PDA

View Full Version : Welcome to the police state



dropkick
2007-03-06, 17:33
Everyday it seems to me we lose more and more freedoms.

I just read a short blurb in the paper about some underage "celebrity" that got arrested for drinking in a NC bar.

That doesn't bother me. What bothers me is that one of the charges was resisting arrest.
He got charged with this not because he physically resisted, he was charged because he lied to the police about his age.

What's with this?
It's now illegal to lie to the police?
When did they become the courts?
And I didn't notice that he was under oath.

What happened to freedom of speech?
Or even the right against self-incrimination?

http://thetrack.bostonherald.com/moreTrack/view.bg?articleid=186530

Sgt.Krohn
2007-03-06, 19:27
It Can't Happen Here
by Rep. Ron Paul, MD
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul

In 2002 I asked my House colleagues a rhetorical question with regard to the onslaught of government growth in the post-September 11th era: Is America becoming a police state?

The question is no longer rhetorical. We are not yet living in a total police state, but it is fast approaching. The seeds of future tyranny have been sown, and many of our basic protections against government have been undermined. The atmosphere since 2001 has permitted Congress to create whole new departments and agencies that purport to make us safer – always at the expense of our liberty. But security and liberty go hand-in-hand. Members of Congress, like too many Americans, don’t understand that a society with no constraints on its government cannot be secure. History proves that societies crumble when their governments become more powerful than the people and private institutions.

Unfortunately, the new intelligence bill passed by Congress two weeks ago moves us closer to an encroaching police state by imposing the precursor to a full-fledged national ID card. Within two years, every American will need a “conforming” ID to deal with any federal agency – including TSA at the airport.

Undoubtedly many Americans and members of Congress don’t believe America is becoming a police state, which is reasonable enough. They associate the phrase with highly visible symbols of authoritarianism like military patrols, martial law, and summary executions. But we ought to be concerned that we have laid the foundation for tyranny by making the public more docile, more accustomed to government bullying, and more accepting of arbitrary authority – all in the name of security. Our love for liberty above all has been so diminished that we tolerate intrusions into our privacy that would have been abhorred just a few years ago. We tolerate inconveniences and infringements upon our liberties in a manner that reflects poorly on our great national character of rugged individualism. American history, at least in part, is a history of people who don’t like being told what to do. Yet we are increasingly empowering the federal government and its agents to run our lives.

Terror, fear, and crises like 9-11 are used to achieve complacency and obedience, especially when citizens are deluded into believing they are still a free people. The loss of liberty, we are assured, will be minimal, short-lived, and necessary. Many citizens believe that once the war on terror is over, restrictions on their liberties will be reversed. But this war is undeclared and open-ended, with no precise enemy and no expressly stated final goal. Terrorism will never be eradicated completely; does this mean future presidents will assert extraordinary war powers indefinitely?

Washington DC provides a vivid illustration of what our future might look like. Visitors to Capitol Hill encounter police barricades, metal detectors, paramilitary officers carrying fully automatic rifles, police dogs, ID checks, and vehicle stops. The people are totally disarmed; only the police and criminals have guns. Surveillance cameras are everywhere, monitoring street activity, subway travel, parks, and federal buildings. There's not much evidence of an open society in Washington, DC, yet most folks do not complain – anything goes if it's for government-provided safety and security.

After all, proponents argue, the government is doing all this to catch the bad guys. If you don’t have anything to hide, they ask, what are you so afraid of? The answer is that I’m afraid of losing the last vestiges of privacy that a free society should hold dear. I’m afraid of creating a society where the burden is on citizens to prove their innocence, rather than on government to prove wrongdoing. Most of all, I’m afraid of living in a society where a subservient populace surrenders its liberties to an all-powerful government.

It may be true that average Americans do not feel intimidated by the encroachment of the police state. Americans remain tolerant of what they see as mere nuisances because they have been deluded into believing total government supervision is necessary and helpful, and because they still enjoy a high level of material comfort. That tolerance may wane, however, as our standard of living falls due to spiraling debt, endless deficit spending at home and abroad, a declining fiat dollar, inflation, higher interest rates, and failing entitlement programs. At that point attitudes toward omnipotent government may change, but the trend toward authoritarianism will be difficult to reverse.

