To Protect and to Serve...

[Grand Vol]

She essentially did that when she just gave him her first name.

"Michelle". Simple, effective, done.

Stop defending cops when you know they are in the wrong. It is getting old.

You know, I should just stop there, but I just can't help myself.

Defending cops? Hey idiot child:

As for arresting her, no, I think that's a bit far and there were certainly other ways of bringing down the situation if I was to Monday morning QB it.

Does this look like I'm defending anyone here?

You really do need to grow up and be more mature about posting on here. If you can't take everything that a person posts in context or accept their explanation without losing your damn mind over things you have no clue about, perhaps you shouldn't post.

Advice for you:

Grow up

Take a reading comprehension course

Grow up

Learn to accept explanations even if you don't agree with them

Grow up more

Take everything in context and stop cherry picking

Again, grow up

And finally, put me on ignore. You don't like what I have to say? Easy, put me on ignore you childish imbecile.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

The school has no obligation to give her name at all.

So the school has the right to not give a name even if the officer is asking as part of an investigation... but the woman doesn't have that same right?

 

[Grand Vol]

So the school has the right to not give a name even if the officer is asking as part of an investigation... but the woman doesn't have that same right?

The school has no obligation to identify her since they are not a part of the so called investigation or in any way involved.

And even if they did, you'd whine about that too like a child.

It's no different than a policeman coming to your home and asking for you to identify a person involved in a vehicle accident in front of your house. You are not obligated at all to identify them since you are not involved. But it certainly would give you something to go on a childish rant about.

 

[Dr Dread]

And she very well could have given her name during the dispatch.

You are trying WAY too hard to justify the cop's actions. The cop was well within his right to ask for her name. She was well within her rights not to give it to him. His behavior after her refusal was not only wrong, but also unlawful.

At any time, police may approach a person and ask questions. The objective may simply be a friendly conversation; however, the police also may suspect involvement in a crime, but lack "specific and articulable facts"[4] that would justify a detention or arrest, and hope to obtain these facts from the questioning. The person approached is not required to identify himself or answer any other questions, and may leave at any time.[5] Police are not usually required to tell a person that he is free to decline to answer questions and go about his business;[6] however, a person can usually determine whether the interaction is consensual by asking, "Am I free to go?"

 

[Cdywolfe]

You know, I should just stop there, but I just can't help myself.

Defending cops? Hey idiot child:



Does this look like I'm defending anyone here?

You really do need to grow up and be more mature about posting on here. If you can't take everything that a person posts in context or accept their explanation without losing your damn mind over things you have no clue about, perhaps you shouldn't post.

Advice for you:

Grow up

Take a reading comprehension course

Grow up

Learn to accept explanations even if you don't agree with them

Grow up more

Take everything in context and stop cherry picking

Again, grow up

And finally, put me on ignore. You don't like what I have to say? Easy, put me on ignore you childish imbecile.

Wow... This post is just oozing with irony.

 

[Cdywolfe]

Idiot child? LTFOL.

 

[Grand Vol]

Wow... This post is just oozing with irony.

Whatever. You're even more clueless than Ras. Why is it you can't even level an argument with me without resorting to the "you're just a typical dumb cop" tactic.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

The school has no obligation to identify her since they are not a part of the so called investigation or in any way involved.

How do you know the school isn't part of the investigation if you are in the middle of the investigation? The whole point of an investigation is to get the facts. The woman said that she didn't realize the school had the parents drive in a single file line... she's seen it where it was doubled up. The incident happened on their property and the school may have witnesses.

 

[Grand Vol]

You are trying WAY too hard to justify the cop's actions.

Not at all. I already said the way it went down was not the way it should have gone down. You asked why they didn't ask for the white woman's name. I gave you a reason why they might not have. So stop thinking I'm justifying anything. You don't want an opinion from the other side of things? Don't ask questions or make ignorant remarks like Ras.

Now if you want to have a rational conversation unlike most of the others in this thread, I'll be glad to. But don't accuse me of defending anyone like I already stated before. Or if your reading comprehension is off, go back a few posts and see where I said what went down shouldn't have gone down.

The cop was well within his right to ask for her name. She was well within her rights not to give it to him. His behavior after her refusal was not only wrong, but also unlawful.

I obviously have to look it up since nobody else was going to since it might blow a hole in the argument...

California law is vague on the subject as you have two court cases that conflict with each other. One that says a person is under no obligation to identify themselves to police (Kolender v. Lawson) and yet another that says police have the right to identify if suspected of a crime (People v. Long).

Two conflicting cases with two different approaches. And it could be argued that there was a suspicion of a crime vis a vis the erratic driving and threats in the parking lot.

Now the question I have for you is why are you trying so hard to justify her actions after the police asked for her name?

At any time, police may approach a person and ask questions. The objective may simply be a friendly conversation; however, the police also may suspect involvement in a crime, but lack "specific and articulable facts"[4] that would justify a detention or arrest, and hope to obtain these facts from the questioning. The person approached is not required to identify himself or answer any other questions, and may leave at any time.[5] Police are not usually required to tell a person that he is free to decline to answer questions and go about his business;[6] however, a person can usually determine whether the interaction is consensual by asking, "Am I free to go?"

