Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
NC Deputy Beats Down Activists In Their Home  
User currently offlineAC773 From Canada, joined Nov 2005, 1730 posts, RR: 2
Posted (7 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 2028 times:

A couple in rural North Carolina decided to hang their flag upside-down and promptly got a visit from an Asheville police officer about it

Quote:
“He was very polite and just said that because it was a sign of distress, he wanted to make sure everything was OK,” Deborah Kuhn said. “We said we had it out as a show of desperation — our country is in distress and we just don’t know what to do. We asked if we had violated any ordinance. He said, ‘No, you have every right.’”

More recently, a Sheriff's deputy came again on the grounds of a complaint filed about the flag. Here's where it gets interesting...

Quote:
“I saw that one cop [Scarborough] pull up and I saw those people come out on the porch and start talking to him,” Stevenson said. “They took their flag down, asked the officer to leave and closed the door. Then he started kicking the door, he kicked it about five or six good times, then he laid right into it. After he got done kicking it, he broke the window out - I saw him hit the window.” Deborah Kuhn says that Scarborough then “pursued my husband into the kitchen, they were scuffling, [and] Mark was trying to get away from him. He pulls out his billy club and I call 911 and say that an officer has broken into our house and is assaulting us.”

First off, it was downright stupid of these people to post that stuff on their house. You live in Asheville, morons! It might have been fine in RDU or CLT, but I don't know how they weren't expecting any trouble.

On the other hand, the deputy's behavior (according to the couple plus several witnesses) is appalling. I don't care if we're in rural Alabama, LEOs should be expected to act rationally and professionally at all times. If the witnesses are correct, this person should be fired.

Link to the story: http://www.mountainx.com/news/2007/f...er_protest_flag_allege_abuse_by_bu


Better to be nouveau than never to have been riche at all.
46 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineGarnetpalmetto From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 5404 posts, RR: 53
Reply 1, posted (7 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 1997 times:

Quoting AC773 (Thread starter):
You live in Asheville, morons! It might have been fine in RDU or CLT, but I don't know how they weren't expecting any trouble.

Actually, Asheville has a reputation of being a fairly liberal haunt - lots of ex-counterculture types.



South Carolina - too small to be its own country, too big to be a mental asylum.
User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26610 posts, RR: 75
Reply 2, posted (7 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 1985 times:

Quoting AC773 (Thread starter):

First off, it was downright stupid of these people to post that stuff on their house. You live in Asheville, morons! It might have been fine in RDU or CLT, but I don't know how they weren't expecting any trouble.

It doesn't matter where you are. They are protected by the First Amendment.

Quoting AC773 (Thread starter):
If the witnesses are correct, this person should be fired.

Not just fired, but also arrested, brought up on criminal charges and held civilly liable for all damages



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineMDorBust From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (7 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 1981 times:

Quoting N1120A (Reply 2):
Not just fired, but also arrested, brought up on criminal charges and held civilly liable for all damages

Arrest for what?

Read the story again.

In the process of conducting his interview with people who had broken the law, the suspects went into their house and locked the door. Like the law or not, they did violate it. They committed a crime. Like it or not, they have to comply with the reasonable and lawful commands of an officer.. to present identification. The officer was performing his duty by asking for their identifications. They chose not to obey and locked themselves away from the officer.

Anyone want to recall for us the reasons a police officer is allowed to enter a dwelling without a warrant?
1) In pursuit of a suspect.

That's all you need right there.

If you are in the process of an interview with an officer, fleeing is not a good idea. And yes, locking yourself in your house is fleeing.

Now, could the officer have handled the situation better? Yes, most certainly. He sure does come off acting like an asshat, and I'd expect him to be fired for demonstrating exceptionally bad judgement... But, he wasn't acting in violation of the law when he broke down the door to go after the suspects.


User currently offlineFalcon84 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (7 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 1972 times:

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 3):
Arrest for what?

Gee, I dunno: breaking and entering; attempted assult. That a good start MD? What gives that officer THE RIGHT to storm into someone's house.

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 3):
They committed a crime.

Read the article: "Under a rarely enforced state statute, it is a misdemeanor to desecrate or trample a U.S. or North Carolina flag."

A MISDEMEANOR! Not even a jailable offense! And, for that, you think the officer has a RIGHT to invade their home?

