I'll take your word for it but I'd have a hard time believing the Post would hire a reporter...
Did I say that I work for the Post? I damn well better not have.
Yea, how many years ago was it since a stockpile has been destroyed in Iraq.
Well, considering a munitions dump containing chemical artillery shells was blown up about three weeks ago, I'd say that it's been zero years. The ISG has been finding one or another prohibited weapon, weapons system, or weapon component every few weeks now since the fall of Baghdad. Why hasn't it made the news? Because, as I've said before, we've yet to find that gallon jug with the tag that reads "SADDAM'S SARIN-- HANDZ OFF!"
Sure haven't been any since the invasion.
Saying it's not true doesn't make it untrue.
The fact that it has to be confirmed implies it still has to be investigated.
Sure. So?
Not sure it particularly proves anything if there were Al Qaeda in Saddam's army unless he new they were there.
Oh, okay. I understand your position now. You don't care that Saddam Hussein assisted al-Qaida, as long as he didn't do it, you know, a lot. Is that what you're saying?
Seen it. The defendant was uncooperative and hostile. The officer told him to stand in one spot, and he wandered off, then became physically threatening. I'm frankly shocked that the officer refrained from putting him on the ground as long as he did.
Here are some things you do not do:
1. You do not raise your voice to a peace officer.
2. You do not wave your arms or make threatening or intimidating gestures at a peace officer.
3. You do not say "I'm being cooperative!" while backing away from the officer and pushing him away with your hands.
4. You do not, generally, do anything suspicious.
Why? Because peace officers--police officers, sheriffs, et cetera--have a responsibility to protect themselves. Peace officers get shot by suspects concealing weapons. If you give a peace officer reason to feel threatened, he has not only the option but the responsibility to do what he feels is necessary and proper to get back into a position of safety. And that includes putting you on the ground.
That sheriff's officer had every right to put the suspect down the instant the suspect raised his arm. The fact that he didn't is a testament to his restraint. (Of course, if the suspect had hit the officer or pulled a gun, we'd be talking about how the officer's failure to subdue an agitated suspect was a tragic lapse in judgment.)
Now, let's set aside the whole question of whether the "cop was being a dick." Because that's obviously untrue. I mean, you can see with your own eyes that that was untrue.
So what happened? What actually happened? The sheriff's department received a complaint. That complaint alleged that a man had hit a female companion. Okay, that's enough to launch a domestic violence investigation. When the officers arrived, the suspect was agitated and defensive. When questioned, he assumed a threatening posture and attempted to walk away from the officer repeatedly. Rather than cooperate with the officer's investigation, the suspect raised his voice and demanded to be taken to jail.
So okay. He was arrested on suspicion of domestic violence and impeding a peace officer. He was ultimately charged with domestic battery, domestic violence, and obstructing a peace officer.
What happened after is a different matter. The girl emerged from the truck contrary to the instructions of the state trooper. Now, during an arrest situation, when a peace officer tells you to stay put, you have to stay put. To do otherwise is to interfere with the arrest, which is a crime in every state and every jurisdiction. We have this law to protect peace officers and bystanders. The girl didn't obey; she got out of the truck and attempted to rush the arresting sheriff's officer. The trooper did what was necessary to subdue her: he put her on the ground. He didn't shoot her, he didn't break her bones, he didn't hit her. He grabbed her and put her on the ground using the minimum amount of force necessary.
That's what happened. Now, what should have happened?
Well, first of all, these two people shouldn't have been fighting by the side of the road. The complaint never came in in the first place. But setting that aside, what should have happened once the officers arrived on the scene?
When asked for his identification, the suspect should have either (1) produced it, or (2) explained that he did not have any, turning out his pockets or allowing a pat-down to prove it. The suspect should have remained calm and refrained from disobeying the officer's instructions. Upon talking to the suspect and the girl, the officers would either have determined that they did have cause to arrest one or both, or they wouldn't. Since the charges of battery and domestic violence were ultimately dropped, it's safe to assume that the officers wouldn't even have had cause to arrest either of them if they'd simply cooperated.
The sheriff's officer and the state trooper did nothing here that a reasonable person should be able to find f
You ignore things arbitrarily, to suit your needs.
I ignore things that don't parse. I guess I can't argue with your characterization of that as "arbitrary."
Despite the fact that I went back and did a second post to my first...
What did you say? Can you give it to me in simple, English sentences without "irony," inside jokes, quotes from Simpsons characters, or whatever the hell else litters your prose?
If you would have bothered to follow up then the part about "going rate for conversations" would have made sense.
What?
Seriously: do you write like this all the time? Or are you just high on cough medicine and nicotine patches?
Apparently not, because the Police man-handled them and put them in cuffs
Which is part of standard police procedure, right.
before they even spoke to the girl or evaluated whether a crime had occurred.
Obviously that's your opinion; it's not an opinion I find credible.
Hiibel was friendly to the cop until the cop started being a dick.
OK, let's shut this down now. You obviously have a problem with police in particular, and possibly with authority figures in general. I'm not really interested in having a conversation with somebody who is disrespectful to people who put their lives on the line every day to keep the peace.
Thanks, but no thanks. Go try to get a "fuck the pigs!" chant going somewhere else.
Officer: What's your name, boy? Jon Smith: My name's Jon Smith. Officer: Even if I had reasonable suspicion that you're lying to me, which naturally I do not, I cannot compel you to provide me with any form of identification whatsoever. So as far as I'm concerned, you can call yourself Puddin' Tame if you want.
It only as one RAID controller. You don't have the option of adding a second, at any price. When the controller fails, you lose data and the RAID goes down.
It does not have either redundant or hot-swap fans. They're not available at any price. When a fan fails, you have to shut the RAID down to replace it... assuming you catch it in time. It doesn't appear to come with any sort of monitoring system that informs you of the health of things like the controller, the power supply, and the fans.
Finally, it doesn't have a Fibre Channel interface, which means you can't hook it up to your storage area network. A device like this one is only suitable for attaching to a single host... and while I guess there might be folks out there who still do that, they're certainly NOT investing in 3 TB of new disk that won't make the switch to shared storage.