I see someone looked up Terry Stop. Now, it could be argued that the patrolmen in the video did suspect something had gone on and the stop went beyond the consensual level to possible detainment where identification would be considered "minimal intrusion" as People v. Long stated. And it might very well have turned out that the white woman in the video could have been completely in the wrong had both sides of the story come out in a rational fashion.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

Whatever. You're even more clueless than Ras. Why is it you can't even level an argument with me without resorting to the "you're just a typical dumb cop" tactic.

OK, we've clearly established in this thread 2 things:

1. If you refuse to give your name to a cop, they can arrest you.
2. If you run from the cops, they can shoot you.

 

[Grand Vol]

How do you know the school isn't part of the investigation if you are in the middle of the investigation? The whole point of an investigation is to get the facts. The woman said that she didn't realize the school had the parents drive in a single file line... she's seen it where it was doubled up. The incident happened on their property and the school may have witnesses.

Seriously?

 

[Grand Vol]

OK, we've clearly established in this thread 2 things:

1. If you refuse to give your name to a cop, they can arrest you.
2. If you run from the cops, they can shoot you.

3. You are completely hopeless to try to rationalize with or even attempt to educate on anything.

Oh, and the medical profession kills at least 10X more people than cops every year through negligence, yet none are ever brought to justice.

Forgot about that.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

I obviously have to look it up since nobody else was going to since it might blow a hole in the argument...

California law is vague on the subject as you have two court cases that conflict with each other. One that says a person is under no obligation to identify themselves to police (Kolender v. Lawson) and yet another that says police have the right to identify if suspected of a crime (People v. Long).

Two conflicting cases with two different approaches. And it could be argued that there was a suspicion of a crime vis a vis the erratic driving and threats in the parking lot.

Don't quote me California law, what does the Constitution say about being able to speak (1st Amendment) or being quiet and not being a witness against themselves (5th Amendment)? Nobody gives a damn what the California law states... didn't they teach you the Constitution before you went into law enforcement?

Now the question I have for you is why are you trying so hard to justify her actions after the police asked for her name?

I haven't seen one person defend her actions... in fact, she incriminated herself more in her testimony than by refusing to give up her name. But the woman didn't swear to an oath to uphold the laws of the United States and the Constitution. The officer(s) have a special duty that I don't think many of them fully appreciate.

No matter how you cut it, slice it or break it, there is no way you can justify the cop putting his hands on her for not giving her name. Are you kidding me?

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

Seriously?

Yes... you've already established they are not a part of the investigation and you've only seen two people interviewed. What about eyewitnesses or an explanation from the school about how traffic is supposed to flow?

Are you really in law enforcement? How do you not justify in this incident not investigating the school for the sacred police report? Wouldn't knowing what the proper traffic procedure for the school be helpful in getting the a resolution between the 2 people?

 

[tim]

Lemme just ask. Say someone gets mad and punches your window. You do not see any immediate damage, however once you drive a mile down the road you notice a crack begin (windows tend to do this). Would you expect the woman to be held responsible? If so, how would you identify her to get your pound of flesh?

 

[Grand Vol]

Don't quote me California law, what does the Constitution say about being able to speak (1st Amendment) or being quiet and not being a witness against themselves (5th Amendment)? Nobody gives a damn what the California law states... didn't they teach you the Constitution before you went into law enforcement?

Don't even try to lecture me on Constitutional Rights child.

And had you actually done your homework and looked up those cases, they are landmark decisions that are used nationwide. And I'll fall back on the #3 above that you refuse to actually educate yourself in anything except immaturity and ignorance.

No matter how you cut it, slice it or break it, there is no way you can justify the cop putting his hands on her for not giving her name. Are you kidding me?

Would you care to point out exactly where I did that?

Go on, do it big man. Quote the post where I said the arrest was justified. Prove yourself right. Show the whole forum where I said the arrest was justified.

Or admit you are wrong, which would be a first.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

3. You are completely hopeless to try to rationalize with or even attempt to educate on anything.

Oh, and the medical profession kills at least 10X more people than cops every year through negligence, yet none are ever brought to justice.

Forgot about that.

Who's fault is that? If there are laws on the books that doctors are violating, then you cops aren't doing your jobs. You all have no problem busting up corner weed peddlers, loose cigarette sellers and drivers with busted tail lights, but you cops don't do anything about the doctors pushing psychotropic drugs to overly active kids or people suffering depression. Why don't you all go after the doctors in the same way that you go after the small time dealers and make those doctors' lives miserable?

If the doctors aren't being brought to justice, blame the ones that are charged with enforcing the law for not doing their jobs.

 

[Grand Vol]

Yes... you've already established they are not a part of the investigation and you've only seen two people interviewed. What about eyewitnesses or an explanation from the school about how traffic is supposed to flow?

Are you really in law enforcement? How do you not justify in this incident not investigating the school for the sacred police report? Wouldn't knowing what the proper traffic procedure for the school be helpful in getting the a resolution between the 2 people?

