Again, I, nor anyone, never said it was illegal to do any of those things. Please stop insisting it.
I said nothing of "cop sense" or reasonable cause for arrest either. He was not trying to convict or even arrest him- at this stage of an investigation there are no facts.
There is nothing illegal about an officer asking for id during an investigation. This is not seizing it, it is asking for it.
"if he hadn't tried to force an illegal search"
Asking "Can I see your id?" is not an illegal search. Searching him for it without his consent or without legal basis would be an illegal search.
"he should have determined this, and gone on his way"
I first saw this video a few days ago, and I'm guessing you haven't got the chance yet. There could have been nothing seen by officer to determine if there was assualt there or not. Especially with the drunk father refusing to answer questions (and as has been pointed out before, it's ridiculous to suggest a proper questioning of the daughter with the father standing over her).
"No cop has a duty to stick his nose anywhere"
Do you actually believe that? That police should wait for proof of a crime happening before even investigating or looking into it? There goes police responding to 911 calls, screams in dark alleys, burly men unloading TVs out of a truck at 4am (oh no! stereotypes!), and a trailer park wife with two black eyes saying her husband doesn't beat her. All of which thousands of police currently respond to by persisting to ask questions and looking around to investigate. But that's apparently illegal now.
It seems you didn't read rhino's post at all, but already made up your mind that he was "one of them" when leaping to your condescending tone.
You immediately jumped to taking the Fifth and referencing the Fourth Ammendment when he said
nothing of searching the truck, merely wanting to talk to the girl inside. His only reason for cuffing the father
was for his own safety, not because the father didn't answer his questions.
And having the father stand just outside his peripheral vision is simply a terrible idea. Either he's
going to have to focus on the daughter's hands for a weapon and body language to see if she's lying, or
watch the father for a weapon or if he's going to make a break for it. He could easily pull a knife and charge at the officer in the two seconds he looked away from the father. Not to mention the fact it's hard enough convincing her she'll be safe and it's okay to talk without having her her father standing over her
"Shame on you for stating that demending my rights is a sign of guilt."
Didn't he specifically state atleast twice in his post that he didn't think so either?
It was the fact he was being defensive and belligerent that he felt it gave him REASONABLE SUSPICION (not guilt), and only in COMBINATION with the other factors.
What you fail to take in account is that the officer has a duty to investigate and stick his nose in other peoples' business.
Of course I'm not arguing he needs to or should violate your rights, but he can't simply wait for concrete, irrefutable proof to fall down from the sky before arresting or detaining someone.
Slashdot Mirror
Again, I, nor anyone, never said it was illegal to do any of those things. Please stop insisting it.
I said nothing of "cop sense" or reasonable cause for arrest either. He was not trying to convict or even arrest him- at this stage of an investigation there are no facts. There is nothing illegal about an officer asking for id during an investigation. This is not seizing it, it is asking for it.
"if he hadn't tried to force an illegal search"
Asking "Can I see your id?" is not an illegal search. Searching him for it without his consent or without legal basis would be an illegal search.
"he should have determined this, and gone on his way"
I first saw this video a few days ago, and I'm guessing you haven't got the chance yet. There could have been nothing seen by officer to determine if there was assualt there or not. Especially with the drunk father refusing to answer questions (and as has been pointed out before, it's ridiculous to suggest a proper questioning of the daughter with the father standing over her).
"No cop has a duty to stick his nose anywhere"
Do you actually believe that? That police should wait for proof of a crime happening before even investigating or looking into it? There goes police responding to 911 calls, screams in dark alleys, burly men unloading TVs out of a truck at 4am (oh no! stereotypes!), and a trailer park wife with two black eyes saying her husband doesn't beat her. All of which thousands of police currently respond to by persisting to ask questions and looking around to investigate.
But that's apparently illegal now.
It seems you didn't read rhino's post at all, but already made up your mind that he was "one of them" when leaping to your condescending tone.
You immediately jumped to taking the Fifth and referencing the Fourth Ammendment when he said nothing of searching the truck, merely wanting to talk to the girl inside. His only reason for cuffing the father was for his own safety, not because the father didn't answer his questions. And having the father stand just outside his peripheral vision is simply a terrible idea. Either he's going to have to focus on the daughter's hands for a weapon and body language to see if she's lying, or watch the father for a weapon or if he's going to make a break for it. He could easily pull a knife and charge at the officer in the two seconds he looked away from the father. Not to mention the fact it's hard enough convincing her she'll be safe and it's okay to talk without having her her father standing over her
"Shame on you for stating that demending my rights is a sign of guilt."
Didn't he specifically state atleast twice in his post that he didn't think so either?
It was the fact he was being defensive and belligerent that he felt it gave him REASONABLE SUSPICION (not guilt), and only in COMBINATION with the other factors.
What you fail to take in account is that the officer has a duty to investigate and stick his nose in other peoples' business. Of course I'm not arguing he needs to or should violate your rights, but he can't simply wait for concrete, irrefutable proof to fall down from the sky before arresting or detaining someone.