The Glade 4.0

Child kidnapping is actually down a lot from the time we were all children when it was a very rare occurrence anyway.

Paranoia - which is what we have - is for the people who can't do math or personalize everything to a level where they feel if it can happen it will happen to them. People who are, in short, basically afraid to live.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

All cops are "looking for trouble". That's their job. Just becuase a cope is a douchebag (by which I assume you mean rude and unpleasent, rather than whether or not he's dishonest) does not mean he looks for interaction any more than any other cop. In fact, many of the rudest are also the laziest, and look for trouble only to come out of their radio when the dispatcher calls them, and even then wait for someone else to get their first so they can be backup and stick the other guy with more of the work.

The rudest, most unpleasent guy we had at my old job was like this, and I knew at least one in every neighboring department. They'd stop about 3 cars a year on their own initiative and you could always count on them to go to a call - 30 seconds after you arrived, so you'd be the primary officer and they could just stand in the background while you did all the work. In the case of the guy from our department he was at least good backup because he was observant so if one subject started doing something while you were trying to talk to another, he was quick to take control of that - but he always did it as rudely as possible, and guess who then go to actually interview the subject? The guys from the neighboring departments were worse; they'd show up to our calls to "back us up" just so they could claim to be occupied if their dispatcher called something out.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

I don't know about anyone else, but when I think of a douchebag cop I think of the ones that try to farm themselves a promotion by enforcing the letter of the law in a way to try and trap people. Things like:

- Pulling people over for speeding in school zones on school holidays, because the actual law says that speed limit is in effect M-F at specified times, and doesn't provide for exceptions.
- On a night with below-zero temperatures, arresting people who go out to their cars to smoke for DUI. They're not allowed to smoke in the bar and it's cold outside, but it's technically a DUI to get into the car while intoxicated, even if you have no intention of driving anywhere.

Obviously it depends on the department, but just writing a lot of tickets is generally not a fast route to promotion. Even if the tickets are generally valid, things like citing people in a school zone without any kids tend to get angry calls to the chief, mayor, councilman, etc. and they will eventually probably tell you to go find better tickets to write. Also, just because you can find easy tickets to write doesn't mean you're any good at other parts of the job. Generally speaking, showing skill at much more difficult aspects of polcie work, like handling crime scenes, domestic violence calls, and other things where you don't have discretion are far more likely to look good when it comes to promotion. Most promotion systems involve a written test, too, so fishing for a promotion with tickets will not help you if you don't know the material for the test.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Yes, all cops look for trouble. But that's not what I meant. Likewise, think about it - for the most part, the folks you refer to as douchebags above are highly annoying to other cops, but maybe not the public. If some guy was standing around in the background at, say, an accident while you did all the work, citizen_01 won't even notice him. The douchebaggery I was referring to is related to the "respect my authora-tye" crap. Not abuse of authority, but over-zealous exertion of said authority. And inability to have a discussion and/or be questioned by citizenry. Obviously, I don't have statistics on this, but based on what I've seen they seem to enjoy pushing the public around. I'm guessing then that they go looking for confrontation to get their jollies. But you could also be right.

That's the problem with terms like "douchebag". It can mean almost anything you want. Not that you shouldn't use it; I refer to people as douchebags all the time.



This sounds more like rudeness than anything to do with when he makes a traffic stop or issues a ticket. I would much prefer that a cop issue a lot of tickets that are petty and annoying although technically legal, but do so in a polite, professional manner than issue a bunch of tickets that are for really blatant, obvious traffic offenses but be rude and disrespectful in the process of doing it. Either way the law is getting enforced, but people are more likely to be understanding of the reason for a ticket for a very minor offense that is issued professionally and therefore be more careful in the future than they are to take to heart the reason for a ticket that's issued by a cop that acts like a complete *** even if they obviously did something very dangerous.

Furthermore, it's very easy in our society to simply claim any exercise of authority is "respect my authora-tye type crap". Many people use this to distract from their own behavior, and to call into question the behavior of the officer simply because he's exercising authority, and usually this means they cannot articulate anything the officer is actually doing wrong. Generally, when someone observes a police officer doing something wrong, they can articulate what it is (i.e. "the officer failed to use his turn signal" or "the officer called me an ******* to my face" or "the officer hit the woman in the head when she was sitting on the ground, handcuffed"). When they have to resort to claims of "douchebaggery" or "respect my authora-tay"-type articulations, that usually means they don't have a reason why what the officer did was actually wrong, they just don't like it; either because they disagree with the rules the police are to follow or because it's having negative consequences for them.



