One Good Cop

[Thomas Rogers]

Redfish,



No, the second strike is still an issue to me. The cop had no reason to ask for identity, and doing so infringes on the civilians right to privacy if answered.



I find it interesting that you have "fish" in your handle and never heard of "trolling". I am using the fishing variant of the definition. In that case to troll means to cast out and attempt to catch something when there is no clear indication that there is anything out there to catch (my definition, but pretty common).



The trolling took place after the LEO had his legal business and reason for the stop accomplished. Once he did his duty and found the gun was empty, from that point on, IMHO, he was trolling. He didn't know of any wrong-doing, but he kept casting the bait out and trying to reel stuff in, regardless.



TJR

 

[EddieS'04]

Bob, I wasnt meaning my comment to be side taking. I have just been reading and studying the vid.



I felt a desire to plug my final thoughts, after studying this thread.



We are all cool. This has been intresting and hasnt gotten out of hand, verbaly.:supercool:

 

[Robert Thomas]

Not a problem for me. Just wanted to let you know we were mostly talking about the first video. I don't care which side of the discussion one takes. Actually, in cases like this we use to take one side and make the case then switch sides.



I think things have been quite civil considering the passion on each view. I quite enjoyed it.



Never hear trolling as you used it. Never had to look for work it always found me. Fishing most surely.

 

[Robert Thomas]

TJR



I think we have beat the post to a pulp, but, I became interesting in the "trolling" issue for my own information. I searched this in a number of ways and only found mostly information on how to troll the police. IE. if you are in the donut line and a cop is behind you buy all the donuts.



What I ended up with was the Fourth Amendment. The writings and cases are all over the spectrum on this subject. Most law professors writing on the subject agree with you basic premise, somewhat. They don't carry it as far as harassment under the legal definition. They conclude that no case law prohibits questioning of non detain-able citizens. They all suggest State or Local guidelines are needed which would prohibit the type of action.



I found one case that parallels your traffic stop as described, "Ohio vs Bobinette" In this case after "trolling" the officer found drugs. Sorry, I know you didn't have drugs and I mean nothing by the comparison.



The case supports both our arguments. I count about 20 judges that could not agree on the constitutionality of the case. The individuals was found guilty, the case was supported in appeal, the case was overturned on appeal, and finally the case was upheld by the Supreme Court on Appeal, by a split decision. As I see most of the case falls on, not if the police can question, but, if the police have to tell a individual when he/she is free to leave. The courts ruled in this case and others that they do not.



After reading everything on the case I truly understand why many don't feel this type of conduct is acceptable. If judges can't agree, no one of us could expect us to agree.



The one thing that all of can gain from this post is that if you are stopped and consider your self detained or questioned unreasonably, trolled, or probed use the statement. "Am I free to go" . Keep using that statement until someone puts handcuffs on you, then try. "I want a Attorney"

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Redfish,



Yes, we have beaten it pretty well. Also, true, what I am against in the video is not legally harassment, but I feel it is a textbook definition of harassment (e.g. to annoy repeatedly). Now, I can't say for sure that the pedestrian was annoyed, but I certainly would have been.



I agree that that the legalities surrounding stop, search, seizure, the right to privacy, and the understanding/agreement on these things is not universal.



I also agree that asking LEO: "Why have you stopped me?" and "Am I free to go?" are both questions that most people should understand the importance of and use appropriately.



Most LEO will start a stop with: "Do you know why I stopped you?". or "I have stopped you because...", which I suspect is part of their training.



I will likely always fall towards the side of protecting civil rights when it comes to a judgement call, either by police or by judges in such matters. My review of case law shows that most judges seem to do the same, but not always by a wide margin on all cases. I'd hope that police fall on the side of civil rights too, but I'm a little more skeptical of that.



TJR