So in order to save fifty cents per gigabyte--sixteen percent of the purchase price--you give up key reliability and serviceability features and compatibility with basic storage technologies.
They arrested him and man-handled her before they even knew she was 17 (which in the state of Nevada may be of legal age).
A 17-year-old person is considered a minor in every state and by the Federal government. In Nevada in particular, a person is deemed to be a minor until his 18th birthday. There are some historical exceptions for people who marry or who seek civil emancipation, but these don't apply in this case.
The woman did not claim to have been hit by anyone at any time.
Girl. She wasn't a woman. She was a girl. And she didn't have to make such a claim. It was entirely at the discretion of the police.
Surely you see why this is how it has to be, right? Domestic violence is a serious problem, and recipients of such violence are often intimidated into silence. If we required the victim to issue a formal complaint before intervening, a lot of kids would live pretty miserable lives.
Read the fucking case, then make some conclusions about why this is right or wrong.
My only guess here is that you are a minor yourself. Am I right?
Nope. No irony at all. In the United States, the various law enforcement forces are there to keep the peace, not to disturb it.
Where do you live? I know there are places where the police are corrupt, basically little more than gangsters with state sanction. I've been to many such places: Cuba, most recently. Where are you from, and what's it like there?
This man was under suspicion of hitting his daughter. Without the police officer witnessing anything or seeing any evidence of it, it is here-say.
In domestic abuse cases involving a minor, heresay is sufficient cause to place a suspect under arrest. If your child claims that you hit her and the officer on the scene believes her, he can arrest you. It's in the interest of the safety of the child.
So the defendant in this case could have been arrested at any time during the proceedings.
Its his goddamn-mother-fucking right to not speak, especially when he did nothing wrong.
It's your right not to incriminate yourself. Your name is not incriminating. Therefore being compelled to give your name is not a violation of your civil rights.
I've done neither, but being at trial is not the issue here.
Sigh. OK, let's go all the way back to the beginning.
If a police officer has a reasonable suspicion that you're breaking the law, he can arrest you. He'll put handcuffs on you, take you to the police station, fingerprint you, fill out some paperwork, and put you in a cell.
At that point, the District Attorney's office gets involved. The DA--actually, a member of the DA's staff--decides whether sufficient evidence exists to seek an indictment against you. If it does, a grand jury is impaneled and the evidence presented. If the grand jury agrees that enough evidence exists to bring charges, they hand down an indictment.
At that point, you go to trial. A trial is a place where guilt is decided. If you're guilty of the crime with which you've been charged, you'll be sentenced to a fine, some time in jail, probation, community service, or some other punishment. If you're found to be not guilty, you'll be released.
With me so far? Not confused, are we? Okay, let's proceed.
Why does the fifth amendment exist? It exists, in part, to prevent you from being compelled to provide testimony against yourself. Why would that be bad? Because testimony against you can be used to convince a judge or jury that you're guilty of a crime, which in turn can result in your being deprived of liberty or property by the court. If you're asked whether you committed offense X and you lie, you're guilty of the crime of perjury. If you say yes, then you've just confessed without benefit of an affirmative defense. So the very question is prohibited. If you're asked a question that you can't answer truthfully without incriminating yourself, you can refuse to answer under the fifth amendment.
I know I'm going fast here. Are you following this okay? Do you need to take a break and have a juice box or some graham crackers?
(I'm just joshing you. I'll stop now.)
Now, what happens if a police officer asks you if you shot that dead man over there? If you didn't, you can answer truthfully that you didn't. But if you did, you have three options. You can either invoke your right to have legal counsel, in which case you don't have to answer any questions until your attorney shows up. Or you can stand mute. Or you can invoke your fifth amendment right not to answer.
Nobody ever bothers to invoke their fifth amendment right under those circumstances. Why? Because you don't need to. You can simply ask for an attorney or stand mute, and accomplish the exact same thing.
But let's assume you did invoke your fifth amendment right. What would happen?
At your trial--after the arraignment, after the indictment is handed down--the arresting officer will be put on the witness stand. The District Attorney will ask him, "What did the defendant say when you questioned him?" He'll respond, truthfully, "He invoked his fifth amendment right."
The judge, at that point, will instruct the jury that the invocation of the fifth amendment right is not an admission of guilt and cannot be interpreted as one when they deliberate the facts of the case. It will be, essentially, stricken from the official record. It will, essentially, be as if it had never happened.
Now, how does it apply in this case? Well... frankly, it doesn't. Because in order to stand behind the fifth amendment, you have to have a sincere and reasonable belief that the information you've been asked to provide would be probative. In this case, the defendant's name was not probative. So his claim that the requirement to identify himself violated his fifth amendment right was rejected by the High Court.
So: net impact on the fifth amendment? Zero. Net impact on the fourth amendment? Zero. Net impact on civil rights as a whole? Zero.
Nope. The term "peace officer" means, simply, "a person employed for the preservation and maintenance of public peace." And preserving and maintaining public peace is exactly what those people--police, highway patrol, FBI, etc.--do. No irony there.
Iraq did. Chemical weapons, chemical precursor reagents, ballistic missiles, materials related to uranium processing. These were all prohibited by the terms of the 1991 cease-fire and a whole slew of UN Security Council resolution. These are all examples of things that have been found, seized, and destroyed inside Iraq in the past 15 months.
"Iraq poses an immediate military threat to America."
Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option.
The administration's position has always been that we should act before the threat became immediate. They never said that Iraq posed an immediate or imminent threat.
"Iraq has been, and is on a continuing basis, providing support to al Quaeda." [sic]
Well, they never said that either, but what they did say is that Iraq sponsored terrorism in general (true; Saddam funded Hamas and Hizbollah murder-bombers) and that Iraq had links with al-Qaida (true; before the war, an Iraqi military intelligence operative and member of the Fedayeen Saddam was present at the meeting where the 9/11 attacks were planned; after the war, Iraq provided safe harbor to al-Qaida refugees from Afghanistan and let them set up shop in Iraq under the name Ansar al-Islam, even going so far as to assign an officer of the Mukhabarat named Abu Wael to act as official liaison.)
"Iraq played a role in the September 11 attacks."