Those who believe a police state can't happen here are poor students of history. Every government, democratic or not, is capable of tyranny. We must understand this if we hope to remain a free people.

Take-a-knee
2007-03-06, 19:51
Ron Paul is a great American, if we had a couple hundred more like him in congress, we wouldn't be in the mess we are in. Unfortunately I can't cast a ballot for him, but I have contributed to his campaigns.

Iceman
2007-03-07, 00:24
What bothers me is that one of the charges was resisting arrest.
He got charged with this not because he physically resisted, he was charged because he lied to the police about his age.

What's with this?
It's now illegal to lie to the police?

What happened to freedom of speech?
Or even the right against self-incrimination?

http://thetrack.bostonherald.com/moreTrack/view.bg?articleid=186530


Give me a break. When you provide a false statement to a law enforcement officer who is trying to do his job, you screw the whole system up. How well could you do your job effectively if everyone you dealt with lied to you all day? Would it be ok with you that this a-hole used your name and Social Security number at his arrest? Now you have a "hit" in your states (and the FBI's) database. You apply for a job, and get a possible hit against this false statement made by some jerk. Totally screws you, cause people lie to the police, especially about who they are, their name (alias), dates of birth, everything. Couple this with criminals who have used over 50 alias names, birth dates, social security numbers.....gets worse and worse.

And, in this NC case, the "resisting" or any other lesser charge such as "false statement" would equate to a misdemeanor charge anyway so who really cares. IMHO, we need legislation aimed at those who steal your good name, credit history, identity. I say you use a false name at time of arrest, and you should get slapped with a felony charge. Wait until you spend thousands of dollars, time and heartache trying to clear your good name because some criminal feels it is ok to use your data, then maybe you might understand why the prosecutor filed this charge against this liar.

Furthermore, most states require that you carry identification on your body at all times when in public. This may not be such a problem in the future when we consider the advancements in biometrics. Handheld fingerprint identification in the field for some law enforecement agencies is now a reality.

And yes, it is illegal to lie to the police, he does on the otherhand have the right to shut his pie hole and say nothing misleading.

OK, I feel better now...sorry...

jimtanker
2007-03-07, 06:25
I'm on your side Iceman. I know alot of police officers and I firmly believe that if youre not guilty, MOST of the time, you are going to be ok. Those idiots that are giving the police trouble are most likely guilty of something.

Kea
2007-03-07, 10:20
Give me a break. When you provide a false statement to a law enforcement officer who is trying to do his job, you screw the whole system up.

A) That's making a false statement, NOT resisting arrest, and whoever made the charge fit the crime is a raving incompetent. I believe that 'making a false statement' or 'obstruction of justice' are both more appropriate.


How well could you do your job effectively if everyone you dealt with lied to you all day? Would it be ok with you that this a-hole used your name and Social Security number at his arrest? Now you have a "hit" in your states (and the FBI's) database. You apply for a job, and get a possible hit against this false statement made by some jerk. Totally screws you, cause people lie to the police, especially about who they are, their name (alias), dates of birth, everything. Couple this with criminals who have used over 50 alias names, birth dates, social security numbers.....gets worse and worse.

Dude, people lie to the police ALL the time. It is a common criminal enterprise to lie to cops, and has been for as long as we've had government law enforcement(several thousand years). This doesn't negate the 5th Amendment protection against self-incrimination and it can't be allowed to.

And, making a false statement, like ANY of the ones you use as examples above is still a crime of itself. ALL that happens is that it complicates the process of finding out who someone is. If the cops stop after he provides a false name and ID, then they have actually not done their job.

Iceman
2007-03-07, 11:26
Raving Incompetent? What the'...

Read them and weap.

RCW 9A.76.040
Resisting arrest.

(1) A person is guilty of resisting arrest if he intentionally prevents or attempts to prevent a peace officer from lawfully arresting him.

incognito
2007-03-07, 11:30
Everyday it seems to me we lose more and more freedoms.

