Shouldn't that say. "You Turn off that Camera"?
 
2014-03-01 09:07:55 PM  

Gyrfalcon: That would be my first reaction. He had cited her for the infraction (the bike blocking the sidewalk), so I suppose it MIGHT fall into the Hiibel restriction. (If there is PC, you do in fact have to show ID


Nothing in the Hiibel decision requires you to either have or show identification.  It only requires you to give your name, and only if your state has a stop and identify statute.  At that point, if you want to be an obstructionist, you can ask to be represented by a lawyer, which may or may not get you tazed.
 
2014-03-01 09:09:32 PM  

Turfshoe: Abie Kyle Ikhinmwin?

How much is that worth in scrabble?

/trick question
//not really


I challenge.  No proper nouns.
 
2014-03-01 09:09:53 PM  

StanTheMan: pedrop357: StanTheMan: The time to mess with cops is not in the field. It is with Internal Affairs and lawsuits.

The time for the police to mess with me (or anyone else) is not in the "field".  It is through the court system after quickly, properly, politely and professionally issuing a summons.

Great, but if the police don't act that way, I hope you enjoy pepper spray and a jail cell if you challenge their authority. And lawsuits and complaints against cops always go better for the plaintiff when he has been courteous and respectful. Ask me how I know.


Great, but if I don't tolerate that, they won't enjoy my response.  I don't worry about lawsuits and complaints when defending against assaults, nor do I think people should be courteous and/or respectful to persons trying to harm them.
 
2014-03-01 09:12:58 PM  

mrlewish: They need cop cops who's only job is it watch and investigate/arrest other cops..  Maybe Purple lights and bigger guns.


And they should get the better uniforms. Some real Victorian stuff with lots of braid and silver buttons.
 
2014-03-01 09:15:23 PM  

pedrop357: StanTheMan: pedrop357: StanTheMan: The time to mess with cops is not in the field. It is with Internal Affairs and lawsuits.

The time for the police to mess with me (or anyone else) is not in the "field".  It is through the court system after quickly, properly, politely and professionally issuing a summons.

Great, but if the police don't act that way, I hope you enjoy pepper spray and a jail cell if you challenge their authority. And lawsuits and complaints against cops always go better for the plaintiff when he has been courteous and respectful. Ask me how I know.

Great, but if I don't tolerate that, they won't enjoy my response.  I don't worry about lawsuits and complaints when defending against assaults, nor do I think people should be courteous and/or respectful to persons trying to harm them.


I agree in general, except for the last point. You should always use the minimum amount of force necessary to de-escalate a situation, and no more. Just because the cops aren't doing that it's not an excuse for you to not do it.
 
2014-03-01 09:15:46 PM  

NewWorldDan: Gyrfalcon: That would be my first reaction. He had cited her for the infraction (the bike blocking the sidewalk), so I suppose it MIGHT fall into the Hiibel restriction. (If there is PC, you do in fact have to show ID

Nothing in the Hiibel decision requires you to either have or show identification.  It only requires you to give your name, and only if your state has a stop and identify statute.  At that point, if you want to be an obstructionist, you can ask to be represented by a lawyer, which may or may not get you tazed.


Yeah, my bad. California has such a statute, and you have to present ID. Hiibel's problem was failing to do even that.

I'm having trouble with the Nigerian princess here because her excuse for not moving her bike was she didn't want to get her tires dirty. If you want to mess with the bull, at least use a bigger flag.
 
2014-03-01 09:20:22 PM  

spiritplumber: pedrop357: StanTheMan: pedrop357: StanTheMan: The time to mess with cops is not in the field. It is with Internal Affairs and lawsuits.

The time for the police to mess with me (or anyone else) is not in the "field".  It is through the court system after quickly, properly, politely and professionally issuing a summons.

Great, but if the police don't act that way, I hope you enjoy pepper spray and a jail cell if you challenge their authority. And lawsuits and complaints against cops always go better for the plaintiff when he has been courteous and respectful. Ask me how I know.

Great, but if I don't tolerate that, they won't enjoy my response.  I don't worry about lawsuits and complaints when defending against assaults, nor do I think people should be courteous and/or respectful to persons trying to harm them.

I agree in general, except for the last point. You should always use the minimum amount of force necessary to de-escalate a situation, and no more. Just because the cops aren't doing that it's not an excuse for you to not do it.


Of course.  He's talking about assault/kidnapping (pepper spray/cuffs).  I'm nearly always nice to people using words against me.  Physical action is another thing.
 
2014-03-01 09:32:56 PM  

Turfshoe: Abie Kyle Ikhinmwin?

How much is that worth in scrabble?

/trick question
//not really


One way it fits on the board...
img.fark.net
 
2014-03-01 09:39:18 PM  
Has it been mentioned in any of these threads how the heroes of the  Lethal Weapon series personify the abusive cop stereotype?
 
433 [TotalFark]
2014-03-01 09:40:52 PM  

tgambitg: One way it fits on the board..


Very nice.
 
2014-03-01 09:42:36 PM  

Roller Bob: Has it been mentioned in any of these threads how the heroes of the  Lethal Weapon series personify the abusive cop stereotype?