Seig Heil, MDorBust!


User currently offlineDeltaGator From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 6341 posts, RR: 13
Reply 5, posted (7 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 1971 times:

Quoting AC773 (Thread starter):
I don't care if we're in rural Alabama

And I've met plenty of bassackwards inbred morons in parts of Canada so what exactly is your point bringing Alabama into this one other than to show your own bias and ignorance?

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 3):
They committed a crime. Like it or not, they have to comply with the reasonable and lawful commands of an officer.. to present identification. The officer was performing his duty by asking for their identifications. They chose not to obey and locked themselves away from the officer.

Got to agree here. Whether or not the officer was being a dick (and I'm guessing he probably was) he did ask them to show ID and that is a legitimate request. What happened after the homeowners closed the door on him seems to be up for debate but by not showing them their IDs they most definitely broke the law.



"If you can't delight in the misery of others then you don't deserve to be a college football fan."
User currently offlineMDorBust From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (7 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 1964 times:

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 4):
What gives that officer THE RIGHT to storm into someone's house.

The accepted exemptions to the 4th Amendment Falcon.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 4):
Read the article: "Under a rarely enforced state statute, it is a misdemeanor to desecrate or trample a U.S. or North Carolina flag."

Misdemeanors are still crimes, and they must still be investigated. This particular crime seems to be constitutional BS, but that isn't for the police to decide. It's for the courts to decide.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 4):

A MISDEMEANOR! Not even a jailable offense!

When did that happen?

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 4):
Seig Heil, MDorBust!

Godwin on reply #4... that's just sad.


User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26610 posts, RR: 75
Reply 7, posted (7 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 1929 times:

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 3):

In the process of conducting his interview with people who had broken the law, the suspects went into their house and locked the door. Like the law or not, they did violate it. They committed a crime.

Statutes banning the "desecration" of the American flag were ruled unconstitutional a long time ago. That "little used" statute is little used because it is invalid. Texas v. Johnson invalidated all flag desecration laws nearly 20 years ago.

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 3):
Like it or not, they have to comply with the reasonable and lawful commands of an officer.. to present identification.

The officer had no right to ask for ID because he had no reason to speak to them.

Quoting DeltaGator (Reply 5):
he did ask them to show ID and that is a legitimate request.

No, it was not a legitimate request.



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineAirCop From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (7 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 1921 times:

Anyways the Sheriff office received the complaint, the address was in Asheville, so the sheriff's department should have handed the compliant to the local police for them to investigate. At least thats how it works in all the counties that I worked in. The stupid actions of the deputy will now involved the county getting sued which will result in time and resources wasted for the taxpayers. In my old department the officer would have been looking for a new career or at the very least be looking at a long unpaid vacation.

User currently offlineMDorBust From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (7 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 1911 times:

Quoting N1120A (Reply 7):
Statutes banning the "desecration" of the American flag were ruled unconstitutional a long time ago. That "little used" statute is little used because it is invalid. Texas v. Johnson invalidated all flag desecration laws nearly 20 years ago.

If the law has been invalidated by the SCOTUS, I suggest the legislature should get busy striking it from the law books.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 7):
The officer had no right to ask for ID because he had no reason to speak to them.

By the law book he was opertaing from he sure did.


User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26610 posts, RR: 75
Reply 10, posted (7 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 1907 times:

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 9):
If the law has been invalidated by the SCOTUS, I suggest the legislature should get busy striking it from the law books.

And the police should get busy obeying their order and not enforcing an unconstitutional law.

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 9):
By the law book he was opertaing from he sure did.

Except that he didn't, as above.



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineAC773 From Canada, joined Nov 2005, 1730 posts, RR: 2
Reply 11, posted (7 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 1905 times:

Quoting DeltaGator (Reply 5):
what exactly is your point bringing Alabama into this one other than to show your own bias and ignorance?

Rural Alabama was just the first "remote" area that cane to mind. I'm not trying to generalize here, but many people in those areas can be strongly patriotic and strongly Conservative. Combined with the historical stereotype of limited accountability for rural law enforcement in those areas (that was my error), I typed "rural Alabama" after half a second of thought.