I just read a short blurb in the paper about some underage "celebrity" that got arrested for drinking in a NC bar.

That doesn't bother me. What bothers me is that one of the charges was resisting arrest.
He got charged with this not because he physically resisted, he was charged because he lied to the police about his age.

What's with this?
It's now illegal to lie to the police?
When did they become the courts?
And I didn't notice that he was under oath.

What happened to freedom of speech?
Or even the right against self-incrimination?

http://thetrack.bostonherald.com/moreTrack/view.bg?articleid=186530

Did the newspaper report everything? Like you said, it was a short blurb.

Bear
2007-03-07, 14:39
I agree some what on both sides. Our freedoms are being taken away from us a little at a time. Part of that problem is that too few of us have not had to earn that freedom. If more of us would have had to sacrifice some, we might appreciate it more.But in this particular instance, I don't believe we have enough of the facts. I am not a lawyer or policeman, this is just my personal opinion. Being an underage kid, in a place that he was not supposed to be in, he was probably scared to death when the officer approached him and asked for an ID. Was it a routine check, or had something happened that caused the police to be there. Was the officer beligerent or polite? Was the kid beligerent or polite? The article does not specify and a little courtesy from both sides can go a long way. I realize that the law is the law and the kid was wrong but, if he was in fact a "good kid", and was being polite but scared the officer might have been able to reason with him and explain the law a litte better and cut the kid a little slack. On the other hand, if the kid was beligerent and the police had been called in due to a fight or something that the kid was involved in, throw the book at him. As I said, we don't have all the facts, but I have learned from the school of hard knocks. Never assume, it will make an "ass" out of "u" and "me".
And no, I am not a bleading heart liberal. I am a gun toting right wing registered Republican that believes our judicial system sucks and needs to be drasticlly overhauled.

Ok, I have vented.

GGS
2007-03-07, 16:42
The other thing that is happening here is TRIAL BY MEDIA. We are reacting to a news article as though it is complete and accurate. News articles rarely state everything that happened, and all too often what little they state is inaccurate.

Ok, maybe the cop was a jerk. Then again maybe what the kid was doing was bad enough that it does fall under "resisting arrest". We don't know. The article doesn't give us enough info to determine that.

As a person who works a lot with teenage youths, I can attest that underage drinking is a big problem. So is lying to get away with stuff because it always works on gullible parents. So if this kid is guilty as charged then the dumbarse got what he deserved, IMHO. Hopefully he'll learn that the law is the law, he won't be treated with kid gloves anymore, and his "celebrity" status doesn't put him above the law.

Bear
2007-03-07, 21:52
oops, too many of us have not had to earn our freedom. Too much work and not enough days off!

Streamweaver
2007-03-08, 10:25
Its been illegal to lie to cops for a long time! My buddy got 4 months for lying to a cop!

Take-a-knee
2007-03-08, 11:51
" I did not have sex with that woman.... Monica Lewinski." ?

Kea
2007-03-08, 12:22
Raving Incompetent? What the'...

Read them and weap.

RCW 9A.76.040
Resisting arrest.

(1) A person is guilty of resisting arrest if he intentionally prevents or attempts to prevent a peace officer from lawfully arresting him.

Yes, raving incompetent. Any time you these kinds of 'throw the book at them' charges, you're watching abusive incompetence in the system. The key here is 'resisting', which is almost universally a physical act or series of physical acts, as opposed to obfuscating the facts to avoid arrest.

I know a guy who got a resisting charge thrown in gratuitously because when the cop was questioning him he was being as intimidating as possible, moving into the guys 'space', and he pulled back about 4 inches. The cop was operating on a very bad hunch and was looking for an excuse to arrest -someone-, as evidenced by the charges being dropped and the locality having to make a bit of compensation at a later point.

lobo41
2007-03-08, 14:32
I must be lost - although an intersting discussion, I am trying to determine what any of it as to do with hiking.