The administration never said that Iraq participated or directly supported the 9/11 attacks. Never, not once. What they said was that there appeared to be links between Iraq and the 9/11 hijackers, that Iraq had supported al-Qaida both before and after the war, and that Iraq had close ties to terrorism in general. All of these things are true. In fact, we now know that Iraq had a much closer role in 9/11 than we ever suspected, in the person of one Ahmad Hikmat Shakir.
These are all lies.
The only lies here are then ones you repeated when you said that the administration claimed an imminent threat and direct involvement in 9/11. The administration never made those claims, ever. You're lying when you say that they did.
What the administration did say is that Iraq had WMD and WMD programs--true--that Iraq supported terrorism--true--and that Iraq had declared its intentions to attack the United States when the opportunity presented itself--true.
Shall I continue?
I wish you would. I welcome the opportunity to go on the record and refute the malicious lies that people like yourself have been spreading about the case for war.
What I said is that when you only allow people to pleed the 5th in case the information they are demanded to give would incriminate them, then you have created a situation where pleading the 5th can only be interpreted as withholding incriminating information, and thus as proof that such information exists.
Ever been on trial? Or served on a jury? Here's how it works: if you, at any point, invoke the 5th amendment, the judge instructs the jury to disregard that invocation. The judge instructs the jury not to consider the invocation of the 5th amendment to be incriminating in any way.
If, when a decision is returned, it turns out that the jury did consider the 5th amending invocation in their deliberations, you've got grounds for an appeal. An appellate court will overturn the verdict, either sending your case back for re-trial or letting you go outright.
THE WHOLE POINT OF THIS RULING IS THAT NOT GIVING YOUR NAME, BY ITSELF IS AN ARRESTABLE OFFENSE EVEN IF THEY DON'T HAVE "PROBABLE CAUSE".
That's not true, though. You are not legally required by statute to give your name unless a reasonable suspicion already exists. Which means by the time you're legally required to identify yourself, you can already be arrested at any time.
Try using some basic common sense.
I'll use yours. You obviously aren't using it for anything.;-)
Okay, my question is this: why isn't this being basically shouted from the rooftops by pro-War people?
It is. I mean, not shouted from rooftops, obviously, but it's out there. It's not new information. The stories about the stockpiles were covered in the news; they were sometimes dismissed as irrelevant because we're not talking about nuclear weapons but rather ballistic missiles like al-Samoud 2 and chemical artillery rounds without agents loaded. But these were prohibited. Iraq was not allowed to have them, claimed they didn't have them, and then turned out to have them.
Same thing with the binary and multiplex agents. Chemical warfare can happen in two ways. One: you can combine reagents to produce chemical agents like sarin gas, then find some way to deliver it. This is unbelievably dangerous, because you're handling SARIN FREAKING GAS. One slip and your own people die. The alternative is to create binary or multiplex agents. These are usually things like alcohols and esthers that, when mixed in pairs (binary) or sets of three or four (multiplex), produce things like sarin gas. You can store the precursors for a long time because they're shelf-stable, and you don't have to worry about spills because they're not toxic like the actual chemical warfare agents are.
Iraq had vats upon vats upon vats upon vats of binary and multiplex agents. They were all over the news during the invasion itself, because every couple of days our people were practically tripping over them. (Literally: they were buried in 55-gallon drums.)
These were sometimes dismissed as pesticides. Once you know the facts and understand the context, that conclusion is just plain silly.
Same story with chemical plants. Iraq had chemical plants that, at the flip of a switch, could produce agents and precursors. These were sometimes dismissed as "dual-use," but that doesn't change the fact that Iraq was using them for warfare production, and that they were not allowed to do this under the terms of the 1991 cease-fire.
And of course you remember the story of the chemical attack in Baghdad just a few weeks ago? Terrorists attempted to set off a sarin bomb, but they botched it. The effect was two mildly ill soldiers instead of 2,000 dead.
And then there's the chemical bomb that was intercepted in Jordan. In that case, it wouldn't have been 2,000 dead. It would have been 20,000. It was a big bomb, and it was rigged to detonate properly, unlike the Baghdad bomb.
There are, however, many talking heads appearing quite often in the media here that get to say "no WMDs have been found", or words to that effect and are never called on it.
Yeah, we used to get the same thing here in the states, but that refrain has basically dropped away since the sarin and mustard attacks earlier this summer and the Jordan thing. I mean, it's hard to argue that no WMD have been found when, you know, WMD HAVE BEEN FOUND.
Some people tried to argue that the chemical agents that have been found so far dated back before the 1991 war and therefore... I dunno. And therefore something. Something that allowed them to dismiss them. I didn't get the argument. That one didn't last long either.
No, the "no WMD" argument is basically only heard from the deeply uninformed and the true deniers. It's been replaced in the mainstream by the "no link to al-Qaida" argument... which is equally specious, and evaporating rapidly in light of the overwhelming evidence.
So, without meaning it as a challenge, I'd like to know why anyone arguing for the war isn't stating these facts at every opportunity.
Well, I guess the short answer to your question is that most people in the States at least don't even concern themselves with the question any more. It's been settled. We went to war for sound reasons. No, there was no imminent threat; nobody ever said there was, and in fact our President told us repeatedly that his position was that we should act before the
You're kidding, right? I already told you this twice: your comment was so rambling and senseless that I didn't even bother trying to decipher it past the first graf or two.
Let's see if we're in the same boat again here.
the decision mandates that you must give this information to any police officer when requested
Nope. The decision says that it is not unconstitutional for states to require you to provide the information when you're being questioned under reasonable suspicion of having been involved in criminal activity. Very different.
and that same information could be self-incrimination?
The court held that your name is not probative information. It's not self-incriminatory.
If the court ever hears a case in which a state statute requires a person to give incriminating information about himself, I'm sure they'll hold that the fifth amendment trumps. They always have.
So what is your going rate for conversations? Of course, you'll have to get me to agree to your contractual terms, but we'll work out something equitable.
Yeah... see, this is the point where I stop reading. You've spun completely off the deep end. You make no sense of any kind. Waste of time and effort to try to figure it out.
Why don't you go hang out with that "time cube" guy I've been hearing so much about?