I didn't mean to offend anyone, and I apologize if I did.  Smile

And yes, we do have hicks in Canada.  silly 



Better to be nouveau than never to have been riche at all.
User currently offlineMDorBust From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (7 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 1896 times:

Quoting N1120A (Reply 10):
And the police should get busy obeying their order and not enforcing an unconstitutional law.

Interesting.

You actually expect every officer to know all the decisions of the SCOTUS?

That's amusing.


User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26610 posts, RR: 75
Reply 13, posted (7 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 1888 times:

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 12):
You actually expect every officer to know all the decisions of the SCOTUS?

About the tax and bankruptcy codes, no. About criminal laws, yes. Particularly if the decisions are almost 20 years old and involve fundamental rights. The Texas legislature may or may not have repealed their sodomy law yet, but you can't legally enforce that. It doesn't change with flag-based speech.



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineJCS17 From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 8065 posts, RR: 39
Reply 14, posted (7 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 1885 times:

Hanging the flag upside down is legal, so is saying the n-word in downtown Detroit. However, don't be surprised when someone just decides to beat your ass. These "activists" knew exactly what they were doing and knew that it would piss the vast majority of people off. I love this quote from Debbie, "We said we had it out as a show of desperation — our country is in distress and we just don’t know what to do." So you hang a flag upside down? That's a huge help to the "distressed" nation. The only thing these activists had in mind was to make people mad and reply "It's our right to do it," when confronted about it.

The deputy had no right to do what he did. However, anti-war activist stupidity knows no bounds.



America's chickens are coming home to rooooost!
User currently offlineMDorBust From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (7 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 1881 times:

Quoting N1120A (Reply 13):
The Texas legislature may or may not have repealed their sodomy law yet...

Have a look for yourself. Sec 21.06

http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/petoc.html

Quote:
§ 21.06. HOMOSEXUAL CONDUCT.

[This section was declared unconstitutional by Lawrence v. Texas, 123 S.Ct. 2472.]

t(a) A person commits an offense if he engages in deviate sexual intercourse with another individual of the same sex.
t(b) An offense under this section is a Class C misdemeanor.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.

We keep our stuff current.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 13):
It doesn't change with flag-based speech.

I'm not disagreeing with you about the constitutionality of the law.

I'm saying that there is no way for a patrol officer to keep up with current and past decisions of the SCOTUS and their applications the to state and local laws. That in and of itself can be a full time job. It is the job of the legislature to keep the law books current. As long as the officer is acting in good faith to execute what he believes are the applicable laws, he can't be found at fault. Now, if it turns out he did know about the decision, and the unconstitutional nature of the law, and decided to enforce it anyways he was no longer acting in good faith and I would agree he was abusive of his authority.


User currently offlineDeltaGator From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 6341 posts, RR: 13
Reply 16, posted (7 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 1871 times:

Quoting N1120A (Reply 7):
Quoting DeltaGator (Reply 5):
he did ask them to show ID and that is a legitimate request.

No, it was not a legitimate request.

Why not "oh great exalted expert of all laws on the book anywhere in the world at any given time?"

He was resonding to a report of a problem, which the sherriff's department says they respond to all of them. How was he to know that he wasn't dealing with a dangerous felon with outstanding warrants? Oh yeah...in your world he's just supposed to know. I'm not saying what he did was right but his request was reasonable and they didn't comply.



"If you can't delight in the misery of others then you don't deserve to be a college football fan."
User currently offlineCsavel From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 1368 posts, RR: 4
Reply 17, posted (7 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days ago) and read 1827 times:

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 4):
Read the article: "Under a rarely enforced state statute, it is a misdemeanor to desecrate or trample a U.S. or North Carolina flag."

A MISDEMEANOR! Not even a jailable offense! And, for that, you think the officer has a RIGHT to invade their home?



Quoting MDorBust (Reply 12):
Interesting.

You actually expect every officer to know all the decisions of the SCOTUS?

That's amusing.

No, but a *very major* first amendment case, which was front page news and still is FrontPage news, you betcha! Frankly I expect every *American* to know that, I know I expect too much.

