rec.sport.football.college

"deemsbill@ " writes:
> On Sep 5, 5:01 pm, kenn...@ (Ralph Kennedy) wrote:
> > "deemsb...@ " writes:
> > > On Sep 4, 11:24 pm, kenn...@ (Ralph Kennedy) wrote:
> > > > "deemsb...@ " writes:
> > > > > On Sep 4, 3:23 pm, Not Sure wrote:
> > > > > > deemsb...@ wrote:
> > > > > > the exit, but when companies and police put up an expectation that
> > > > > > you are not free to refuse the bag check, then at that point YES,
> > > > > > you are losing a freedom.
> >
> > > > > Not until you leave their property. This guy ignored the security
> > > > > guy and then went to a car waiting at the curb. If you don't see that
> > > > > as suspicious, I've got a friend in Nigeria with a deal for you.
> >
> > > > What a ridiculous criterion, whether or not what you
> > > > do is "suspicious." That's supposed to justify the store's
> > > > behavior? What if they demand to strip search all their
> > > > customers, and won't let you leave the store until you comply?
> > > > That's okay, because they say you are "suspicious?"
> >
> > > Why don't you stretch it further...maybe they could shoot anyone
> > > suspicious.
> >
> > Hey, it's your criterion, not mine. If it's that
> > stretchable to the absurd, maybe it isn't a very good
> > one in the first place, which is my point.
>
> Anything is stretchable to the absurd.
>
> >
> > > > > > And I haven't even touched on the whole ID/arrest issue.
> >
> > > > > He acted like an ass and got arrested. Go figure.
> >
> > > > What a ridiculous criterion to argue in a debate.
> > > > "He acted like an ass." So the law is irrelevant, then,
> > > > and all that really matters is whether or not someone
> > > > "acts like an ass," that justifies any behavior by police?
> >
> > > Once again, good stretch. The guy acted like an ass and that
> > > resulted in his arrest.
> >
> > There you go again, acting like a person acting
> > like an ass (which is a subjective call in the first
> > place) trumps all law and gives the police carte
> > blanche to do whatever they want.
>
> It seems the cop is the one whose subjective viewpoint mattered
> here. I'm not saying acting like an ass gives anyone carte
> blanche....I'm saying if you act like an ass in this situation, your
> odds of being arrested go way up.

Well I'm certainly not going to argue against
that, since so many cops are hotheads who go bezerk
the minute anyone makes even the most polite and
miniscule challenge to what they perceive as their
unimpeachable authority.

> >
> > > He was not arrested for acting like an
> > > ass....he was arrested for his actrions while acting like an ass.
> >
> > Clue: He did not commit any infractions.
>
> He refused to comply with the cop's directions. That is
> apparently illegal in Ohio.

Well if a cop determines that you are blocking
traffic, or something, or somehow creating an unsafe
condition, yes, he can direct you to move. But
he can't order you to hand over your driver's license
if you haven't commited an infraction, or in some
way given probable cause that you did.

> He may well get off in court...I've a feeling the judge is going to
> think this is ridiculous....but he could've very easily...without any
> harm to himself....prevented this. We're not talking math here....when
> you're dealing with other human beings, common sense trumps the rules.

All true, to a point. The guy probably should
have just decided not to shop there anymore and let
it go at that. But I'm glad he challenged the cop.
As I said earlier, he's a public servant, so he has
to follow the rules and cannot be allowed to skirt the
law with impunity.

> > > > > Who is "incensed"? I'm the one who doesn't see the big deal here.
> > > > > The guy acted like an ass and got arrested....
> >
> > > > There you go again, as if the law didn't matter
> > > > (there is no law saying you have to show an ID upon
> > > > demand if you are not already under arrest).
> >
> > > He is not charged with that.
> >
> > > > You're not thinking of applying to law school
> > > > anytime soon, are you?
> >
> > > > What the store did was stupid, and you can argue
> > > > that people should just boycott stores like that if they
> > > > think it's so stupid, but you can't explain away the
> > > > policeman's behavior that easily. What he did was plain
> > > > against the law (unless there's another law on the books
> > > > that has not been brought up here yet), and as a public
> > > > employee and member of judicial system, that's unacceptable.
> > > > He should face sanctions at work, and the guy should slap
> > > > the city with a false-arrest suit. Unfortunately, many
> > > > cops aren't exactly the sharpest knives in the drawer,
> > > > but that's no excuse for the city not training them in
> > > > basic arrest procedure.
> >
> > > He is charged with something like "failure to obey a peace
> > > officer". That's where acting like an ass got him arrested. All he had
> > > to do was pull out his receipt and nothing would've happened.
> >
> > You'd better re-read the story. He not only pulled
> > out his receipt, he allowed the officer to examine all
> > his purchases (he had no problem doing this for the
> > officer, he just wouldn't do it for the pighead manager).
> > He was arrested because he refused to produce his driver's
> > license.
>
> Which the cop directed him to do. There seem to be two
> contradictary laws here...the smart (nonassinine?) thing to do
> would've been to produce his ID.

But that's where I believe you go off the deep end.
The cop had no right. No crime had been committed, nor
was there any probable cause, especially after the guy
let the cop search his purchases.

I gave a cop my ID once when he asked for it, because
I'd locked myself out of my house and was going through
a window. That's probable cause that a robbery is taking
place, so I coughed up my ID before the cop even had to
ask.

> > > Which brings up the point that we only have one side of the story.
> > > This guy looks bad enough telling his side...I wonder what it looked
> > > like from the other.
> >
> > Well there's always that, the guy could be lying.
> > But this discussion has been based upon the assumption
> > that his report was accurate, and whether the actions
> > as reported were justified. If there are differing
> > versions as to what actually happened, then any debate
> > is pointless.
>
> This is RSFC....no debate is pointless....uh....

Yeah, I think you might have something ass
backwards there...

--Ralph Kennedy {ames,gatech,husc6,rutgers}!ncar!noao!asuvax!kennedy
{allegra,decvax,ihnp4,oddjob}--^
^---------------The Wrong Choice
internet: kennedy@

"This is rsfc, not the Algonquin roundtable."
-xyzzy, 2/16/07