Police are a subset of the general class of peace officers. Peace officers include municipal police, highway patrol, state police, sheriffs, constables, corrections officers, border patrol, transportation security, FBI, and so on.
That was a real good try at being snide, but you blew the landing.
But besides that, if it is accepted that the police may demand anybody's identity at any time, demanding proof of that ID seems like a short next step.
You do realize that "short next step" arguments are entirely, completely, totally fallacious, don't you? I mean, seriously. Using the "short next step" or "slippery slope" position, you can argue that anything is bad.
So in practice the only way the police can exercise this new power is to obtain proof if ID.
The court specifically said that if you merely tell the police your name, the statute has been satisfied. There's no legal requirement to produce, or even have, identification.
Until there's probable cause to suspect me of a crime, I should not be police business!
By definition, this statute doesn't apply until probably cause to stop and question already exists.
(Your remark about DNA is so utterly stupid that it doesn't even warrant a comment. And I think you know this. Were you trying to be funny, or silly?)
The phrase "reasonable suspicion exists that you might be arrested" is meaningless.
No, it isn't. It's synonymous with the notion of probable cause, which is fundamental to our system of criminal justice.
But you know this already, as you go on to admit that the police do not need any reason whatsoever to arrest you. And somehow you think the country is better for this.
Let's just say that there are times when it's good that police have discretion in arresting suspects or detaining material witnesses. It's also good that we have a time-honored, tried, and true system for balancing that discretion: it's called the doctrine of habeas corpus.
And since this balanced system of justice has been in place for more than two centuries now, I'd say arguments that we're on a slippery slope have revealed themselves to be specious.
I somehow doubt the five judges who ruled in favor of this police state quickening have the combined four centuries of federal bench experience you believe exonerates their ruling.
That's a good point; I spoke too quickly. Let's see... Kennedy, O'Connor, Scalia, Thomas, and Rehnquist... that comes to a mere 230 years. My bad.
I'm pretty sure 230 years of judicial experience outweighs one dumbass with an Internet account.
Right, but his point is their the supreme court has just made remaining silent an arrestable offense.
No, they have not.
Look, it works like this. Say you're in a situation where the police have a reasonable suspicion that you might want arresting. Say they broke up a fight between you and somebody else. Say they caught you driving drunk. Whatever. Say there's a situation where a reasonable suspicion exists that you might be arrested.
Under those circumstances, the police can ask you what your name is. If you answer, great. If you don't, you can be arrested.
But guess what? You can be arrested anyway, because you're in a situation where a reasonable suspicion exists that you're involved in a crime. The fact that you didn't answer the question didn't make your situation any worse.
What happens then? You go to jail where you can be held for up to 72 hours (three days), after which time you have to be either charged or released.
Wanna hear a secret? A deep-dark, dirty secret? You can be arrested right now by any police officer and held for up to 72 hours. Amazing! No evidence, no charges, no pretense at all! Shocking! What a disgusting fascist dictatorship we live in! Obviously Ashcroft is to blame. This whole 72-hours thing must be new, right?
Right?
The ruling is just plain stupid.
Yes. A ruling handed down by a panel of judges who have, combined, spent more than four CENTURIES on the federal bench is just plain stupid.
Do you truly have no conception of the limits of your own wisdom?
Still - the thought of being arrested for just walking around without a wallet
In contrast to the "credible and reliable" identification requirement in Kolender, the Nevada Supreme Court has interpreted the instant statute to require only that a suspect disclose his name.
It apparently does not require him to produce a driver's license or any other document. If he chooses either to state his name or communicate it to the officer by other means, the statute is satisfied and no violation occurs.
You want to talk about the "oh, come on" realm? How about spouting off without even a passing familiarity with what the decision says?
In contrast to the "credible and reliable" identification requirement in Kolender, the Nevada Supreme Court has interpreted the instant statute to require only that a suspect disclose his name.
It apparently does not require him to produce a driver's license or any other document. If he chooses either to state his name or communicate it to the officer by other means, the statute is satisfied and no violation occurs.
Please, don't trouble yourself to ACTUALLY READ THE DECISION which the Court POSTED ON ITS WEB SITE for ANYONE to download and read. Please don't feel compelled to be an EDUCATED MEMBER OF THE CITIZENRY. Please don't feel any particular kind of pressure to NOT BE A COLOSSAL DUMBASS ON YOUR FAVORITE MESSAGE BOARD.
'Reasonable suspicion' consistutes whatever the cops want it to constitute, whereas the fourth and fifth ammendments make it pretty clear that we don't have to give an officer jack shit based on his 'reasonable suspicion'.
Boy. Is that ever wrong.
Let me do this one in reverse. Let me start with the 5th amendment.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
OK, grand juries. We know what that means: you have to be indicted before you can be charged. Double jeopardy: can't be tried for the same crime twice. Self-incrimination: you can't be compelled to testify against yourself. Due process: no summary judgments. No arbitrary seizures without compensation. Got it.
What does the fifth amendment have to do with this case? Nothing, except when it comes to self-incrimination. You can't be compelled to testify against yourself. But guess what? The Court already covered that:
The Fifth Amendment prohibits only compelled testimony that is incriminating, see Brown v. Walker, 161 U. S. 591, 598, and protects only against disclosures that the witness reasonably believes could be used in a criminal prosecution or could lead to other evidence that might be so used, Kastigar v. United States, 406 U. S. 441, 445. Hiibel's refusal to disclose was not based on any articulated real and appreciable fear that his name would be used to incriminate him, or that it would furnish evidence needed to prosecute him.
In other words, if the defendant HAD had a real and appreciable fear that his name would be used to incriminate him, he could have simply refused to answer on those grounds.
So, fifth amendment doesn't have anything to say about this case, nor does this case have anything to say about the fifth amendment.
Moving on: the fourth amendment:
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.
The idiot--er, I mean "Digital Avatar," said:
the fourth and fifth ammendments make it pretty clear that we don't have to give an officer jack shit based on his 'reasonable suspicion'.
In fact, the fourth amendment says just the opposite. The fourth amendment says that the people are secure against unreasonable searches and seizures. The people are not "secure" against reasonable searches and seizures. And, in fact, in cases where a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity exists, searches and/or seizures are permitted by law. This doctrine is called "probable cause." And it's a judgment that's left entirely in the hands of the peace officers on the scene.
