• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

"I'm Not Your Brother," Officer tazes Man in Front of His Children.

Capster78 said:
Its not illegal for them to ASK you for your ID, but it is illegal for them to demand you show ID. There is a difference.
Click to expand...
It's not illegal for them to demand to see an ID either. It's simply an unlawful order. And you are not legally obligated to comply with an unlawful order.
 
clownboy said:
I agree rogue. However add in the element of folks who don't like police because they are engaged in criminal activity and just don't think they ought to be stopped. Then there's the hypocritical asshats who think everyone else should be policed but they themselves should be exempt.
Click to expand...

What I'm seeing in this thread is a shocking sense of entitlement from several posters.

The idea that a lawful and reasonable request from a police officer is considered to be "abuse" or "harassment" is fascinating to me. I'm simply stunned that so many people - people I consider to be rather bright, in fact - can have such an attitude.
 
Muhammed said:
It's not illegal for them to demand to see an ID either. It's simply an unlawful order. And you are not legally obligated to comply with an unlawful order.
Click to expand...

But it is absolutely lawful for them to detain the man temporarily, meaning not letting him leave that immediate area, to determine the details of the reason they were called. That is lawful. And he was trying to leave despite them telling him he couldn't. He had every right to not say a word to any cops, but he did not have the right to leave the area while being detained. If they didn't actually have the right to detain him, that is dealt with in court, not during the detainment.
 
roguenuke said:
But it is absolutely lawful for them to detain the man temporarily, meaning not letting him leave that immediate area, to determine the details of the reason they were called.
Click to expand...
That's ridiculous. They don't need to detain anyone to determine why they were called. All they have to do is ask the person who called.

Unless he is under arrest he has a right to leave.
 
Muhammed said:
That's ridiculous. They don't need to detain anyone to determine why they were called. All they have to do is ask the person who called.

Unless he is under arrest he has a right to leave.
Click to expand...

Nope. They had a reasonable suspicion that this man could have been involved in a crime. That is good enough to detain him until they find out.

You are wrong. You don't have a right to leave during a legal detainment. I have already posted this.
 
reinoe said:
You understand the irony of saying that in a story involving a police officer lying to get away with killing another human being right?
Click to expand...

Do you know which story you are responding in? Although I have been involved in posting in the Brown shooting, this is not that story. This is an incident involving a man who was tased while being arrested. He is very much alive and no bullets were shot or sidearms even removed (from the reports I have seen) during this incident.

Also, I have seen no evidence that either these police officers or Wilson have lied so far.
 
Texmex said:
Also, the video I saw showed this man walking away. If the police were there to have him leave and he was leaving, why didn't the cops just let him leave?
Click to expand...
To arest him for not leaving the first time he was asked.

Lollie was going to be arested no matter what that day, because he refused to leave when security asked him.

Are we gun owners the only people who know that you have to leave the first time asked? Must be.
 
Henrin said:
In order for people to have authority over me in a 'free' society I must agree to it. It's works on the same principle as a guard you hire for your business just on a bigger scale. Again, just because you can issue aggression towards someone doesn't mean they agreed to anything.
Click to expand...
America is not a free sociaty. We are free'er than others relativly, but we are not free objectivly. No one is.
 
Henrin said:
I have a problem with that too. Why should I be required to have a license and registration to drive a car that is mine on a road that apparently I own? What is that about?

Hell, if I own the road then what exactly is the deal with speed limit laws? Why can't I drive however fast I damn well please?
Click to expand...
Its about paying for the road, paying for any damage you cause to someone else, making sure you actualy know how to drive in the first place, and oh yeah you don't own the road.
 
Capster78 said:
Its not illegal for them to ASK you for your ID, but it is illegal for them to demand you show ID. There is a difference.
Click to expand...
You are required to identify yourself while being detained. Refusing to identify yourself is the crime of obstruction.
 
Jerry said:
To arest him for not leaving the first time he was asked.

Lollie was going to be arested no matter what that day, because he refused to leave when security asked him.

Are we gun owners the only people who know that you have to leave the first time asked? Must be.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying what the police could do, I'm talking about what the police should have done.