I'm not sure quite what "overzealous exertion of authority" is.

As for "inability to have a discussion or be questioned" it's certainly understandable that people would want to be able to present their point of view when being stopped. This depends what you mean. If by have a discussion, you mean allow the citizen to explain what they were doing and why they were doing it, and actually take that into consideration, sure. The police should definitely do that. There might be a valid reason for the offense.

However, that, again, can mean a lot of things to a lot of people. The point at which you interact with the officer is not court. Some people think that the side of the road is the appropriate place for a lengthy discussion about the merits of the existing traffic laws. Many people seem to believe that they need to agree to a ticket before it is issued. They often do that while ignoring the fact that there is a lot of traffic that can be dangerous to the officer, or the fact that it is raining. It is not the officer's job to convince the citizen of the need for the ticket; it's his job to be able to articulate to a judge why he issued the citation. Once the officer has presented the reason for the citation and the citizen has had the opportunity to (concisely, some people also just cannot get tot he point and will start explaining why they were speeding some time in the middle of last week) present their point of view, there is really no point in discussing it further unless one or the other does not understand what was said (not "does not understand why they are getting a ticket", but something like "I don't understand what you mean by 'improper turn'" or something). Again, that is what courts are for. If the officer feels, for whatever reason (and there are plenty of good ones) that he does not need to discuss the incident further with you after giving you the information that the law requires him to give, he's not being a douchebag by refusing to discuss the incident further, although he should remind you that if you disagree with the ticket that the court is available, and when the hearing is. Again, all this is assuming he's doing so in a polite manner in the first place.



No, and you probably won't find any because we can easily quantify illegal police actions, but we really can't quanitfy "prevalence of douchebaggery" because its incredibly subjective. I also don't quite know what you mean by "enjoy pushing the public around." Are they breaking the law? If so, then that's clearly a problem but no one disagrees with that; the discussion focuses around the behavior of police who are acting within the law.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

I'm really not interested in getting bogged down in specifics, which is why I've been using general terms. However, as examples from my own experiences (it's been a while, but discrepancies should be minor):

1) Arathain is driving down the highway and gets tired. Very tired. Pulls over to the shoulder, in a safe spot, to take a nap. Sometime later: *tap* *tap* Wake up, talk to cop, he's clearly annoyed, I'm being polite, at some point I refer to him as a "cop". Gets annoyed: "I am not a cop, I am an officer of the law". Insults my intelligence for sleeping on the side of the road, sends me packing. Totally unnecessary behavior, but no, not the end of the world.
2) Arathain is riding shotgun, girlfriend is pulled over. Cop says something to GF that she does not understand, she responds incorrectly. "What are you, stupid? I SAID (whatever it was he said)." Arathain gets angry: "HEY! Don't talk to her like that, what is wrong with you?!" "Get out of the car! You have a problem? Do you want to go to jail?" *shoves me back against the car* "Give me YOUR license" A: "Yeah, I have a problem, you're rude and obnoxious, and you're not going to arrest me because you are way out of line and you know it" *license tossed in his face* (situation drastically improves from here, Arathain files complaint anyway).
3) Arathain in High School, get out of practice late. Left lights on, battery dead, cop in parking lot. *tap tap* "Any chance you can jump me?" "What's it say on the side of my car?" "Um, Police?" "Does it say triple A anywhere?" /sigh /leave
4) Arathain in an hour and a half line for a haunted hayride. Get to the front, pay a ridiculous amount of money. Cop there, I assume guarding the register / general security. Go down around the corner to load up on the wagon, discover there is another hour and a half line down there, hidden from view. F this. Go back to get money back. "We can't offer refunds" "We just paid less than a minute ago." "sorry, no refunds" "why are you hiding another insane line?" etc, etc. - animated but reasonably polite. We give up and leave - cop just watching at this point, not involved. On the way out, Arathain sees old grandmothers, shivering children, tired people, etc in line, decides to warn them of second line. "Folks - folks - you should know there is another very long line to get on the wagons after you pay. Very long." Peeps: "really? where? screw this! are you kidding? No way!, etc" Peeps begin leaving line. Cop grabs me, spins me around, and shouts "what are you doing?" "telling folks about the other line so they know". "you can't tell them that!" "why?" "Are you questioning me?" "yes, why can't I tell them" "more than one person can hear what you're saying, so you're disturbing the peace! I can arrest you for this!" "more than one person? I don't think you have that right." "if you say another word, you are going to jail for disturbing the peace" Arathain's mouth opens, gets pulled away by brother.