It'd be nice if political theory were actually taught in public schools, as opposed to the watered-down liberal crap you obviously learned.
It'd be nice if you took five damn minutes and read the Constitution of the United States so you'd know just what your rights and responsibilities are as a citizen of this country. Your rights: to be secure from unreasonable searches. Your responsibility: to be subject to reasonable searches when probable cause exists.
And while the police can ask you for your name for no reason at all, you are under no legal obligation to give it unless you've been detained under suspicious circumstances in a state with a "stop and identify" statute.
Slashdot Mirror
I'll take your word for it but I'd have a hard time believing the Post would hire a reporter...
Did I say that I work for the Post? I damn well better not have.
Yea, how many years ago was it since a stockpile has been destroyed in Iraq.
Well, considering a munitions dump containing chemical artillery shells was blown up about three weeks ago, I'd say that it's been zero years. The ISG has been finding one or another prohibited weapon, weapons system, or weapon component every few weeks now since the fall of Baghdad. Why hasn't it made the news? Because, as I've said before, we've yet to find that gallon jug with the tag that reads "SADDAM'S SARIN-- HANDZ OFF!"
Sure haven't been any since the invasion.
Saying it's not true doesn't make it untrue.
The fact that it has to be confirmed implies it still has to be investigated.
Sure. So?
Not sure it particularly proves anything if there were Al Qaeda in Saddam's army unless he new they were there.
Oh, okay. I understand your position now. You don't care that Saddam Hussein assisted al-Qaida, as long as he didn't do it, you know, a lot. Is that what you're saying?
Seen it. The defendant was uncooperative and hostile. The officer told him to stand in one spot, and he wandered off, then became physically threatening. I'm frankly shocked that the officer refrained from putting him on the ground as long as he did.
Here are some things you do not do:
1. You do not raise your voice to a peace officer.
2. You do not wave your arms or make threatening or intimidating gestures at a peace officer.
3. You do not say "I'm being cooperative!" while backing away from the officer and pushing him away with your hands.
4. You do not, generally, do anything suspicious.
Why? Because peace officers--police officers, sheriffs, et cetera--have a responsibility to protect themselves. Peace officers get shot by suspects concealing weapons. If you give a peace officer reason to feel threatened, he has not only the option but the responsibility to do what he feels is necessary and proper to get back into a position of safety. And that includes putting you on the ground.
That sheriff's officer had every right to put the suspect down the instant the suspect raised his arm. The fact that he didn't is a testament to his restraint. (Of course, if the suspect had hit the officer or pulled a gun, we'd be talking about how the officer's failure to subdue an agitated suspect was a tragic lapse in judgment.)
Now, let's set aside the whole question of whether the "cop was being a dick." Because that's obviously untrue. I mean, you can see with your own eyes that that was untrue.
So what happened? What actually happened? The sheriff's department received a complaint. That complaint alleged that a man had hit a female companion. Okay, that's enough to launch a domestic violence investigation. When the officers arrived, the suspect was agitated and defensive. When questioned, he assumed a threatening posture and attempted to walk away from the officer repeatedly. Rather than cooperate with the officer's investigation, the suspect raised his voice and demanded to be taken to jail.
So okay. He was arrested on suspicion of domestic violence and impeding a peace officer. He was ultimately charged with domestic battery, domestic violence, and obstructing a peace officer.
What happened after is a different matter. The girl emerged from the truck contrary to the instructions of the state trooper. Now, during an arrest situation, when a peace officer tells you to stay put, you have to stay put. To do otherwise is to interfere with the arrest, which is a crime in every state and every jurisdiction. We have this law to protect peace officers and bystanders. The girl didn't obey; she got out of the truck and attempted to rush the arresting sheriff's officer. The trooper did what was necessary to subdue her: he put her on the ground. He didn't shoot her, he didn't break her bones, he didn't hit her. He grabbed her and put her on the ground using the minimum amount of force necessary.
That's what happened. Now, what should have happened?
Well, first of all, these two people shouldn't have been fighting by the side of the road. The complaint never came in in the first place. But setting that aside, what should have happened once the officers arrived on the scene?
When asked for his identification, the suspect should have either (1) produced it, or (2) explained that he did not have any, turning out his pockets or allowing a pat-down to prove it. The suspect should have remained calm and refrained from disobeying the officer's instructions. Upon talking to the suspect and the girl, the officers would either have determined that they did have cause to arrest one or both, or they wouldn't. Since the charges of battery and domestic violence were ultimately dropped, it's safe to assume that the officers wouldn't even have had cause to arrest either of them if they'd simply cooperated.
The sheriff's officer and the state trooper did nothing here that a reasonable person should be able to find f
You ignore things arbitrarily, to suit your needs.
I ignore things that don't parse. I guess I can't argue with your characterization of that as "arbitrary."
Despite the fact that I went back and did a second post to my first...
What did you say? Can you give it to me in simple, English sentences without "irony," inside jokes, quotes from Simpsons characters, or whatever the hell else litters your prose?
If you would have bothered to follow up then the part about "going rate for conversations" would have made sense.
What?
Seriously: do you write like this all the time? Or are you just high on cough medicine and nicotine patches?
Apparently not, because the Police man-handled them and put them in cuffs
Which is part of standard police procedure, right.
before they even spoke to the girl or evaluated whether a crime had occurred.
Obviously that's your opinion; it's not an opinion I find credible.
Hiibel was friendly to the cop until the cop started being a dick.
OK, let's shut this down now. You obviously have a problem with police in particular, and possibly with authority figures in general. I'm not really interested in having a conversation with somebody who is disrespectful to people who put their lives on the line every day to keep the peace.
Thanks, but no thanks. Go try to get a "fuck the pigs!" chant going somewhere else.
Come on, y'all. We all know that Slashdot isn't a news site, but you guys please at least pretend to be occasionally? How's this for a suggestion:
Nanotechnology may someday be used to fight cancer
How's that?
You made a little typographical error.
Officer: What's your name, boy?
Jon Smith: My name's Jon Smith.