Whether or not a cop has the right to ask for ID is way beyond this discussion unless you are a criminal lawyer. If you are "detained" but not arrested then the cop has the right to ask for ID. Examples are traffic stops or if you are detained because you look like a mugger. Cop may not have enough to arrest you or even take you down to the station house but he can ask for ID to ascertain whether or not you really are who you are etc., etc. This was settled in Nevada, I think when a father and daughter were having an argument in apick-up truck and a passing motorist called the cops. SCOTUS ruled it was a valid stop, a valid investigation and thus guy had to show ID. A cop CANNOT, however, just stop you on the street or knock at your door and ask for ID. In this case, the question is whether or not the cop was doing a valid investigation a la Nevada or the investigation was bogus and he knew it but decided to "investigate" because he didn't like the lefty hippie anti american freaks. Since the complaint was about a "desecration of an American flag" it seems at first glance that that didn't rise to a valid investigation, detention or anything else. Regardless of what people say, that first amendment law is settled and so well known that it is unbelievable that the cop doesn;t know that. A judge would be pretty curious as to why he didn't know that.

Courts give cops a lot of leeway but it isn't unlimited, else a cop can say he is "investigating" any time he wants to get a cute girls address or pick on someone he doesn't like or whose politics he doesn't like. Mind you most cops today are too busy to play games like that. I've come to respect cops a lot more. Anyway that is the law as much as I know. I hope lawyers can chime in and elaborate or flame the shit out of me - either way.



I may be ugly. I may be an American. But don't call me an ugly American.
User currently offlineCba From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 4531 posts, RR: 3
Reply 18, posted (7 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 1815 times:

Quoting JCS17 (Reply 14):
Hanging the flag upside down is legal, so is saying the n-word in downtown Detroit. However, don't be surprised when someone just decides to beat your ass.

But these people were beaten by an officer of the law...

Quoting JCS17 (Reply 14):
The deputy had no right to do what he did. However, anti-war activist stupidity knows no bounds.

Even if it was a legitimate crime to have the flag upside down and the deputy was legally justified in entering the house to interview those inside, the fact that he broke in and proceeded to beat the inhabitants with a billy club is a clear cut case of police brutality. They did now show any violence against the deputy and he thus had no justification for resorting to it.


User currently offlineItsjustme From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 2770 posts, RR: 9
Reply 19, posted (7 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 1750 times:

Being that the incident occurred in the city of Asheville it's a bit odd that the deputy didn't simply turn it over to the Asheville PD. Especially given the nature of the complaint he received. Had it been something that warranted an immediate response, a life or death emergency for example, then I can understand the deputy responding and handling it. But for him to not even advise APD of the complaint and the fact that he would be handling it is strange. It almost seems as though he had a personal axe to grind. Also strange is this statement from the deputy's Lt: "A resident approached the deputy while he was on duty and alerted him to the flag" but he (the Lt.) did not know where the person approached the deputy or what the deputy was doing. Seems pretty vague to me. If Deputy Scarborough wanted to stand by while Asheville PD investigated the complaint, fine, but as a matter of professional courtesy as well as it being the normal thing to do, he should have notified Asheville PD and had them handle it. Or at least notified them and let them determine if they wanted to handle it or have the deputy respond. For whatever reason, he did neither.

The article also quotes the Lt. as saying, “We have jurisdiction throughout the whole county of Buncombe. “We have a citizen that complains to us about a violation of law, we’re bound by oath to act on it.”. What he doesn't say is "acting on it" can simply mean contacting the jurisdictional agency, in this case, Asheville PD and alerting them to the complaint received by the deputy. What would the Sheriff's office have done if they received a phone call about a barking dog in a city within their county that was 50 miles away? Would they dispatch a deputy to handle it or would they notify the city police department that holds the jurisdiction where the pooch lives?

However, being that the deputy chose to handle the incident alone, if the article I've quoted is accurate, it sounds like he was within his rights to request ID from the two individuals he suspected as being responsible for committing the crime he was investigating. The suspects refused to do so and, instead, barricaded themselves in their home, injuring the officer in the process. Not a real bright move.

Bottom line, when a police officer is investigating a crime at your home and requests to see your identification, it's probably not a good idea to slam the door in his face. As the Kuhn's found out, doing so will put you in a no-win situation.


User currently offlineDoona From Sweden, joined Feb 2005, 3771 posts, RR: 13
Reply 20, posted (7 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 1747 times:

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 15):
I'm saying that there is no way for a patrol officer to keep up with current and past decisions of the SCOTUS and their applications the to state and local laws.