DE, the problem is, I have very many of these types of examples. It's nearly always because I question something "what's your name?" "why do you need my name?" to not simply rolling over "sir, we need to search your car" "no, you don't, and no you can't".

I've met a good number of extremely polite officers, as well, even in stupid scenarios (one of the nicest officers I ever met pulled me over for cruising in the left-hand lane without passing, when nobody was on the road.) Oddly enough, ever officer I have met west of the Mississippi River has been very professional and polite. But damnit, I've met my share of pricks.

I'm not interested in getting bogged down in specifics either. The problem, however, is that the terms you're using are vague and subjective, not just general. We all have a problem with douchebags. But what's a douchebag?

As to your examples, all of them seem to involve at least mild rudeness, some significantly more than that. I wasn't there though, so I won't debate the events except to say I'm sure that the cop has his side of the story.


.
Again, I wasn't there for these incidents. I don't know what you're referring to. However, simply asking for your name should not really cause you to ask why. It's common to ask someone's name when you meet them. Why are you questioning that? Frankly I think asking "why do you need my name?" Is kind of rude. As to "we need to search your car" it depends on the circumstances. If they don't have probable cause and are asking to search (without getting into the specifics of how they phrase it) then you're within your rigbts to say "no". If they TELL you they're searching, you can ask why, but if they have probable cause then you don't get to say no. If you object you can have a probable cause hearing (if you are charged with something) or call a lawyer and pursuwe a lawsuit or file a complaint (if not charged). Either way, you don't decide if they need to search your car. They decide that on the spot amd a judge decides if they were right.

[/quote]

It sounds like you've met more than your share - way more. That may have something to do with where you live. Some of the ones you've met no doubt are pricks. However, based on what you're saying it sounds a lot like you don't want to be questioned either. I'm not going to address your situatuins specificly because I wasn't there, but I think you're making a lot of assumptions about what the cops are and are not allowed to do.

Rudeness and unprofessional behavior are certainly something valid to object to. Deciding not to entertain a citizen who wants to decide for himself what the law is, however, isn't douchebaggery or respect my authority behavior. Again, I am not saying that was the case in any of your particlar situationsam. The fact simply is that the police do have authority and exercising it in accordance with law isn't douchebaggery. If you feel its been done wrongly, by all means use the courts. You can question all you want there.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

DE - I don't have a problem, necessarily with anything you've said.

However, when citizen_01 asks my name, my answer is "Arathain, what's yours?"

When a cop, pen and pad in hand, asks you your full name, it is not rude to ask why. Same reason it is not rude to ask why a store clerk wants your name. They want it for business purposes, not to be friendly.

And the response should not be getting irritated for being questioned. You want something from me, tell me why.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

Yes, it is. He's obviously conducting official business. That's why. That should be obvious from the fact that he's standing there with a pen and paper in hand. Either you're making a complaint to him (in which case you're really being a dick by then not wanting to give your name), you're a witness (in which case it's because you're a witness) or you're a suspect, in which case he should read you your rights - except that your identity is not ever incriminating information. If he gets probable cause, he's going to arrest you, name or not, and you'll be "John Doe" until you identify yourself. Either way, the person that there is probable cause to believe committed the crime is in custody.



You just answered your own question. For business purposes. See? You really don't need to ask the store clerk why either. The difference is that the store clerk is conducting commercial business, whereas the police officer is conducting official business. He asks all kinds of people there names all the time, and there's no reason he should need to stop and re-explain himself to every single person, or even to individuals who think they, personally, are owed an explanation right on the spot. Time and circumstances permitting, certainly he should, but if he doesn't that doesn't entitle you to obstruct his business by not giving it just because you've decided that your personal standard is that people conducting business of whatever kind with you owe you an explanation for wanting your name.

