Man Informs Cop He Can’t Move His Prosthetic Arm Behind His Back

[werepossum]

Sure, they'll charge you with resisting arrest.

Fuck pigs.

One of the major problems with our legal system is that one may be charged with resisting arrest without actually being charged with anything else.

 

[werepossum]

Respect my authoritah!

A silly as it sounds you can literally be arrested for...resisting arrest.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way...rrested-for-resisting-arrest-yes-its-possible

It's like being charged interest for not taking a loan.

Except, you know, with more clubbing and shit.

 

[rommelrommel]

It's easy to have a situation where charges aren't pursued for the offence that got the police there but you still get resisting charges... Often assaults where the victim doesn't cooperate.

 

[Subyman]

OBEY

 

[cabri]

not an leo but a lawyers site

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/drivers-license-faq-29063.html

cops wrong on all fronts.

isn't knowing the law part of being a police officer?

Presenting a expired driver license is a problem.
Was the vehicle CO registered or Utah registered?

Again, we only have his lawyers side.

 

[Dari]

So glad all these stories are coming out. They're having an effect.

 

[Pens1566]

Presenting a expired driver license is a problem.
Was the vehicle CO registered or Utah registered?

Again, we only have his lawyers side.

Registration doesn't matter. And bonus points for automatically assuming his Utah license is expired. I doubt the case would have been filed if that were true.

 

[mizzou]

From moving around the country...most states have a residency clause that says once you live there, you are to surrender your out of state license and get a new one with that state. Usually something like 30 days or so to do it.

You are not supposed to use your old (even if its still valid) out of state driver's license when you live in a different state. So if you live in an apartment, you have established residency.

 

[mizzou]

One of the major problems with our legal system is that one may be charged with resisting arrest without actually being charged with anything else.

That's not true. While you can be "Charged" and prosecuted in court with only resisting arrest, the prosecutors will ONLY file it if you resisted a lawful arrest. If you didn't know you were under arrest, then they won't file it or you will win in court.

So let's say you stole some shit from the gas station. You ran from the police after they said "Stop you are under arrest!". When they put the cuffs on you, they arrest you with crimes of stealing and resisting arrest. The prosecutors have the authority to pick and choose what to actually prosecute you for. They can say, "Well, let's just give them a citation for stealing but prosecute them in state court for resisting arrest". Or what if you just had some warrants? You can't be charged with warrants, but you can be charged still for resisting arrest.

So to answer your question, it is impossible to be charged with resisting arrest without actually being charged with anything else

I can totally understand why you would think that, because it is not common knowledge or experience for many. It's also confusing because of the way the justice system works.

 

[Pens1566]

From moving around the country...most states have a residency clause that says once you live there, you are to surrender your out of state license and get a new one with that state. Usually something like 30 days or so to do it.

You are not supposed to use your old (even if its still valid) out of state driver's license when you live in a different state. So if you live in an apartment, you have established residency.

Guy in story lives in CO, visits UT. Arrested in UT for not having UT license.

 

[waggy]

not an leo but a lawyers site

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/drivers-license-faq-29063.html

cops wrong on all fronts.

isn't knowing the law part of being a police officer?

nope. Also the courts have ruled not knowing the law can not be held against the officer.

 

[mizzou]

nope. Also the courts have ruled not knowing the law can not be held against the officer.

It's complicated. And I don't think it's specifically "not knowing the law", it's more about whether or not they act in good faith of the law. If they are found to not act in good faith, they release their immunity from being charged with a crime.

 

[dawp]

Presenting a expired driver license is a problem.
Was the vehicle CO registered or Utah registered?

Again, we only have his lawyers side.

He has a valid CO DL, his Utah DL expired in '88 after he moved to CO. The cop said his CO was invalid since he didn't have a valid Utah DL which is bullshit. If it worked the way the cop thought it did you would have to have a valid DL from every state you have lived in which is not the case.

 

[Matt1970]

You can come break my arm for $1.5 million.

 

[Pipeline 1010]

That's not true. While you can be "Charged" and prosecuted in court with only resisting arrest, the prosecutors will ONLY file it if you resisted a lawful arrest. If you didn't know you were under arrest, then they won't file it or you will win in court.