I don't know how it is in the US, but in Sweden, ignorance of the law is not a defence for committing a crime. Theoretically, everyone is therefore obligated to know ALL laws (not that anyone does or indeed can). Which certainly sucks if you're in a situation like this, but I think it is the right way to go, otherwise the courtrooms would be flooded with the "I didn't know it was illegal"-bullshit.

Cheers
mats



Sure, we're concerned for our lives. Just not as concerned as saving 9 bucks on a roundtrip to Ft. Myers.
User currently offlineAirfoilsguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (7 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 1739 times:

We all know what happened here. After the guy took down the flag he probably said something very rude to the officer and slammed the door on him. The officer got pissed and wanted a piece of the guy. When that guy would not come back out the officer broke in and assaulted the guy.
Was it right for the officer to beat the guy? No
Was the officer in the right to enter the house? maybe
What the officer should have done was call for back up. That would have put another officer on the scene. That officer would have probably had a more level head and handled the situation differently.
The first officer made the mistake in breaking into the house. He might have had the legal right to do so but it was a dumb dissuasion for two reasons.
1. The officer was not in control of his emotions and should have called for help in dealing with the situation.
2. The guy in the house could have had an arsenal and the cop would now be dead.


User currently offlineItsjustme From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 2770 posts, RR: 9
Reply 22, posted (7 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 1729 times:

Quoting Airfoilsguy (Reply 21):
We all know what happened here. After the guy took down the flag he probably said something very rude to the officer and slammed the door on him. The officer got pissed and wanted a piece of the guy. When that guy would not come back out the officer broke in and assaulted the guy.
Was it right for the officer to beat the guy? No
Was the officer in the right to enter the house? maybe
What the officer should have done was call for back up. That would have put another officer on the scene. That officer would have probably had a more level head and handled the situation differently.
The first officer made the mistake in breaking into the house. He might have had the legal right to do so but it was a dumb dissuasion for two reasons.
1. The officer was not in control of his emotions and should have called for help in dealing with the situation.
2. The guy in the house could have had an arsenal and the cop would now be dead.

Well, I guess we can lock this thread now. This case has been solved by someone who, not only wasn't there, but is several hundred miles away from where the incident took place. Well done!  sarcastic 


User currently offlineKaiGywer From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 12256 posts, RR: 35
Reply 23, posted (7 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 1710 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

Nobody here knows the full story, so I'm not even gonna attempt to justify either the deputy or the activists. I will make a couple of comments though.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 4):
A MISDEMEANOR! Not even a jailable offense!

From the North Caroline criminal code:

§ 14‑3. Punishment of misdemeanors, infamous offenses, offenses committed in secrecy and malice, or with deceit and intent to defraud, or with ethnic animosity.

(a) Except as provided in subsections (b) and (c), every person who shall be convicted of any misdemeanor for which no specific classification and no specific punishment is prescribed by statute shall be punishable as a Class 1 misdemeanor. Any misdemeanor that has a specific punishment, but is not assigned a classification by the General Assembly pursuant to law is classified as follows, based on the maximum punishment allowed by law for the offense as it existed on the effective date of Article 81B of Chapter 15A of the General Statutes:

(1) If that maximum punishment is more than six months imprisonment, it is a Class 1 misdemeanor;

(2) If that maximum punishment is more than 30 days but not more than six months imprisonment, it is a Class 2 misdemeanor; and

(3) If that maximum punishment is 30 days or less imprisonment or only a fine, it is a Class 3 misdemeanor.


http://www.ncleg.net/enactedlegislat...tes/html/bychapter/chapter_14.html

It goes on in more detail, but as you can see, a misdemeanor is indeed a jailable offense. Now, that of course does not mean every misdemeanor will get you put in jail, but you could...

Quoting Csavel (Reply 17):
A cop CANNOT, however, just stop you on the street or knock at your door and ask for ID

Careful with your words. A cop can indeed stop you and ask for your ID any time he wants. If you show it, that's your choice. If you don't want to show it, that is your right. Without justification, however, he cannot demand to see your ID.



“Once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, an
User currently offlineAirfoilsguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (7 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 1695 times:

Quoting Itsjustme (Reply 22):
Well done!