This is especially amusing because the officers (and in most stores, the clerks too) name is readily available to you on their nametag. It's not as if he's asking for anything about you that you don't already have about him.



Maybe. It depends on the time available and the circumstances. It also depends on how you ask. You're not owed an explanation for how or why official business is being conducted right on the spot. Again, if you think the question was improper, make a complaint through whatever channel is appropriate (hearing, official complaint process, lawsuit).

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Actually, yes it does. You are within your rights (and it's generally a good idea) to find out why the cop wants the information he's asking for, assuming (1) You're not driving a vehicle - since you are obligated to provide driver's license and registration information, or (2) The police are not detaining/arresting you. If they are, they need to tell you what the offense is before you are obliged to answer any questions, including even identifying yourself.

If the police stop you in a public place, you are not required to answer questions. If you are not under arrest, you are entitled to go on your way.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

I don't know what the law is in Canada, so that may indeed be the case there. However, int he United States we have, in many states:

Stop and Identify statutes.

Note that this does not speak to the issue of whether you are free to leave. It's entirely possible that you may be free to leave. If so, leave. If, however, you choose not to leave, the police are under no obligation whatsoever to answer any of your questions, either before asking your questions. In other words, you may be within your rights to ask why, but you are not within your rights to find out why - i.e. you are not entitled to an answer. If the officer decides your testimony is not worth the effort of answering all your demands for information, he'll just let you go.

If, however, you have been detained under reasonable suspicion:



We've started jumping back and forth between different scenarios. However, the only question you're entitled to an answer regarding is "what am I being arrested for?". If an officer is standing there with pen and paper out, however, he's not arresting you. That's the problem with this discussion. Are we talking about a person who is detained, arrested, or merely a witness?

In point of fact, it really doesn't matter. Again, the courts are the place to address improper police conduct. We're talking about an officer who is acting within the scope of the law. Everyone agrees the police should not arrest people when the law doesn't permit. If you're free to leave, the officer is also free to ignore you. If you're not free to leave, you don't have a right to refuse to identify yourself.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Which is exactly what I've been saying all along.. except for the first part. That's incorrect. The police can detain people under reasonable suspicion, when they are not yet under arrest. The law requires that this detention be no longer than is reasonably necessary to confirm or dispel the suspicion. However, a person who has been detained does not have a right to not identify themself. If refusing to identify themself prevents confirming or dispelling the suspicion (generally, by confirming whether or not the person in front of the officer is the person they are looking for) then it may be obstruction of official business not to identify onesself. There is also the issue of warrants and safety. If you have a warrant, you are not entitled to conceal your name in order to avoid arrest on that warrant. This is not incrimination; you've already been incriminated or the warrant wouldn't exist in the first place.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

See, that's messed up. It's MY personal information. It is not rude to ask why someone wants it. Yes, he's obviously conducting official business. What business? Why am I involved? (If it's obvious, like I just witnessed an accident, then it's not an issue). It's clearly NOT obvious to me or I wouldn't be asking.

And if you're out conducting official business, it's retarded to get all offended and bent out of shape if someone questions you. THAT's my point. He may need my name - I don't know - answer the question. Then, I'll have the information I need to determine if I want to cooperate or not, which is my right.



Are you nuts? Business purposes is not an answer. WHY do you need this for business purposes. "Oh, so we can spam the **** out of you". I actually got that answer once at Radio Shack "What's your phone number" "why do you need my phone number?" "I need it because it's here on my form". That's a stupid answer that doesn't tell me why they need it at all.



Maybe. And maybe that's official business I don't want to be part of. For the record, in EVERY instance, after they get all butt-hurt over being questioned, the bottom line is no, they don't actually need my info.



Sure there is. I asked him. Guess what? You want it, pony up a reason. If he doesn't want to take the time to have a conversation, fine, but it's NOT "rude" for me to ask why he wants my personal information. It IS rude to take the viewpoint that "he doesn't need to explain himself to individuals that think "they" are owed an explanation."

Not taking the time to explain yourself for no other reason than you don't want to take the time is **** rude.



Wrong. I don't have to give him ****. I don't have to say a word. And any officer that will arrest someone for refusing to hand over personal information without explaining is a douchebag.