Sure, as does pretty much every cop show, ever. Ends justify means for the good guys.
 
2014-03-01 09:46:56 PM  

Gyrfalcon: NewWorldDan: Gyrfalcon: That would be my first reaction. He had cited her for the infraction (the bike blocking the sidewalk), so I suppose it MIGHT fall into the Hiibel restriction. (If there is PC, you do in fact have to show ID

Nothing in the Hiibel decision requires you to either have or show identification.  It only requires you to give your name, and only if your state has a stop and identify statute.  At that point, if you want to be an obstructionist, you can ask to be represented by a lawyer, which may or may not get you tazed.

Yeah, my bad. California has such a statute, and you have to present ID. Hiibel's problem was failing to do even that.

I'm having trouble with the Nigerian princess here because her excuse for not moving her bike was she didn't want to get her tires dirty. If you want to mess with the bull, at least use a bigger flag.


California's stop and identify statute was repealed in 2008. You don't have to show ID.

Kolender v. Lawson

"In states like California and New York, the courts have ruled you can't be busted for balking on ID, said Santa Cruz lawyer Katya Komisaruk, who has practiced in both states and who has practiced in both states and written on the subject."

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/article/Is-refusing-to-show-ID-ground s- for-arrest-886038.php
 
2014-03-01 10:05:22 PM  
Anyone claiming that  "bruises kept her from attending classes for a week" cannot be taken seriously and seems to be someone looking for a "payday."

1. Based on the video, the initial officer we see had previously asked this young lady to remove her bicycle from protruding into the street. The officer tried to explain that her bike protruding into the street was creating a hazard to the motorist driving in that area. It seems very clear that he had intended to give her a second "warning," that was until she decided she wasn't required to listen to a "lawful command," all in an effort to keep her precious tires from getting dirty.

2.  It appears this event has nothing to do with this lady video taping and posting to facebook and more to do with her desire to provoke a confrontation with the police.
 
2014-03-01 10:13:30 PM  

jpo2269: Anyone claiming that  "bruises kept her from attending classes for a week" cannot be taken seriously and seems to be someone looking for a "payday."

1. Based on the video, the initial officer we see had previously asked this young lady to remove her bicycle from protruding into the street. The officer tried to explain that her bike protruding into the street was creating a hazard to the motorist driving in that area. It seems very clear that he had intended to give her a second "warning," that was until she decided she wasn't required to listen to a "lawful command," all in an effort to keep her precious tires from getting dirty.

2.  It appears this event has nothing to do with this lady video taping and posting to facebook and more to do with her desire to provoke a confrontation with the police.


So both sides are bad?
;)
 
2014-03-01 10:17:24 PM  

Bit'O'Gristle: Vangor: Um... not a criminal justice major, but being she was simply given two citations, and being she is from Texas in particular, would not Brown v. Texas say she cannot be arrested for failure to produce identification without reasonable cause to her committing a criminal act?

/Generally, they have to have probable cause to believe that you have committed a crime. Either by a witness telling them, or them seeing you do it.  So, if they have NO probable cause to stop you and question you, you are well within your rights to refuse to give them any ID, or...engage in conversation. If you keep talking, the conversation is voluntary, and you are giving up your rights to not incriminate yourself. Best thing to say is, "what crime do you suspect me of committing, and what is your probable cause to stop me?" and..."am i free to go".  Not saying some jackass could not just make some shiat up because you are not bending over for him, but generally, if they have no reason to stop you, you giving your ID and statements are in fact, giving up your rights.


If you are detained you have to identify in Texas. Regardless wasn't she technically obstructing by posting where the speed traps were located? WTF is the deal with all these teabaggers that think they are being tough by not producing ID?

<i>
Sec. 38.02. FAILURE TO IDENTIFY. (a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally refuses to give his name, residence address, or date of birth to a peace officer who has lawfully arrested the person and requested the information.
(b) A person commits an offense if he intentionally gives a false or fictitious name, residence address, or date of birth to a peace officer who has:
(1) lawfully arrested the person;
(2) lawfully detained the person; or
(3) requested the information from a person that the peace officer has good cause to believe is a witness to a criminal offense.
(c) Except as provided by Subsections (d) and (e), an offense under this section is:
(1) a Class C misdemeanor if the offense is committed under Subsection (a); or
(2) a Class B misdemeanor if the offense is committed under Subsection (b).
(d) If it is shown on the trial of an offense under this section that the defendant was a fugitive from justice at the time of the offense, the offense is:
(1) a Class B misdemeanor if the offense is committed under Subsection (a); or
(2) a Class A misdemeanor if the offense is committed under Subsection (b).
(e) If conduct that constitutes an offense under this section also constitutes an offense under Section 106.07, Alcoholic Beverage Code, the actor may be prosecuted only under Section 106.07.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 869, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1987. Acts 1991, 72nd Leg., ch. 821, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1991; Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994; Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 1009, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 2003.</i>
 
2014-03-01 10:18:03 PM  
well well well...  A cop boot-licker gets a cop boot to the face...  ill just mark this one under schadenfreude.
 
Displayed 50 of 116 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report