Take-a-knee
2007-03-08, 14:40
Lobo, man does not live by hiking alone. Rock and Dixie let us rant on occasion.

dixicritter
2007-03-08, 14:50
As long as it doesn't get personal... ;)

Nothing wrong with a good civilized debate every now and then. :D

Iceman
2007-03-08, 23:26
Kea, so lets assume for a second that the officer asked the individual "may I see your identification so that I may determine that you are of drinking age?" Suspect provides the ID without any words given. Under closer inspection the officer determines that the ID was ficticious or altered, and that the officer reasons that the individual provided the ID, in an attempt to fool the officer into believing he was "of age"...and to avoid arrest....what would you charge the suspect with? (Remember, this is a cop he handed it to...someone with the power of arrest, dutifully performing his sworn oath...someone who is attempting to ascertain information to determine if this person is breaking the law... If he used a fake license to buy booze at the bar or at a store, you "charge" the fictious or altered license "charge"...not the resisting....) So, what do you charge the guy with.....?

Also, understand, much of law enforcement is as clear as mud. There is always the chance of error. Not all cops have nice days. Not all cops charge people with the correct crime. As I stated before, the cops aren't really throwing the book at this a-hole, if the charges equate to the same crime level (misdemeanor), the resisting just sounds "badder". If dufus did not physically resist, it does not mean that the charge is faulty..... A false statement may require the suspect to actually say something. If he said nothing, the elements of the false statement charge are gone.

Obviously you have a bit of hostility towards law enforcement and the jurisprudence system, or have witnessed abuse, do not let it cloud the vision.

Frolicking Dino
2007-03-09, 13:10
I would really like to see the new congress rewrite the Patriot Act so that it is in line with the constitution.

GGS
2007-03-09, 18:18
I must be lost - although an intersting discussion, I am trying to determine what any of it as to do with hiking.

Good point.

Um... Anyone hike up at the McCormick Wilderness Tract in UP Michigan?

TeeDee
2007-03-09, 18:54
I must be lost - although an intersting discussion, I am trying to determine what any of it as to do with hiking.

Hey, when you arrive at a nice spot to stay the night, it's really cold and you are not solo, you need a topic such as this to heat everybody up before retiring for the night.

One really good topic like this can go for 3 or 4 nights and provide a lot of needed heat. A lot of needed heat.

SowthEfrikan
2007-03-14, 21:08
Maybe it's about people becoming delusional on the trail?

Some of us have lived in actual police states, where people were murdered for their political beliefs, and happen to know the difference.

Get a grip.

Mutinousdoug
2007-03-14, 23:55
Agree that this discuss has little to do with hiking/camping; still, it belongs on the "Cracker barrel" page.
Prez Lincoln had the same problem identifying enemies of the state that Bush II has and had the same 5th columnists second guessing his every move.

I guess we'll see how his successors do protecting the homeland. I wish them all the best, as I have grandchildren I'd like to see have the same opportunities I've had.

Kea
2007-03-15, 13:41
Kea, so lets assume for a second that the officer asked the individual "may I see your identification so that I may determine that you are of drinking age?" Suspect provides the ID without any words given. Under closer inspection the officer determines that the ID was ficticious or altered, and that the officer reasons that the individual provided the ID, in an attempt to fool the officer into believing he was "of age"...and to avoid arrest....what would you charge the suspect with?

There are laws that cover fake IDs, are there not?


Obviously you have a bit of hostility towards law enforcement and the jurisprudence system, or have witnessed abuse, do not let it cloud the vision.

May I ask what 'vision' you are referring to? I am far more concerned with the maintenance of our civil liberties than I am giving law enforcement and prosecutors carte blache to arrest underage drinkers on gratutious resisting arrest charges. Having lived in the jurisdiction that was quick to settle and pay hush money to someone I know, because of an over-zealous, aggressive cop spoiling for an arrest, I am VERY interested in seeing liabilities of this sort NOT happen, simply because it is a waste of tax money.