Thank you.


25 Post contains images FlyDeltaJets87 : *Since the post was deleted earlier for the one of the reference posts being deleted, I'm trying to repost this the best I can as quick as I can* Falc
26 Csavel : You are absolutely right, and thanks for clarifying that. Should have said demand Bingo! Frankly I think the cop was pissed off even when he came to
27 MDorBust : Generally same thing here. But, there is a defense called mistake of law, which summed up shortly says that if a legal authority tells you it's okay
28 N1120A : They can ask, but they can't stop. A stop is a constitutional term, which implies someone is not free to leave. During an encounter, they can ask you
29 MDorBust : Yes, a twenty year old decision. Making it even more unlikely to be in the minds of most people. Uh... trouble reading? Given the recent hype about t
30 DeltaGator : According to the statutes, whether they be updated or not, he was investigating a potential crime based on a complaint from the neighbors. He did hav
31 CannibalZ3 : I can't speak to the specific legal ramifications of what that protester did or what that sheriff did, but it might benefit the thread to add a couple
32 Post contains links Itsjustme : Thanks for the insight. I guess that explains why APD and BCSO handled the situation in two completely different manners. Actually he was investigati
33 N1120A : Giving them all that much more notice about it. No trouble. It said "declared unconstitutional", not "repealed" No, it means that they absolutely sho
34 Itsjustme : Sure I did. But I like to get as much information about an incident as I can before voicing an opinion so I looked around for other reports. A concep
35 N1120A : You have no idea what my usual attitude is, so stop trying to guess.
36 Post contains images Usnseallt82 : Most accurate statement out of this whole damn thread.
37 WildcatYXU : Well, according to our in house lawyer (N1120A), this state law was deemed unconstitutional 20 years ago... So there was no crime... He had no busine
38 MDorBust : Hey, if you want to keep believing that 21.06 has authority as a law, you just go on ahead and keep believing that. The Texas legislature has meet fo
39 Post contains links Itsjustme : Did you bother to read the article I quoted? If not, please do so. There is absolutely no mention that the law the deputy was enforcing was deemed un
40 Post contains images DeltaGator : Whether or not the neighbors had a valid complaint the Sheriff's Department said they respond to every complaint. What transpired after he got there
41 Falcon84 : I'll repeat here what I repeated on Airwhiners: I apologize to MDobust if he thought I was referring to him as a Nazi. I was not. For all our differen
42 Post contains links N1120A : No, it doesn't. But neither does the NC statute. Well, the US Attorney's office doesn't think that Mistake of Law is a generally acceptable defense.
43 Itsjustme : It has yet to be proven who caused the property damage. There are conflicting accounts as to how the damage occurred. Intentional? I believe it is th
44 MDorBust : Second paragraph Did you want us not to check the full sentence on that one and hope you could pass it off to us? The full version: "If the governmen
45 N1120A : They had a right not to comply because they hadn't done anything to obligate them to provide the ID. They also had a right to close their door on him
46 Itsjustme : Really? Care to share that with our current administration? (sorry, couldn't resist) We agree on this 100%. All I am saying is why not let the invest
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
What Are Gas Prices Like In Your Home Town? posted Fri Aug 4 2006 21:50:20 by Usair320
Police Find Six Bodies In Pennsylvania Home posted Thu Apr 13 2006 23:12:51 by BMIFlyer
Dihydrogen Monoxide- Silent Killer In Your Home. posted Tue Oct 25 2005 05:57:17 by LHMark
Stars... In Their Old Age... posted Wed Sep 7 2005 11:50:18 by Smitten
Dog Beats Most People In Alcatraz Swim. posted Tue Aug 2 2005 20:05:50 by Aa777jr
Right To Defend One's Self And Their Home posted Wed Jan 12 2005 11:49:41 by Imonti
Ozzy Robbed In His Home. posted Tue Nov 23 2004 10:39:55 by Thom@s
Tying Down Cargo In A Pickup Truck posted Fri Jul 23 2004 19:08:24 by AZO
Only In My Home State! posted Fri Jul 2 2004 03:40:03 by Sleekjet
German Beats Boose Record In Car! posted Tue May 11 2004 19:46:56 by QIguy24