Officer: Even if I had reasonable suspicion that you're lying to me, which naturally I do not, I cannot compel you to provide me with any form of identification whatsoever. So as far as I'm concerned, you can call yourself Puddin' Tame if you want.
Hope this helps.
It only as one RAID controller. You don't have the option of adding a second, at any price. When the controller fails, you lose data and the RAID goes down.
It does not have either redundant or hot-swap fans. They're not available at any price. When a fan fails, you have to shut the RAID down to replace it... assuming you catch it in time. It doesn't appear to come with any sort of monitoring system that informs you of the health of things like the controller, the power supply, and the fans.
Finally, it doesn't have a Fibre Channel interface, which means you can't hook it up to your storage area network. A device like this one is only suitable for attaching to a single host... and while I guess there might be folks out there who still do that, they're certainly NOT investing in 3 TB of new disk that won't make the switch to shared storage.
So in order to save fifty cents per gigabyte--sixteen percent of the purchase price--you give up key reliability and serviceability features and compatibility with basic storage technologies.
Sounds like a pretty dumbass maneuver to me.
They arrested him and man-handled her before they even knew she was 17 (which in the state of Nevada may be of legal age).
A 17-year-old person is considered a minor in every state and by the Federal government. In Nevada in particular, a person is deemed to be a minor until his 18th birthday. There are some historical exceptions for people who marry or who seek civil emancipation, but these don't apply in this case.
The woman did not claim to have been hit by anyone at any time.
Girl. She wasn't a woman. She was a girl. And she didn't have to make such a claim. It was entirely at the discretion of the police.
Surely you see why this is how it has to be, right? Domestic violence is a serious problem, and recipients of such violence are often intimidated into silence. If we required the victim to issue a formal complaint before intervening, a lot of kids would live pretty miserable lives.
Read the fucking case, then make some conclusions about why this is right or wrong.
My only guess here is that you are a minor yourself. Am I right?
Nope. No irony at all. In the United States, the various law enforcement forces are there to keep the peace, not to disturb it.
Where do you live? I know there are places where the police are corrupt, basically little more than gangsters with state sanction. I've been to many such places: Cuba, most recently. Where are you from, and what's it like there?
This man was under suspicion of hitting his daughter. Without the police officer witnessing anything or seeing any evidence of it, it is here-say.
In domestic abuse cases involving a minor, heresay is sufficient cause to place a suspect under arrest. If your child claims that you hit her and the officer on the scene believes her, he can arrest you. It's in the interest of the safety of the child.
So the defendant in this case could have been arrested at any time during the proceedings.
Its his goddamn-mother-fucking right to not speak, especially when he did nothing wrong.
It's your right not to incriminate yourself. Your name is not incriminating. Therefore being compelled to give your name is not a violation of your civil rights.
I've done neither, but being at trial is not the issue here.
Sigh. OK, let's go all the way back to the beginning.
If a police officer has a reasonable suspicion that you're breaking the law, he can arrest you. He'll put handcuffs on you, take you to the police station, fingerprint you, fill out some paperwork, and put you in a cell.
At that point, the District Attorney's office gets involved. The DA--actually, a member of the DA's staff--decides whether sufficient evidence exists to seek an indictment against you. If it does, a grand jury is impaneled and the evidence presented. If the grand jury agrees that enough evidence exists to bring charges, they hand down an indictment.
At that point, you go to trial. A trial is a place where guilt is decided. If you're guilty of the crime with which you've been charged, you'll be sentenced to a fine, some time in jail, probation, community service, or some other punishment. If you're found to be not guilty, you'll be released.
With me so far? Not confused, are we? Okay, let's proceed.
Why does the fifth amendment exist? It exists, in part, to prevent you from being compelled to provide testimony against yourself. Why would that be bad? Because testimony against you can be used to convince a judge or jury that you're guilty of a crime, which in turn can result in your being deprived of liberty or property by the court. If you're asked whether you committed offense X and you lie, you're guilty of the crime of perjury. If you say yes, then you've just confessed without benefit of an affirmative defense. So the very question is prohibited. If you're asked a question that you can't answer truthfully without incriminating yourself, you can refuse to answer under the fifth amendment.
I know I'm going fast here. Are you following this okay? Do you need to take a break and have a juice box or some graham crackers?
(I'm just joshing you. I'll stop now.)
Now, what happens if a police officer asks you if you shot that dead man over there? If you didn't, you can answer truthfully that you didn't. But if you did, you have three options. You can either invoke your right to have legal counsel, in which case you don't have to answer any questions until your attorney shows up. Or you can stand mute. Or you can invoke your fifth amendment right not to answer.
Nobody ever bothers to invoke their fifth amendment right under those circumstances. Why? Because you don't need to. You can simply ask for an attorney or stand mute, and accomplish the exact same thing.
But let's assume you did invoke your fifth amendment right. What would happen?
At your trial--after the arraignment, after the indictment is handed down--the arresting officer will be put on the witness stand. The District Attorney will ask him, "What did the defendant say when you questioned him?" He'll respond, truthfully, "He invoked his fifth amendment right."
The judge, at that point, will instruct the jury that the invocation of the fifth amendment right is not an admission of guilt and cannot be interpreted as one when they deliberate the facts of the case. It will be, essentially, stricken from the official record. It will, essentially, be as if it had never happened.
Now, how does it apply in this case? Well... frankly, it doesn't. Because in order to stand behind the fifth amendment, you have to have a sincere and reasonable belief that the information you've been asked to provide would be probative. In this case, the defendant's name was not probative. So his claim that the requirement to identify himself violated his fifth amendment right was rejected by the High Court.
So: net impact on the fifth amendment? Zero. Net impact on the fourth amendment? Zero. Net impact on civil rights as a whole? Zero.
Nope. The term "peace officer" means, simply, "a person employed for the preservation and maintenance of public peace." And preserving and maintaining public peace is exactly what those people--police, highway patrol, FBI, etc.--do. No irony there.
Iraq did. Chemical weapons, chemical precursor reagents, ballistic missiles, materials related to uranium processing. These were all prohibited by the terms of the 1991 cease-fire and a whole slew of UN Security Council resolution. These are all examples of things that have been found, seized, and destroyed inside Iraq in the past 15 months.
