You're not going to stop making yourself look like an idiot anytime soon it seems... so I'll speed along the process.
You managed to completely avoid the question, which I am assuming is because you figured out you are wrong.
Most departments require a college degree of some sort, be it 2 year or (most often) a 4 year degree.
You find it to be true? How many cops do you know personally... I mean know their life story? Hmm? Yeah, I didn't think so. It's a gross generalization based on nothing but childish ignorance. The poster of that comment definately made it seem that he was very young and ignorant, as you are beginning to do.
Heh, a buddy of mine's a DC PO, newly graduated from the academy. I cannot vouch for other areas, but I know DC has some of the lowest requirements (if you're not in debt and not crazy they'll take you). Then, it's simply a matter of time before you can try and transfer to another PD.
Hmmm, let me help you here since apparently you haven't read the Constitution.
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
That means they as in law enforcement have no right to ask for identification unless the have probable cause you have committed a serious crime.
Oh by the way, the cops also violated his 5th ammendment right as well.
Amendment V
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 offense 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.
My reading comprehension is fine. I have studied the U.S. Constitution for years now because it is my duty as an American to understand and live by the constitution and understand the sacrifice my forefathers went through.
Have you read the Constitution? I'm thinking no.
You do know that since 1968, most states operate with Terry laws which require one to identify him/herself when asked by a police officer? In 1968, the Supreme Court fashioned a narrow legal compromise for police to use in that space between reasonable suspicion and probable cause. In the case of Terry v. Ohio, the court ruled that police can temporarily detain someone on less than probable cause, and even conduct a quick patdown to look for weapons, under suspicious circumstances.
In legal circles, the situations are called "Terry stops." Police cannot conduct them randomly but can use the leeway they provide when there are clues that do not yet add up to a crime.
Of course, the U.S. Supreme Court heard a case yesterday, Hiibel vs. Nevada, that revolves around Nevada's Terry law. Should be interesting to see what the results of this will be. This is what happened:
On a late May evening almost four years ago in 2000, Dudley and his then-17-year-old daughter Mimi were driving back to the family ranch, a modest 300-acre outfit with no telephone service or running water.
Mimi was driving, and father and daughter were arguing. Mimi had taken up with a local boy, and Dudley was not pleased.
Mimi threw an ineffective punch, Dudley got mad and then "she got sorta sore and pulled off the road and I figured I oughta get out of the car," the 59-year-old rancher recalls.
Dudley was standing by the truck on the shoulder of Grass Valley Road, a narrow two-lane leading out of town, smoking a cigarette and letting things calm down when a Humboldt County deputy sheriff, tipped that something might be wrong, pulled up to see what was going on.
Sheriff's Deputy Lee Dove arrived and immediately asked Hiibel for his name. Hiibel refused to say, asked why the deputy wanted to know and festally protested that he was doing nothing wrong.
Eleven times Dove asked for either a name or written identification, and 11 times Hiibel refused. "I don't want to talk. I've done nothing. I've broken no laws," Hiibel said, according to a transcript of the video from Dove's squad car. "Take me to jail; I don't care."
Dove did just that.
Dove would later report that he believed Hiibel was drunk at the time, although Hiibel says he hadn't been drinking.
Hiibel was initially charged with domestic battery _ based on the phone tip to the sheriff's office _ but that charge was dismissed because the caller wasn't available to testify and there was no other evidence to pursue the charge, said Conrad Hafen, the former Humboldt County assistant district attorney who prosecuted Hiibel.
Only one charge was pressed against Hiibel, a misdemeanor for violating a Nevada law that says that during Terry stop situations, "any person so detained shall identify himself, but may not be compelled to answer any other inquiry."
The law does not specify if "identify" means stating one's name or producing proof such as a driver's license.
Simply put, Hiibel was a criminal because he kept quiet in a situation that yielded no proof that he had committed any other crime.
Like Nevada, most states have some sort of statute that allows a police officer to demand some form of identification during a Terry stop.
At issue in the case, which will be heard by the U. S. Supreme Court on March 22, 2004, is whether individuals stopped during an investigation of a possible crime must identify themselves to the police.
In legal circles, the situations are called "Terry stops." Police cannot conduct them randomly but can use the leeway they provide when there are clues that do not yet add up to a crime.