I don't want anything from him. If I give you my social security number, are you rude for not giving me yours?



Word.

This I agree with. If a cop asks my name, and I say why, he does not need to tell me why, of course. He just won't get my info. No, if for some reason he needs my info, AND cannot tell me why, then he can explain that. If he'll need to arrest me if I don't give my info, he can explain that too. "Sir, there was an incident that I cannot discuss in the area, and we're taking names for follow up with the detective, if he feels you may have some information related." Oh, ok.

I don't expect "BECAUSE I ASKED YOU. Why are you questioning me?"

Yes. Again, this goes back to rudeness.

Note that in either case, the officer is really not telling you anything you didn't already know. In the second case, however, he's just being rude, and frankly, a bit silly. Why would you ask a citizen why he is asking a question? Who cares? He's asking because he wants to know. An officer that does that is allowing himself to get distracted from the matter at hand and drawn into argument.

The other side of the coin is conversations that go like this:

"Sir, did you see what happened here?"
"Yes"
"Can I have your name and phone number?"
"What for?"
"Because we are investigating the traffic accident that just happened here." <points to traffic accident in question> "You saw, what happened, right? We want you to make a witness statement."
"So why do you need my name?"
"I just explained that."
"I don't understand why you need my name just to take my statement. You saw me standing here."

That's the problem with most "why" questions. They aren't really because the person cares why, they may already know why perfectly well. They just want to argue. Some officers get frusterated with this and respond in the way you cited, and they shouldn't do that. However, if an officer tells the witness above "look, I already told you why, are you going to give me a statement or not?" he's not being rude or doing this nebulous "respect my authoratah" bit; he's essentially telling the witness "quit wasting my time. I'm not going to debate police procedure with you here at an accident scene".

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Am I being detained or am I free to go? That's all that really needs to be asked of an officer.

There are plenty of beat cops and supervisors that either have no idea of the law or don't care about it.

I had to explain to a Sgt. once the definition of "arrest" as the courts have stated it, what is and is not considered RS in Pa, the difference between an encounter and a Terry Stop,and why they were committing multiple state misdemeanors, a state felony, and at least one federal felony. I then explained and gave him the case where a appeals court had vacated the use of qualified immunity in these cases. This is right after he called me an ******* twice for simply undertaking lawful activity.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Except that it's not always, or even usually, clearly not obvious to you. The officer clearly thinks you have more information than he does, or he wouldn't be wanting to talk to you in the first place. Are you really telling me that you have had police officers come up to you and ask you for your name for no apparent reason, and without any preface at all that clues you in as to why? I've definitely had plenty of people ask me "why do you need to know my name/address/phone number/what I saw?" when an incident just happened right in front of them, and I already asked "did you see anything?" and they said "yes."



Are you really telling me that you have that frequently had police officers come up to you and ask you for your name for no apparent reason? Sure, if I walk up to someone minding their own business where nothing untoward is happening and ask them "what's your name" with no introduction or preface at all, I expect them to ask why. That's not the case the vast majority of the time, however.



It's not an answer to you. You are, however, dealing with a private business. They don't have an official duty to spam you, advertise to you, or anything else. Police have a duty to the public, government, and courts, to investigate crimes, accidents, and other incidents. No, I'm not nuts. "Because it's on my form" is a pretty good answer to someone who is really that concerned with why Radio Shack wants their phone number. Either give it or don't give it. I certainly would not be inclined to entertain your evaluation of what is and isn't a valid business purpose of my employer if I'm a clerk.



No, you don't feel they need your information. That's not the same as "they don't need it". Furthermore, I thought you didn't want to get into specifics. I'm not speaking specifically about your interactions. I don't take your word for it that they were "getting all butt-hurt". It's an incident no one but you was present for and which you had a personal emotional investment in.



Uh, no, it's not. Again, police generally do not just walk up out of the blue and ask for your name for no reason with no preface whatsoever. You just got done saying above that you have no problem if there's an accident right in front of you. all right, so now it's not "right in front of you" but there's a commotion down the street. You run over to see what's going on, and then the police show up. Why are you going to ask what they need your name for? Because it didn't happen right in front of you? I'm really not buying that you've had this plethora of incidents where some cop pulled up and just asked for your personal information and you had not the slightest inkling as to why and he provided no reason at all before asking.