First, you have absolutely no idea of how to conduct any kind of law enforcement action, yet have an unhealthy obsession with looking up every slip and fall you can. You should seek help for that actually. Or educate yourself. That'd be a first...

Now, if I roll up to a scene and I have both parties there, why would I automatically start looking for witnesses until I got the two stories of what happened between the two parties?

Didn't think of that did you? What exactly would be the point of going into a school and trying to identify witnesses when I have both complainants right there?

I figure when you say "police report" you are referring back to the contact report I talked about earlier? Because it does appear you are being ignorant again and taking even more items out of context as there is a huge difference in "contact report" and "incident report."

And I really don't even feel the need to explain the differences between the two.

 

[jp1]

Who's fault is that? If there are laws on the books that doctors are violating, then you cops aren't doing your jobs. You all have no problem busting up corner weed peddlers, loose cigarette sellers and drivers with busted tail lights, but you cops don't do anything about the doctors pushing psychotropic drugs to overly active kids or people suffering depression. Why don't you all go after the doctors in the same way that you go after the small time dealers and make those doctors' lives miserable?

If the doctors aren't being brought to justice, blame the ones that are charged with enforcing the law for not doing their jobs.

So doctors arent supposed to treat ADHD or depression?

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

Lemme just ask. Say someone gets mad and punches your window. You do not see any immediate damage, however once you drive a mile down the road you notice a crack begin (windows tend to do this). Would you expect the woman to be held responsible? If so, how would you identify her to get your pound of flesh?

Civil court. Only two people were interviewed/interrogated, making this a a case of your word against hers.

Also, you would have been SOL most times anyways because that woman more than likely would have left the scene way before the cops got there, so you wouldn't have gotten her name anyways... just would have had to rely on a sketch artist to hopefully help find her.

 

[tim]

Who's fault is that? If there are laws on the books that doctors are violating, then you cops aren't doing your jobs. You all have no problem busting up corner weed peddlers, loose cigarette sellers and drivers with busted tail lights, but you cops don't do anything about the doctors pushing psychotropic drugs to overly active kids or people suffering depression. Why don't you all go after the doctors in the same way that you go after the small time dealers and make those doctors' lives miserable?

If the doctors aren't being brought to justice, blame the ones that are charged with enforcing the law for not doing their jobs.

We do.. It's called "diversion" and it's being enforced heavily by the DEA and many local DTF's. It's on the news all the time.

The problem is that Doctors and the profession in general tends to protect their own. Much like attorney's. Most cops are not Doctors and most cases require a Doctor to provide the technical information in order to obtain probable cause. Also, medicine, depending on whom you speak to, is not an exact science. Everyone has seen or heard of an incident where someone went to 3 different doctors and obtained 3 different courses of action.

 

[Grand Vol]

Who's fault is that? If there are laws on the books that doctors are violating, then you cops aren't doing your jobs. You all have no problem busting up corner weed peddlers, loose cigarette sellers and drivers with busted tail lights, but you cops don't do anything about the doctors pushing psychotropic drugs to overly active kids or people suffering depression. Why don't you all go after the doctors in the same way that you go after the small time dealers and make those doctors' lives miserable?

If the doctors aren't being brought to justice, blame the ones that are charged with enforcing the law for not doing their jobs.

lol

Who protects the doctors when they kill someone accidentally? How much money is involved in health care? How many times do hospitals pay out in cases of wrongful death?

And how many DAs choose to prosecute those cases?

How many times do cops not undergo an investigation whenever they fire their weapon in the line of duty? How many are prosecuted or go to trial?

Are you seriously implying that cops should be breaking down hospital doors and arresting doctors when they kill someone accidentally? A DA would laugh you right out of their office.

You really are silly sometimes and make me laugh.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

Would you care to point out exactly where I did that?

Go on, do it big man. Quote the post where I said the arrest was justified. Prove yourself right. Show the whole forum where I said the arrest was justified.

Or admit you are wrong, which would be a first.

You continue to try to point out how the actions of the woman helped to lead to the resulting arrest. Sure, you clearly state (on one hand) that it should have never gotten that far, but (on the other hand) point out that the woman was belligerent... which is not even relevant (or true) and she was well within her rights to not give her name.

 

[tim]

Civil court. Only two people were interviewed/interrogated, making this a a case of your word against hers.

Also, you would have been SOL most times anyways because that woman more than likely would have left the scene way before the cops got there, so you wouldn't have gotten her name anyways... just would have had to rely on a sketch artist to hopefully help find her.

So, you're gonna take every Michelle in the USA to civil court until you sue the correct one? What is the difference with this situation and any other situation where something is discovered later, after everyone has left? Step it up a notch.. Say your wife (God forbid) is shot and killed at a crowded bar. The police arrive, but cannot readily identify the shooter. Later someone tells the police that a guy named John shot your wife.. Do you think it would be important for the police to identify everyone inside the crowded bar?

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

Are you seriously implying that cops should be breaking down hospital doors and arresting doctors when they kill someone accidentally?

No... I clearly gave you the exact circumstances where I think you all need to be busting up these hospital drug rings with the same zeal as you would any other kind of street vice.