"Iraq poses an immediate military threat to America." The administration's position has always been that we should act before the threat became immediate. They never said that Iraq posed an immediate or imminent threat.
"Iraq has been, and is on a continuing basis, providing support to al Quaeda." [sic]
Well, they never said that either, but what they did say is that Iraq sponsored terrorism in general (true; Saddam funded Hamas and Hizbollah murder-bombers) and that Iraq had links with al-Qaida (true; before the war, an Iraqi military intelligence operative and member of the Fedayeen Saddam was present at the meeting where the 9/11 attacks were planned; after the war, Iraq provided safe harbor to al-Qaida refugees from Afghanistan and let them set up shop in Iraq under the name Ansar al-Islam, even going so far as to assign an officer of the Mukhabarat named Abu Wael to act as official liaison.)
"Iraq played a role in the September 11 attacks."
The administration never said that Iraq participated or directly supported the 9/11 attacks. Never, not once. What they said was that there appeared to be links between Iraq and the 9/11 hijackers, that Iraq had supported al-Qaida both before and after the war, and that Iraq had close ties to terrorism in general. All of these things are true. In fact, we now know that Iraq had a much closer role in 9/11 than we ever suspected, in the person of one Ahmad Hikmat Shakir.
These are all lies.
The only lies here are then ones you repeated when you said that the administration claimed an imminent threat and direct involvement in 9/11. The administration never made those claims, ever. You're lying when you say that they did.
What the administration did say is that Iraq had WMD and WMD programs--true--that Iraq supported terrorism--true--and that Iraq had declared its intentions to attack the United States when the opportunity presented itself--true.
Shall I continue?
I wish you would. I welcome the opportunity to go on the record and refute the malicious lies that people like yourself have been spreading about the case for war.
That is how the system IS SUPPOSED to work, yes.
And does work.
What I said is that when you only allow people to pleed the 5th in case the information they are demanded to give would incriminate them, then you have created a situation where pleading the 5th can only be interpreted as withholding incriminating information, and thus as proof that such information exists.
Ever been on trial? Or served on a jury? Here's how it works: if you, at any point, invoke the 5th amendment, the judge instructs the jury to disregard that invocation. The judge instructs the jury not to consider the invocation of the 5th amendment to be incriminating in any way.
If, when a decision is returned, it turns out that the jury did consider the 5th amending invocation in their deliberations, you've got grounds for an appeal. An appellate court will overturn the verdict, either sending your case back for re-trial or letting you go outright.
That's how the system works. Checks and balances.
THE WHOLE POINT OF THIS RULING IS THAT NOT GIVING YOUR NAME, BY ITSELF IS AN ARRESTABLE OFFENSE EVEN IF THEY DON'T HAVE "PROBABLE CAUSE".
;-)
That's not true, though. You are not legally required by statute to give your name unless a reasonable suspicion already exists. Which means by the time you're legally required to identify yourself, you can already be arrested at any time.
Try using some basic common sense.
I'll use yours. You obviously aren't using it for anything.
Okay, my question is this: why isn't this being basically shouted from the rooftops by pro-War people?
It is. I mean, not shouted from rooftops, obviously, but it's out there. It's not new information. The stories about the stockpiles were covered in the news; they were sometimes dismissed as irrelevant because we're not talking about nuclear weapons but rather ballistic missiles like al-Samoud 2 and chemical artillery rounds without agents loaded. But these were prohibited. Iraq was not allowed to have them, claimed they didn't have them, and then turned out to have them.
Same thing with the binary and multiplex agents. Chemical warfare can happen in two ways. One: you can combine reagents to produce chemical agents like sarin gas, then find some way to deliver it. This is unbelievably dangerous, because you're handling SARIN FREAKING GAS. One slip and your own people die. The alternative is to create binary or multiplex agents. These are usually things like alcohols and esthers that, when mixed in pairs (binary) or sets of three or four (multiplex), produce things like sarin gas. You can store the precursors for a long time because they're shelf-stable, and you don't have to worry about spills because they're not toxic like the actual chemical warfare agents are.
Iraq had vats upon vats upon vats upon vats of binary and multiplex agents. They were all over the news during the invasion itself, because every couple of days our people were practically tripping over them. (Literally: they were buried in 55-gallon drums.)
These were sometimes dismissed as pesticides. Once you know the facts and understand the context, that conclusion is just plain silly.
Same story with chemical plants. Iraq had chemical plants that, at the flip of a switch, could produce agents and precursors. These were sometimes dismissed as "dual-use," but that doesn't change the fact that Iraq was using them for warfare production, and that they were not allowed to do this under the terms of the 1991 cease-fire.
And of course you remember the story of the chemical attack in Baghdad just a few weeks ago? Terrorists attempted to set off a sarin bomb, but they botched it. The effect was two mildly ill soldiers instead of 2,000 dead.
And then there's the chemical bomb that was intercepted in Jordan. In that case, it wouldn't have been 2,000 dead. It would have been 20,000. It was a big bomb, and it was rigged to detonate properly, unlike the Baghdad bomb.
There are, however, many talking heads appearing quite often in the media here that get to say "no WMDs have been found", or words to that effect and are never called on it.
Yeah, we used to get the same thing here in the states, but that refrain has basically dropped away since the sarin and mustard attacks earlier this summer and the Jordan thing. I mean, it's hard to argue that no WMD have been found when, you know, WMD HAVE BEEN FOUND.
Some people tried to argue that the chemical agents that have been found so far dated back before the 1991 war and therefore... I dunno. And therefore something. Something that allowed them to dismiss them. I didn't get the argument. That one didn't last long either.
No, the "no WMD" argument is basically only heard from the deeply uninformed and the true deniers. It's been replaced in the mainstream by the "no link to al-Qaida" argument... which is equally specious, and evaporating rapidly in light of the overwhelming evidence.
So, without meaning it as a challenge, I'd like to know why anyone arguing for the war isn't stating these facts at every opportunity.
Well, I guess the short answer to your question is that most people in the States at least don't even concern themselves with the question any more. It's been settled. We went to war for sound reasons. No, there was no imminent threat; nobody ever said there was, and in fact our President told us repeatedly that his position was that we should act before the
Are we dodging details again?