The Frederick County Maryland Sheriff office had a rash of problems with deputies going overboard and doing things that were excessive and abusive. It cost them a lot of money to clean up the lawsuits, and try to cultivate an image that wasn't of a pack of thugs. If the goal is to have the kind of relationships with the community that increase the overall effectiveness of law enforcement, then that is not served by gratuitous use of 'resisting arrest'. Maybe this works for sheeple who actually believe that underage celebrity teens contribute to the terrorist threat, but it leaves me very much unconvinced.

Hollowdweller
2007-03-15, 13:55
I would really like to see the new congress rewrite the Patriot Act so that it is in line with the constitution.

I agree. The way Gonzalez used the patriot act to fire those prosecutors for political reasons shows that the admin was more interested in capitalizing on the post 9/11 hysteria in order to consolidate their imperial power than in really protecting the public.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Dismissal_of_U.S._attorneys_controversy

Take-a-knee
2007-03-15, 17:08
HD, Gonzales' firing prosecutors was certainly political, but not as political as Janet Reno's firing of ALL federal prosecutors upon taking office, not much was made of that 'cause the media loved the prevaricator-in-chief.

Hollowdweller
2007-03-15, 18:15
Actually more political in Abu Gonzales' part. Reno cleaned house at the beginning of her tenure. Gonzalez targeted only those who would not use their position to try to influence the upcoming election. There would have been no outcry if he had done the same as Reno did. But by targeting ones that he felt weren't doing enough to prosecute democrats right before the election it was obvious that what he was doing it to try to give some cover to the corrupt GOP lawmakers. It didn't work and apparently has come back to bite him in the:bootyshak :biggrin:

dropkick
2007-03-15, 19:47
I've been busy and haven't visited the site for a bit.
Made a quick visit the other day and read what's been posted.
Been thinking about Iceman's view supporting the police being able to charge you with resisting arrest for lying and decided to submit two short plays about my view of it.

Overview:
Many states have laws prohibiting bestiality (having sexual relations with an animal) for the purpose of these plays I'll assume the state of Washington does.

Also for the purpose of these plays we'll say the police officer has had a bad day, and also remembers that someone similar in looks to Iceman beat him up in grade school.

Play one:

Police: Mr. Iceman, have you ever had relations with a chicken?
Iceman: No!
Police: You're lying, and you're under arrest.
Iceman: I'm not lying!
Police: We'll let the courts decide.
Iceman: But even when I'm proven innocent, my reputation will be smeared and I'll be out of a lot of money for lawyer's fees (not to mention the time spent in jail).
Police: IF your proven innocent.
Iceman: But you have nothing linking me to any bestiality.
Police: I'm not arresting you for bestiality I'm arresting you for resisting arrest (even if the two might be linked in the papers).

Play two:

Police: Mr. Iceman have you ever had relations with a chicken?
Iceman: What's your probable cause for asking this.
Police: We received an anonymous tip about your perverse behavior
Iceman: That's an insult and I'm not answering any of your questions.
Police: That's resisting and you're under arrest.
---Under Iceman's definition for resisting arrest not answering is the same as lying.

End plays.

There are reasons why we limit the power of the authorities. Too much power breeds corruption and misuse.


Preemptive arguments:

You might say that the stories I created above wouldn't or couldn't happen in the U.S.
But the abuse of police powers already happens in the U.S. quite often.
--Just do a little research on the drug forfeiture laws and how often they have been abused.

Police get no-knock drug warrants based on "anonymous" tips all the time.

Perhaps it wouldn't go to court, maybe the charges would be dropped, but his reputation would still be ruined.

If it did go to court who decides if you told the truth?
A judge who might feel the police are always right, or who just likes the police more than you?
And depending on the laws in your state (play two) there is the possiblity that they wouldn't even have to address what lead up to your resisting arrest charge.

SowthEfrikan
2007-03-15, 20:11
Great point, Take-A-Knee. A handful of prosecutors gets to go and its a huge deal, but when Clinton fires 93 prosecutors narry a word is said. The double standard is astounding.

Mutinousdoug
2007-03-15, 22:16
A crucial fact none have pointed out here is that all of these replacements (OH! excuse me! "firings") took place in the context of a thorough review of all U.S. Attorneys upon the expiration of their statutorily-provided 4-year term. None were removed prior to the expiration of their initial term. After that, they merely serve until their replacement is named. As is the case with ALL Fed Prosecutors.
I would think a President would be only doing his duty by letting go the least effective 10% of his appointees at regular intervals.
Unless they belonged to a union or something, then probably they should probably have jobs/salarys for life.
Some here seem to believe the LA Times is a news paper rather than an entertainment rag with an agenda.

GGS
2007-03-15, 23:25
Dropkick,

I do not argue that some police officers abuse their power. Fortunately this is why we have trial by our peers here in this country. Whatever allegations this police officer made will have to be proven to a jury made up of you and me for the charges to stick.

If lying about your age falls under resisting arrest as that law is currently written, we can assume the jury will find the young man guilty as charged. If it doesn't the jury will find him innocent.

As the Rodney King case so obviously illustrated, continued police abuse of power eventually becomes a huge financial and political liability for the city and community over which it sees. Eventually the community is forced to address the problem. Police officers are being trainied better and abuse problems are being addressed quicker. Thus the police force as a whole has improved.

Sure, a few police _individuals_ push the rules. A few soldiers caused the Abu Ghraib scandal. A few hikers trash the wilderness and cause forest fires. A few pet owners harbor vicious dogs that bite people. Should I ban all pet owners from owning dogs? Should I ban all hikers from the wilderness? Should I spit on al soldiers who return from Iraq?

Personally, I refuse to fault the many because of the actions of the few.

Iceman
2007-03-16, 00:11
North Carolina Statutes read:

14‑223. Resisting officers.
If any person shall willfully and unlawfully resist, delay or obstruct a public officer in discharging or attempting to discharge a duty of his office, he shall be guilty of a Class 2 misdemeanor. (1889, c. 51, s. 1; Rev., s. 3700; C.S., s. 4378; 1969, c. 1224, s. 1; 1993, c. 539, s. 136; 1994, Ex. Sess., c. 24, s. 14(c).)


http://www.ncleg.net/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/BySection/Chapter_14/GS_14-223.html

I just re-read the original article.... Why have a cow over this resisting charge? If he has no ID, and lies to the cops, what else would they charge him with? Maybe they should just let everybody drink it up if underage. Skrew the laws. Enforce none. If you don't like the law, change it. The big bad cops are so evil, they are just out to get everybody.

dropkick
2007-03-16, 01:40
Iceman you keep either missing the point or skewing it.

The kid got arrested for drinking under age - which as far as I'm concerned was his only crime - and he's guilty.

Saying that the police shouldn't have certain powers or that some of them misuse the powers that they do have is not saying that all cops are bad.

It also isn't saying that I don't support the police and the work that they do.

What I am saying is that arresting a person for lying is a violation of his or her civil rights, and the police should not have the ability to do this.

I am also saying that more and more of our personal rights are slowly being taken away, and a lot of people either seem to be ignoring it or not comprehending that the rights they are signing away might effect them personally someday.

Iceman
2007-03-16, 14:12
Dropkick, how did the guy get arrested for underage drinking, if he had no identification on him at the time of arrest? In actual practice, what happens is this; the individual gets arrested for resisting arrest, (for failing to accurately disclose his age or identity to police in an effort to avoid getting arrested...) Then, later, after he is fingerprinted and his actual identity is discerned thru fingerprint identification, he is subsequently charged with the additional crime of underage drinking.

Please name for me, the civil right he was denied. It surely is not his First Amendment right to free speech, just because you think it is so.

There are limits to free speech. Our US Supreme Court has weighed this discussion on many occasions, and has upheld that many forms of speech can be (and are) regulated. In Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, the Court opinion supported states right to write statutes to punish verbal acts if the statues are "carefully drawn so as not unduly to impair liberty of expression."
This is how states legislate against hate speech, speech which is a clear and present danger (yelling fire in a crowded theatre), fighting words, threats, obscenity, conflict with government (National security interest) and issues of time, place and manner (disruption to traffic, disrupting a soldiers funeral, etc, etc, etc...),sexual harrassment, perjury, libel and/or slander. Aparently not all speech is protected under the First Amendment.

