Originally posted by bellenseb:Well she probably coulda expected it until she opened her big pay day eating mouth to say something stupid. So since she was arrested, I'd say she was the idiotic one. I bet she was even more pissed when they didnt serve a pay day with her Jail meal.
I think she expected a little discretion to be used and was shocked at how blind, context-free and idiotic the law enforcement was.
Woman arrested for chewing on Metro
And they probably didn't even have cable on the tv in the jail cell.
Originally posted by Rob_Gee_a.k.a _Guiny:
Originally posted by bellenseb:Well she probably coulda expected it until she opened her big pay day eating mouth to say something stupid. So since she was arrested, I'd say she was the idiotic one. I bet she was even more pissed when they didnt serve a pay day with her Jail meal.
I think she expected a little discretion to be used and was shocked at how blind, context-free and idiotic the law enforcement was.
Originally posted by vansmack:Ahh, so suing someone because of one's own stupidity isn't egregious? I thought we would have moved beyond morons putting hot coffee between their leg-lawsuits by now.
Arresting someone for a $10 offense? Absolutely egregious. Restricting someone's freedom, probably the most highly valued aspect of American society, because of a $10 offense and mocking an officer - absolutely a civil suit in the waiting.
You there! Stop at once! I know that Payday bar is in here somewhere….We have ways of dealing with people like you….
<img src="http://www.holocaustsurvivors.org/photos/hands_up+large.jpg" alt=" - " />
<img src="http://www.holocaustsurvivors.org/photos/hands_up+large.jpg" alt=" - " />
Originally posted by Random Citizen:Just show me the law that says she can be arrested for saying to a cop "Go fight some real crime."
Ahh, so suing someone because of one's own stupidity isn't egregious? I thought we would have moved beyond morons putting hot coffee between their leg-lawsuits by now.
I can assure that I will have no problems showing you where you can't be arrested without probable cause.
Was her speech stupid? Probably. Disrespectful and rude? absoutely. Against the law? not a chance.
Was her eating in the station a violation? Probably, though she was finishing up because the same cop told her too so the cop excused it in the first instance and all she did was abide. But was her offense an arrestible offense? Not in this country.
A civil suit here would not be ridiculous. I value my freedoms more than anything else I have. This arrest was moronic and egotistical move by a police officer, and while she may have violated a civic code, this cop likely violated a constitutional ammendment, if not 2 or 3.
Vansmack for President!!!
Vansmack….What is your stance on the revoking of dildo priveledges for citizens of the state of Alabama?
Vansmack….What is your stance on the revoking of dildo priveledges for citizens of the state of Alabama?
Didn't she refuse to show her ID? I'll bet there's some Patriot Act-based law that says if a Metro cop asks to see your ID you'd better show it or risk being arrested as a terrorist.
I can see it on FoxNews now: "PayDay Terrorist strikes on Metro: Are Your Children Safe?"
Bottom line: They're both idiots.
I can see it on FoxNews now: "PayDay Terrorist strikes on Metro: Are Your Children Safe?"
Bottom line: They're both idiots.
Originally posted by Skeeter:I think refusing to show your ID falls under the catch all of "refusing to follow an officer's command" or some such thing. Of course, this predates the Patriot Act.
Didn't she refuse to show her ID? I'll bet there's some Patriot Act-based law that says if a Metro cop asks to see your ID you'd better show it or risk being arrested as a terrorist.
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:I'll go with this law which predates the Patriot Act as well:
I think refusing to show your ID falls under the catch all of "refusing to follow an officer's command" or some such thing. Of course, this predates the Patriot Act.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
What's the probable cause here? "Why don't you go do some real police work?" - I'm guessing no.
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:please refer to Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada recently issued by the Supreme Court.
Originally posted by Skeeter:I think refusing to show your ID falls under the catch all of "refusing to follow an officer's command" or some such thing. Of course, this predates the Patriot Act.
Didn't she refuse to show her ID? I'll bet there's some Patriot Act-based law that says if a Metro cop asks to see your ID you'd better show it or risk being arrested as a terrorist.
We suspended that one. Didn't you get the memo?
Originally posted by vansmack:
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
What's the probable cause here? "Why don't you go do some real police work?" - I'm guessing no.
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:I heard somewhere that it went with Brennan to his grave, but I thought that was all just a vicious rumor.
We suspended that one. Didn't you get the memo?
Time to move his desk to the basement.
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
We suspended that one. Didn't you get the memo?
In addition to the Nevada case, I believe that there were a couple of cases in California and one in Arizona that defended the practice of requiring people to show ID when police request it.
Things will be much easier after we steal…oops…I mean win… the election. We are working to mandate the implantation of subdermal national identification chips that will allow the police to scan you with a UPC gun from a distance of 75 meters. The chips will interface with the Diebold® and the Nestle© databases to cross-reference any and all previous confectionary consumption violations.
Things will be much easier after we steal…oops…I mean win… the election. We are working to mandate the implantation of subdermal national identification chips that will allow the police to scan you with a UPC gun from a distance of 75 meters. The chips will interface with the Diebold® and the Nestle© databases to cross-reference any and all previous confectionary consumption violations.
Originally posted by vansmack:
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:I heard somewhere that it went with Brennan to his grave, but I thought that was all just a vicious rumor.
We suspended that one. Didn't you get the memo?
We're going to need that stapler also.
mmmkay?
mmmkay?
Originally posted by thirsty moore:
Time to move his desk to the basement.
I was in Paris 15 years ago, and cops randomly asked me to show id. I asked them for a reason, and they told me they didn't need one. I later read that in France they can throw you in jail if you don't have id and a certain amount of money on you.
I guess the Bush administration is trying to turn the US into fucking France.
I guess the Bush administration is trying to turn the US into fucking France.
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:You keep leaving out one really important part: folks had to show their ID when police had probable cause to request it.
In addition to the Nevada case, I believe that there were a couple of cases in California and one in Arizona that defended the practice of requiring people to show ID when police request it.
Was that Swingline stapler you were looking for?
<img src="http://cradle.brokenglass.com/blog/images/red_stapler.png" alt=" - " />
Look at the curves on that thing. Yowza.
Originally posted by vansmack:She was being issued a warning for eating in the Metro system. Isn't that probable cause?
You keep leaving out one really important part: folks had to show their ID when police had probable cause to request it.