You do realize that when the police go to the actual scene of an accident, crime, or incident, they have limited time to work on it? No, it's not rude to not entertain your questions, when you're at the scene of an incident and most likely saw more than the officer did.





We're not talking about arresting anyone, unless you mean where you're already a suspect for something else. So no, I'm not wrong. You don't have to say anything. That doesn't change the fact that you're being an uncooperative ******* who just wants to ask "why" because he can. (I don't mean you personally, I mean every other uncooperative ******* out there that the cop has no way and no time to distinguish you from) It isn't about you. It's about whatever the incident was. Ok, you exercised your rights. Good for you. Oh, you were willing to answer the question if only he'd answered "why" to your satisfaction? Fantastic, it's great that you're so cooperative. Let me clue you in however - the cop doesn't know you, and doesn't know your level of satisfaction. A lot of people are never satisfied. Why should the cop entertain your "why" question? Most people are pretty willing to give a witness statement without asking "why do you need my name?" The ones that aren't, you spend a lot of time cajoling them by answering "why" over and over and often they just end up not giving one. If you don't want to give a statement, just leave.



Because clearly a name and a social security number are the same thing.



Word.[/quote]

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

This incident never happened. You are making this up.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

You're not really a cop. You're making it all up.

Yeah, because PA really has its own standard of what Reasonable Suspicion is.

oh wait.. no it doesn't

It's the same in every state, and the standard is "more than an "inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or 'hunch' ";[1] it must be based on "specific and articulable facts", "taken together with rational inferences from those facts".[2] Police may briefly detain a person if they have reasonable suspicion that the person has been, is, or is about to be engaged in criminal activity; such a detention is known as a Terry stop." It's the same everywhere.

Furthermore, appeals courts cannot vacate qualified immunity. It's established by the Supreme Court.

qualified immunity

Qualified immunity only applies in cases where the actions undertaken by law enforcement officers do not violate "clearly established law". It has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with when it is lawful to stop someone except in cases where the question at hand is clearly established law on stopping someone.

Elmo is claiming to have had to "explain" the laws to "a SGT" in a case where he gives no facts whatsoever about what happened other than that the Sergent in question supposedly "called him an *******" for "undertaking lawful activity". No clue as to how he came to encounter these officers in the first place, what the "lawful activity" was, or anything else.

While I'm sure some facts will rather shortly become conveniently available, Elmo is clearly demonstrating he doesn't understand these concepts himself. If this incident is not a complete fabrication from start to finish, then no doubt the accounts of the police, an impartial witness, or a recording would paint a picture that would put Elmo's description almost entirely in the realm of fantasy, aside from possibly the fact that he talked to some cops. Of course, no such material is available. That's hardly unsurprising in and of itself, but the lack of any details whatsoever, plus the fact that it conforms exactly to Elmo's fantasy does not bode well for its veracity.

Than, of course, there's its irrelevancy. We're not discussing illegal actions by cops; everyone agrees cops should follow the law. We're talking about their behavior in the process of taking legal actions.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Other than when people are talking about when cops are acting extralegally, either through ignorance or purposefully.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

Um. Yes. Very much yes. I've been flagged down while walking down the street, motioned to cross the street, and asked what my name is. WTF? I was approached by an officer while photographing a tree in a park and he demanded to know my name. And what I was doing there. Sorry, pal, you need to tell me first why you want to know, so I can decide if I need to clam up for some reason or not.



It's a dumb answer. See, in the cop scenario, if you tell me why you want my info, and I support the cause, I'll help if I can. If you get all pissy with me, then you're not going to get as much assistance.



I have. Regarding your accident scenario, if they say "because there was an accident" I'll reply "I wasn't a witness" or "my name is..."



The difference between you and me is that I don't enter an encounter with the police with the assumption that he has my best interests in mind and knows what he is doing. If anyone on the street wants something from me, and it's not obvious, they need to tell my why. I don't go around giving out personal information to anyone. He may, or may not, be conducting official business. That business may, or may not, be something I want to be part of.

Wow you now know my life better than I do DE? It happened in Radnor Pa 2 years ago 300 feet from my house. I remember it rather well.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville