• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

"One Good Cop"

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

tranquility

Senior Member
What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Unknown

At:

YouTube - One Good Cop

is an edited film of two men walking across the country. They are dressed out of the norm and are flashing signs at motorists and others regarding something about 9/11 which could be offensive to some. The clip focuses on police contact during their journey.

Clearly, some cops are out of line. Some walk the line and show how the police can often get consent for something when the "suspect" does not know his rights. At the end of the clip is how I'm sure Carl would have handled the situation.

(Note, also, the power of the camera. Do you think things would have gone differently if the camera were not there?)
 


tranquility

Senior Member
I'm sure we'll all agree the vast majority of police contacts are handled in a professional manner. I think that we'd also agree video of a police officer handling things properly isn't really that interesting. I also think a fair minded person will agree that video in the hands of citizens and citizens knowing their rights is a good thing.

In this video, I suspect there is no reasonable suspicion anyone in the car has a weapon and demanding the driver get out is a bit of a stretch, but completely allowed per Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106. (State laws may vary.) By refusing the demand to exit, the driver put himself at risk of an obstruction charge and, apparently, a bullet in the head. Still, I think the cop was not thinking through on the law, but on the insult of a citizen insisting on his rights.

From FourthAmendment.com
YouTube video on a search over a burned out taillight

YouTube video: Police threaten to KILL Pastor over License Plate Light being Burned Out.

"The main action of the video is between minutes 0:00-4:00 and 10:50-15:35. The death threat is found around 2:10-2:30."
The video is at:
YouTube - Police threaten to KILL Pastor over License Plate Light being Burned Out
 

RoyLDenton

Junior Member
I am not an attorney. However, I am having GREAT success in handling my own issues in court. It isn’t like I am a criminal it is that I will not hesitate to use the judicial system to correct what effects me and may benefit others. Like the movie with Matt Damon and Ben Affleck, I sometimes refer to it as my “Good Will Hunting” effect. Who needs a teacher to read me a book where I can read it myself, conduct the study guides myself and basically learn what I need to know, not what “I need to know to manipulate the system” to get a client off the hook. Sure, this may P off a few lawyers but who cares.

I look at it as me having a Ford Mustang and me owning a Chilton Auto repair Manual for my Mustang. Well, in parody, the Mustang is the constitution and my Chilton manual(s) are my Tennessee Jurisprudence books (complete set) Tennessee Code Annotated (online free) as well as approximately 70 feet of books an old attorney/judge friend of mine gave me called “American Jurisprudence” which are great to have but realistically, much of that ancient stuff simply no longer applies.

I also look at things realistically. For example, 2 + 2 = 4, therefore I can add. Since I can add, I can also subtract. I can even divide and multiply. Since I can calculate numbers, I can solve problems. If I can solve problems then all I need do is follow equations or “rules” and hold myself to the “same strict standard of an attorney” (I have often felt that to do so has lowered my standards) but nonetheless, I know the Rules of the Fed. R. of Civ. P. and the ones I don’t know, I always have my little Rule Book (Chilton Manual) with me in which to refer. In any event, I have found that when dealing with police, when you question the police officer, even nice ones, most become insulted because it seems that “they” are the elders and the rest of us on the other side of that blue line are school kids with mental impairments. I have learned that talking is about the worst thing you can do with police.

I have learned that as a general principle, citizens who are minding their own business are not obligated to "show their papers" to police. In fact, there is no law requiring citizens to carry identification of any kind. In Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, the Supreme Court upheld state laws requiring citizens to disclose their identity to police when officers have reasonable suspicion to believe criminal activity may be taking place. Commonly known as "stop and identify" statutes, these laws permit police to arrest criminal suspects who refuse to identify themselves. So, for those guys in the video they acted with perfection. They were NICE and educated in their rights.

As for me, if I am not driving, wanting to board a plane, etc. and was merely walking down the road minding my own business then I’d freely give my name but simply deny even having an ID. I freely post comments with my name as the user name. Reason being, I am not stating anything online that would not be stated in person, at a seminar, at a book signing and so forth. But even if I provided an ID, I would NEVER provide identity theft information contained in a driver license or social security number. Show them your AARP membership card. I have showed my American Legion ID several times and all I get is a mean look, and those can work if my name was Iam A. Chicken. Stand on your rights and show the respect to those that fought and died for them, or not.
 

CdwJava

Senior Member
Clearly, some cops are out of line. Some walk the line and show how the police can often get consent for something when the "suspect" does not know his rights. At the end of the clip is how I'm sure Carl would have handled the situation.
Actually, I have had this sort of thing come up - minus any obvious camera - and did deal with it largely as the last guy did. But, then, we don't have a stop and identify statute here ... I cannot be sure if there was any reasonable suspicion for detentions by the other officers, but the situation could certainly have been handled better in most instances. Heck, if they had a stop and identify statute, and had good cause for the stop, our filmers would probably be on the way to the pokey.
 

You Are Guilty

Senior Member
Maybe I'm getting cranky in my old age, but I don't have a problem with the officers in the beginning of the "broken taillight" clip (full disclosure - my computer froze after the first ~4.5 minutes or so). If all a driver had to do to avoid getting out of a car was to claim "they were making mean faces", then I would expect to start hearing about a lot more in-car taserings.
 

CdwJava

Senior Member
Maybe I'm getting cranky in my old age, but I don't have a problem with the officers in the beginning of the "broken taillight" clip (full disclosure - my computer froze after the first ~4.5 minutes or so). If all a driver had to do to avoid getting out of a car was to claim "they were making mean faces", then I would expect to start hearing about a lot more in-car taserings.
I didn't watch the additional video so I can't comment on it.

And, yes, we can generally order people out of a car and there a great many tactical reasons to do so. If I were to forcibly remove a guy from his car (which two of my officers did yesterday, in fact) I had better have probable cause to support an arrest for something - even for obstructing and delaying an officer. The driver could then make his "they were making mean faces at me" claim before a judge.
 

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top