BTW, I am a gun owner, a gun supporter and a CCL holder. Don't think that you speak for all gun owners just because you are in the military.
 
Capster78 said:
Chez...I don't think you know what your talking about. Until you put on a uniform with a badge (or a target) on it, you have no idea. Cops HAVE TO have that authorative personality. They have firearms on them and to ensure the safety of the people they encounter, they have to be stern and clear with their orders so they can maintain control of the situation. When they are good at doing that, everyone survives the situation just fine.
Click to expand...

Capster...I know you don't know me from Adam. Until you do, don't speak on what I know or don't know. I interact with police on a damn near daily basis. I see the difference in them when they "switch it on". When their demeanor and attitude with me is no longer the friendly, joke filled, playful back and forth and when they have to perform their duties as a LEO. But guess what? There are some who are cool and professional and there are some that are strokes. Just like everyone else. There are some who know t's their job, what their job is and handle their business in a manner which best resolves whichever conflict they encounter they understand because they are mature, they don't need their badge for balls, they know that the hammer isn't the only tool in the toolbox. Then you've got the Billy Badasses whose balls are in their badge and don't know how to use any other tool but the hammer.

I mean Jesus H. when the hell did acting like a prick, demanding everyone bend to your will because you got a badge make you a professional and when the hell did the citizens of these United States become so god damn subservient...

Esto Vir! Be a man! Too much authority has been given to the LE community and too much leeway for their behavior.
 
Texmex said:
I'm not saying what the police could do, I'm talking about what the police should have done.

BTW, I am a gun owner, a gun supporter and a CCL holder. Don't think that you speak for all gun owners just because you are in the military.
Click to expand...
Where did you read that Mr.Lollie is a gun owner?
 
Jerry said:
Where did you read that Mr.Lollie is a gun owner?
Click to expand...

Either I totally misread your posting or you misread mine. I'll take the blame. Please restate what you meant.
 
Jerry said:
America is not a free sociaty. We are free'er than others relativly, but we are not free objectivly. No one is.
Click to expand...

I am very free. Except maybe to the spirit of the instinctual lioness. I willingly accede to her, within reason.
 
Texmex said:
Either I totally misread your posting or you misread mine. I'll take the blame. Please restate what you meant.
Click to expand...
Mr.Lollie didn't seem to understand that, sign or no sign, you have to leave when asked. Even if you "didn't do anything wrong", you still have to leave when asked.

That's a fact most or all gun owners are keenly aware of. Since the media didn't exploit Mr.Lollie as a law braker (the media only popularizes negative gun-owner stories) I therefore assume he wasn't armed.

When you then say I don't speak for all gun owners, that sounds to me like you're including Lollie in 'all gun owners', and so I asked where you read that Lollie had a gun.

I assume Lollie did not have a gun, therefore never took a permit class on law, therefore didn't realize you have to leave when asked regardless.
 
Last edited:
ChezC3 said:
Capster...I know you don't know me from Adam. Until you do, don't speak on what I know or don't know. I interact with police on a damn near daily basis. I see the difference in them when they "switch it on". When their demeanor and attitude with me is no longer the friendly, joke filled, playful back and forth and when they have to perform their duties as a LEO. But guess what? There are some who are cool and professional and there are some that are strokes. Just like everyone else. There are some who know t's their job, what their job is and handle their business in a manner which best resolves whichever conflict they encounter they understand because they are mature, they don't need their badge for balls, they know that the hammer isn't the only tool in the toolbox. Then you've got the Billy Badasses whose balls are in their badge and don't know how to use any other tool but the hammer.

I mean Jesus H. when the hell did acting like a prick, demanding everyone bend to your will because you got a badge make you a professional and when the hell did the citizens of these United States become so god damn subservient...

Esto Vir! Be a man! Too much authority has been given to the LE community and too much leeway for their behavior.
Click to expand...

Damn dude that post really struck a cord in me. Hammering should only be done when it is 100% the obvious task for efficiency. Not because you want to rush.
 
The guy seems like he has a chip on his shoulder. He could--and should--just have calmly complied with the initial request to show his ID. Brief investigatory detentions by police are sometimes called "stop-and-frisks" or "Terry stops," after the Supreme Court decision that authorized them.