So let's say you stole some shit from the gas station. You ran from the police after they said "Stop you are under arrest!". When they put the cuffs on you, they arrest you with crimes of stealing and resisting arrest. The prosecutors have the authority to pick and choose what to actually prosecute you for. They can say, "Well, let's just give them a citation for stealing but prosecute them in state court for resisting arrest". Or what if you just had some warrants? You can't be charged with warrants, but you can be charged still for resisting arrest.

So to answer your question, it is impossible to be charged with resisting arrest without actually being charged with anything else

I can totally understand why you would think that, because it is not common knowledge or experience for many. It's also confusing because of the way the justice system works.

I bet this is NEVER used as a catch-all charge for contempt of cop. Nope, not by our brave, honest defenders.

 

[Pipeline 1010]

It's complicated. And I don't think it's specifically "not knowing the law", it's more about whether or not they act in good faith of the law. If they are found to not act in good faith, they release their immunity from being charged with a crime.

Is it easy or difficult to prove that a police officer didn't act in good faith of the law? That's one of those clauses they throw in to make it virtually impossible for cops to lose immunity.

 

[cabri]

He has a valid CO DL, his Utah DL expired in '88 after he moved to CO. The cop said his CO was invalid since he didn't have a valid Utah DL which is bullshit. If it worked the way the cop thought it did you would have to have a valid DL from every state you have lived in which is not the case.

Baker claims that Stowe ran his license through a computer and then “insisted that Mr. Baker was driving without a valid license because Officer Stowe’s search of his database revealed that Mr. Baker had previously possessed a Utah driver’s license.”

Baker’s Utah license expired in 1988, he says, after he moved to Colorado.

Stowe “persisted,” however, and told him that his Colorado license was invalid because he did not have a Utah license, Baker says.

If a expired Utah license was presented, it would be a problem.

Driving a Utah registered vehicle with a CO license is a problem.

Again, we have only one side of the story as to the problem before the physical issue.

Guy in story lives in CO, visits UT. Arrested in UT for not having UT license.

I did not see this in the story

 

[dawp]

If a expired Utah license was presented, it would be a problem.

Driving a Utah registered vehicle with a CO license is a problem.

Again, we have only one side of the story as to the problem before the physical issue.




I did not see this in the story

if he was living in CO why would he have a current UT license?

Stowe “persisted,” however, and told him that his Colorado license was invalid because he did not have a Utah license, Baker says.

did you not read the whole article?

no where in the article does it say the vehicle was registered in UT.

plus:

He says criminal charges against him were dismissed when his attorney showed "evidence and videotapes from the arrest" to a prosecuting attorney.

the charges were dismissed.

 

[nickqt]

Not all cops are fascists. Some are, but I'd argue that most aren't.

If we want cops to help root out their own trashbags, then we should stop saying they're all fascists. They aren't.

Same with any group, like Muslims, for example. Make extremism the enemy, not just being a mooselman.

Also: if you're driving around in a state bordering Colorado with Colorado license plates, you best be aware that the police are going to give you increased looks.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...a-but-it-doesnt-look-like-any-more-will-join/

Utah isn't planning on suing, but I can just about guarantee that Colorado plates draw increased suspicion.

Heads up.

 

[cabri]

if he was living in CO why would he have a current UT license?

He claims that he had an expired Utah license. I asked - did he show it to the officer; otherwise, why would it show up and/or be mentioned by the lawyer.



did you not read the whole article?

Stowe “persisted,” however, and told him that his Colorado license was invalid because he did not have a Utah license, Baker says.

no where in the article does it say the vehicle was registered in UT.

The article does not indicate where the vehicle was registered. IF it was in Utah, it would be an issue. - this is what I asked/stated

plus:



the charges were dismissed.

My issue is what actually happened with respect to the license/vehicle and the vehicle that triggered the incident.

Granted that the charges were dismissed, but what actually triggered the issue?

Having only one side of the story leads to speculation on what is being omitted and why?

 

[dawp]

My issue is what actually happened with respect to the license/vehicle and the vehicle that triggered the incident.

Granted that the charges were dismissed, but what actually triggered the issue?

Having only one side of the story leads to speculation on what is being omitted and why?

he showed the officer his CO license, the cop pulled his driving record and that showed he had a expired UT license. the cop said that with the expired UT license his CO license was invalid, which is not the case, otherwise why would the charges be dropped? I'm sure I have expired licenses in both WI and TX since I never renewed them after I move out of state.