States can and do pass laws which make lying to cops illegal, even Montana, "Obstruction" in your states case: 45-7-302. Obstructing peace officer or other public servant. (1) A person commits the offense of obstructing a peace officer or public servant if the person knowingly obstructs, impairs, or hinders the enforcement of the criminal law, the preservation of the peace, or the performance of a governmental function, including service of process.

http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/mca/45/7/45-7-302.htm

In North Carolina, you lie to cops, it appears you get charged with resisting officers.

pure_mahem
2007-03-16, 23:27
I would just like to point out it is against the law to make a false statement during an investigation or making one that incites an investigation. same as dialing 911 and not having an emergency. This kid could be very lucky that he was only charged with resisting and not obstruction or perjury which would both carry more severe penalties. just my thought.

dropkick
2007-03-17, 00:15
Iceman,

If the kid isn't of age his prints won't be in the system. (The police aren't even supposed to fingerprint you until you're 18).

I don't know about Washington but here you can be arrested for not showing the Police your I.D. when asked. He could also be brought in on suspicion and not released until he provided I.D. The resisting charge isn't needed.

"carefully drawn so as not unduly to impair liberty of expression."
Lying is part of "liberty of expression"

As I understand what you are saying, according to your interpretation of the laws anything other than telling the police the truth is obstruction of justice.

Then you don't hold with freedom of expression.

If a person isn't allowed any response other than the one you want, where is the freedom?

According to my thinking this is a direct violation of constitutional rights.


I also read the Supreme Court decision as limiting free speech only where it incites violence or directly and unjustly harms another person. Lying to the police (in this instance) does neither.


--I think you and the police are interpreting the law (as written) too broadly, I think it was intended to only apply to physical resistance.

Amigi
2007-03-17, 03:00
On the issue of security.....
Anyone else use IP masking/redirection software?

Iceman
2007-03-17, 03:28
Actually, most states, including Montana, require that youth get fingerprinted at the time of intervention or arrest.

Montana; 41-5-1206 Investigation, fingerprints, and photographs.
(1) All law enforcement investigations relating to a delinquent youth or youth in need of intervention must be conducted in accordance with this chapter and Title 46. (2) A youth may be fingerprinted or photographed for criminal identification purposes: (a) if arrested for conduct alleged to be unlawful that would be a felony if committed by an adult; (b) pursuant to a search warrant, supported by probable cause, issued by a judge, justice of the peace, or magistrate; or (c) upon the order of the youth court judge, after a petition alleging delinquency has been filed. (3) Fingerprint records and photographs may be used by the department of justice or any law enforcement agency in the judicial district for comparison and identification purposes in any other investigation. http://dept.fvtc.edu/ojjdp/mt.pdf

Most states fingerprint youth to help identify the youth (as with others) and assure that ones criminal history is not affected by someone elses. Fingerprinting also helps to keep faulty information off of individuals records. Rapsheets are built from fingerprints. No fingerprints, no criminal record.

Anyway, for the purposes of our discussion, what would you have done with the individual who repeatedly gave to you false information in an attempt to disclose his true age/identity?

dropkick
2007-03-17, 18:02
As I said before, If he refused to provide I.D. in the bar I would arrest him for being in the bar without proof of age (illegal in Montana and in one form or another in most other states).
Later if he proved to be underage, I would also charge him with drinking underage.

If he provided a false I.D. (and I caught it) I would also charge him with using a false I.D. (a more serious charge here).

None of the above crimes are felonies though, so I legally wouldn't be able to print and photograph him.

Amigi
2007-03-19, 08:11
Let me interrupt this underage drinking discussion for one quick second.
Again, anyone else use IP redirect/masking software? My business laptop has it. It "broadcasts", for lack of a better term, a false IP. I dont really care if someone knows I'm sitting at my desk at home, but when I'm outta country, it is often to my benefit and security that anyone looking would still think I was sitting at my desk in Florida. Not advertising for anyone here, but the commercial version of what I have is called Anonymizer. Check it out if you want a little more internet privacy. F the FBI.;)