Police do not violate a person's Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable seizures by making an investigatory detention, provided it is brief and they have reasonable suspicion of a completed crime, or that criminal activity is occurring or may be about to occur. Reasonable suspicion has to be based on articulable facts--i.e. it must be more than just a hunch. There is no fixed standard for reasonable suspicion--it is based on the totality of the circumstances.

The notion that police cannot briefly stop a person and ask what he's doing, ask for ID, and so on, is nonsense. They certainly can do that. And the detainee's demeanor is part of the totality of the circumstances. If the person becomes uncooperative, loud, etc. during the investigatory detention--particularly if he refuses to identify himself and briefly explain what he's doing there--it may cause the initial reasonable suspicion that gave rise to the detention to increase to the probable cause needed for an arrest.

I don't know if these police met the required standards in dealing with this guy. But acting the way he did is really dumb, because police can easily take your agitation and challenging tone as a sign you've got something to hide. And for all we know, being where this guy was at that time of day, alone, could be behavior they have learned is typical of certain kinds of criminals. Best just to be friendly, cooperative, show your ID, and explain what you're doing. And if for some reason you are arrested anyway, go calmly to the station, and then, once you're there, if you think an officer was out of line, get the badge number and file a complaint.
.
 
Last edited:
Jerry said:
Its about paying for the road, paying for any damage you cause to someone else, making sure you actualy know how to drive in the first place, and oh yeah you don't own the road.
Click to expand...

They never tested me if I could drive in the first place. All they did was make me take a test on the rules of the road when I first starting driving. If I don't hit anyone else then I did not cause anyone else damage. I'm also pretty sure the funds they get from car registration and driver licensing doesn't just go to paying for the road.
 
Last edited:
Jerry said:
America is not a free sociaty. We are free'er than others relativly, but we are not free objectivly. No one is.
Click to expand...

We are not even near the top economically or otherwise.
 
dirtpoorchris said:
Damn dude that post really struck a cord in me. Hammering should only be done when it is 100% the obvious task for efficiency. Not because you want to rush.
Click to expand...
I always proffered screws anyway.
 
Henrin said:
They never tested me if I could drive in the first place. All they did was make me take a test on the rules of the road when I first starting driving. If I don't hit anyone else then I did not cause anyone else damage. I'm also pretty sure the funds they get from car registration and driver licensing doesn't just go to paying for the road.
Click to expand...
You never had to take a driving test? Did you take a driver-traing class and get a waiver? I know that's offered for motorcycles. Military can pull certin strings to waiv the driving test for a CDL, too.
 
dirtpoorchris said:
I am very free. Except maybe to the spirit of the instinctual lioness. I willingly accede to her, within reason.
Click to expand...

You're not free... none of us are.

America has abandoned the rule of law - the government is no longer accountable to the rule of law. If the government is unaccountable and unconstrained - it can abuse you and your freedom all it wants, whenever it wants. Just b/c you haven't been set upon yet - yet being the operative word there - doesn't mean that you can't be, or you won't be.

If you fancy yourself a libertarian - so much so that you choose to identify yourself as such on a public forum - I can assure you, you are on the governments radar.

We are not that far away from collapse. Once that happens, you're going to get a quick lesson in just how free you are not.
 
Jerry said:
Mr.Lollie didn't seem to understand that, sign or no sign, you have to leave when asked. Even if you "didn't do anything wrong", you still have to leave when asked.

That's a fact most or all gun owners are keenly aware of. Since the media didn't exploit Mr.Lollie as a law braker (the media only popularizes negative gun-owner stories) I therefore assume he wasn't armed.

When you then say I don't speak for all gun owners, that sounds to me like you're including Lollie in 'all gun owners', and so I asked where you read that Lollie had a gun.

I assume Lollie did not have a gun, therefore never took a permit class on law, therefore didn't realize you have to leave when asked regardless.
Click to expand...

No I didn't think Lollie was armed. I understand what you are saying. The difference is when I was young, in a situation like this, it is unlikely this would have happened. It's not that the cops didn't have the right or the ability to detain, beat or arrest anyone, it's because the police didn't always treat people like this. Maybe I'm just too old for you to relate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom