The Cellar  

Go Back   The Cellar > Main > Current Events
FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Current Events Help understand the world by talking about things happening in it

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-23-2004, 12:21 PM   #1
Beestie
-◊|≡·∙■·∙≡|◊-
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Parts unknown.
Posts: 4,081
I'm not sure I see a huge problem with the ruling.

In the specific instance of this case, an officer was investigating a situation that, on its face, looked extremely irregular. The cop went to investigate and the guy refuses to cooperate when he clearly should have. Had he not acted like a complete prick, the whole thing probably would have evaporated right then and there.

I guess my point is a cop whose intention it is to hassle someone didn't need this ruling. They already have enough interpretive bullshit to justify a shakedown (e.g., "reasonable suspicion", "his taillight was out", "he flipped me off", "he was taking pictures of a bridge", "he checked Mein Kampf out of the library and returned it a day late", etc.).

If a cop wants to screw with you, he doesn't need this ruling - he's already got a full bag of tricks.

The other thing is that this is unrelated to the Patriot Acts and the Constitutionally affronting garbage that Congress is shoveling out these days. I think there is an obvious temptation to lump this in with all that as another 'oops' down the slippery slope but, to me, this is more related to a Miranda rights case than anything which would have happened 9/11 or no 9/11.
__________________
Beestie is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:59 AM.


Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.