You're kidding, right? I already told you this twice: your comment was so rambling and senseless that I didn't even bother trying to decipher it past the first graf or two.
Let's see if we're in the same boat again here.
the decision mandates that you must give this information to any police officer when requested
Nope. The decision says that it is not unconstitutional for states to require you to provide the information when you're being questioned under reasonable suspicion of having been involved in criminal activity. Very different.
and that same information could be self-incrimination?
The court held that your name is not probative information. It's not self-incriminatory.
If the court ever hears a case in which a state statute requires a person to give incriminating information about himself, I'm sure they'll hold that the fifth amendment trumps. They always have.
So what is your going rate for conversations? Of course, you'll have to get me to agree to your contractual terms, but we'll work out something equitable.
Yeah... see, this is the point where I stop reading. You've spun completely off the deep end. You make no sense of any kind. Waste of time and effort to try to figure it out.
Why don't you go hang out with that "time cube" guy I've been hearing so much about?
Police are a subset of the general class of peace officers. Peace officers include municipal police, highway patrol, state police, sheriffs, constables, corrections officers, border patrol, transportation security, FBI, and so on.
That was a real good try at being snide, but you blew the landing.
But besides that, if it is accepted that the police may demand anybody's identity at any time, demanding proof of that ID seems like a short next step.
You do realize that "short next step" arguments are entirely, completely, totally fallacious, don't you? I mean, seriously. Using the "short next step" or "slippery slope" position, you can argue that anything is bad.
So in practice the only way the police can exercise this new power is to obtain proof if ID.
The court specifically said that if you merely tell the police your name, the statute has been satisfied. There's no legal requirement to produce, or even have, identification.
Until there's probable cause to suspect me of a crime, I should not be police business!
By definition, this statute doesn't apply until probably cause to stop and question already exists.
(Your remark about DNA is so utterly stupid that it doesn't even warrant a comment. And I think you know this. Were you trying to be funny, or silly?)
The problem with that reasoning is that in that case not givign your name is incriminating in itself.
Nope. By definition, invoking the 5th amendment is not an admission. That's how the system works.
The phrase "reasonable suspicion exists that you might be arrested" is meaningless.
No, it isn't. It's synonymous with the notion of probable cause, which is fundamental to our system of criminal justice.
But you know this already, as you go on to admit that the police do not need any reason whatsoever to arrest you. And somehow you think the country is better for this.
Let's just say that there are times when it's good that police have discretion in arresting suspects or detaining material witnesses. It's also good that we have a time-honored, tried, and true system for balancing that discretion: it's called the doctrine of habeas corpus.
And since this balanced system of justice has been in place for more than two centuries now, I'd say arguments that we're on a slippery slope have revealed themselves to be specious.
I somehow doubt the five judges who ruled in favor of this police state quickening have the combined four centuries of federal bench experience you believe exonerates their ruling.
That's a good point; I spoke too quickly. Let's see... Kennedy, O'Connor, Scalia, Thomas, and Rehnquist... that comes to a mere 230 years. My bad.
I'm pretty sure 230 years of judicial experience outweighs one dumbass with an Internet account.
Right, but his point is their the supreme court has just made remaining silent an arrestable offense.
No, they have not.
Look, it works like this. Say you're in a situation where the police have a reasonable suspicion that you might want arresting. Say they broke up a fight between you and somebody else. Say they caught you driving drunk. Whatever. Say there's a situation where a reasonable suspicion exists that you might be arrested.
Under those circumstances, the police can ask you what your name is. If you answer, great. If you don't, you can be arrested.
But guess what? You can be arrested anyway, because you're in a situation where a reasonable suspicion exists that you're involved in a crime. The fact that you didn't answer the question didn't make your situation any worse.
What happens then? You go to jail where you can be held for up to 72 hours (three days), after which time you have to be either charged or released.
Wanna hear a secret? A deep-dark, dirty secret? You can be arrested right now by any police officer and held for up to 72 hours. Amazing! No evidence, no charges, no pretense at all! Shocking! What a disgusting fascist dictatorship we live in! Obviously Ashcroft is to blame. This whole 72-hours thing must be new, right?
Right?
The ruling is just plain stupid.
Yes. A ruling handed down by a panel of judges who have, combined, spent more than four CENTURIES on the federal bench is just plain stupid.
Do you truly have no conception of the limits of your own wisdom?
Please, don't trouble yourself.
Boy. Is that ever wrong.
Let me do this one in reverse. Let me start with the 5th amendment.OK, grand juries. We know what that means: you have to be indicted before you can be charged. Double jeopardy: can't be tried for the same crime twice. Self-incrimination: you can't be compelled to testify against yourself. Due process: no summary judgments. No arbitrary seizures without compensation. Got it.
What does the fifth amendment have to do with this case? Nothing, except when it comes to self-incrimination. You can't be compelled to testify against yourself. But guess what? The Court already covered that:In other words, if the defendant HAD had a real and appreciable fear that his name would be used to incriminate him, he could have simply refused to answer on those grounds.
So, fifth amendment doesn't have anything to say about this case, nor does this case have anything to say about the fifth amendment.
Moving on: the fourth amendment:The idiot--er, I mean "Digital Avatar," said:
the fourth and fifth ammendments make it pretty clear that we don't have to give an officer jack shit based on his 'reasonable suspicion'.
In fact, the fourth amendment says just the opposite. The fourth amendment says that the people are secure against unreasonable searches and seizures. The people are not "secure" against reasonable searches and seizures. And, in fact, in cases where a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity exists, searches and/or seizures are permitted by law. This doctrine is called "probable cause." And it's a judgment that's left entirely in the hands of the peace officers on the scene.
It'd be nice if political theory were actually taught in public schools, as opposed to the watered-down liberal crap you obviously learned.
It'd be nice if you took five damn minutes and read the Constitution of the United States so you'd know just what your rights and responsibilities are as a citizen of this country. Your rights: to be secure from unreasonable searches. Your responsibility: to be subject to reasonable searches when probable cause exists.
And while the police can ask you for your name for no reason at all, you are under no legal obligation to give it unless you've been detained under suspicious circumstances in a state with a "stop and identify" statute.