Of course, the U.S. Supreme Court heard a case yesterday, Hiibel vs. Nevada, that revolves around Nevada's Terry law. Should be interesting to see what the results of this will be. This is what happened:
On a late May evening almost four years ago in 2000, Dudley and his then-17-year-old daughter Mimi were driving back to the family ranch, a modest 300-acre outfit with no telephone service or running water.
Mimi was driving, and father and daughter were arguing. Mimi had taken up with a local boy, and Dudley was not pleased.
Mimi threw an ineffective punch, Dudley got mad and then "she got sorta sore and pulled off the road and I figured I oughta get out of the car," the 59-year-old rancher recalls.
Dudley was standing by the truck on the shoulder of Grass Valley Road, a narrow two-lane leading out of town, smoking a cigarette and letting things calm down when a Humboldt County deputy sheriff, tipped that something might be wrong, pulled up to see what was going on.
Sheriff's Deputy Lee Dove arrived and immediately asked Hiibel for his name. Hiibel refused to say, asked why the deputy wanted to know and festally protested that he was doing nothing wrong.
Eleven times Dove asked for either a name or written identification, and 11 times Hiibel refused. "I don't want to talk. I've done nothing. I've broken no laws," Hiibel said, according to a transcript of the video from Dove's squad car. "Take me to jail; I don't care."
Dove did just that.
Dove would later report that he believed Hiibel was drunk at the time, although Hiibel says he hadn't been drinking.
Hiibel was initially charged with domestic battery _ based on the phone tip to the sheriff's office _ but that charge was dismissed because the caller wasn't available to testify and there was no other evidence to pursue the charge, said Conrad Hafen, the former Humboldt County assistant district attorney who prosecuted Hiibel.
Only one charge was pressed against Hiibel, a misdemeanor for violating a Nevada law that says that during Terry stop situations, "any person so detained shall identify himself, but may not be compelled to answer any other inquiry."
The law does not specify if "identify" means stating one's name or producing proof such as a driver's license.
Simply put, Hiibel was a criminal because he kept quiet in a situation that yielded no proof that he had committed any other crime.
Like Nevada, most states have some sort of statute that allows a police officer to demand some form of identification during a Terry stop.
At issue in the case, which will be heard by the U. S. Supreme Court on March 22, 2004, is whether individuals stopped during an investigation of a possible crime must identify themselves to the police.
Thankyou for the answer. Now we can continue arguing. So it only takes 60 hours of college coursework to be a cop. Wouldn't that mean that most cops are not very educated so d*cks and dumb*sses can easily become cops and bully people around with their badges?
If I could change it, I'd increase police pay significantly to interest more people but require cops to at least hold a masters degree. That would eliminate alot of d*cks wouldn't you think?
There are some areas which are dying for officers. Others have too many applications. It all depends on area. But for the most part, they require at least 60 hours for beginners. Prior expierence helps when transferring, and can (and most of the time does) take place of the college requirement. So I can see your DC thing being true. There was a city in the south that did the same thing for awhile as well...basically lowered requirements so they could have enough officers. Its sad, but it does happen.
thats not continuing the argument at all. Thats shifting from personal attacks to attacks upon the police. Will you just admit that you were wrong already?
I don't think identity should be required without probable cause. It isn't because I think the police should be frustrated or that someone did something wrong, but because it is all about the control the government has over you. If an officer has probable cause he can ask you for ID. Randomly asking you for ID is BS in my opinion. However, it is fairly easy for an officer to get probable cause. I think this case sucks either way. Due to the phone tip and the scene the officer had probable cause to ask for the ID. However, he should have asked the girl if she was in trouble and ask the guy if everything was ok. If they said yeah then he should have left. There is a difference in being cautious and investigating, and getting mad when someone won't show you ID. I think ID falls completely Amendment IV. Your ID is your person and shouldn't be subject to a search without a warrant, probable cause, or a public emergency. If this decision comes down favoring the Nevada man, then the USSC better make damn sure they explain their findings to the public and public safety. Otherwise you will have people refusing to identity themselves for anything, and the police arresting people for refusing to ID themselves.
The fifth amendment has no room in the argument. How in the blue hell was that violated? He wasnt a witness against himself, no private property was taken for public use...how?
As for the 4th amendment, nothing of his was taken. They are simply asking for a name. No property is being taken or siezed. If you even want to try to argue that, then cars cannot be seached at all because no warrent was issued (BTW, the supreme court has ruled that cars can be searched upon arrest, and persons can be frisked to protect the police)
How would somebody holding a masters degree make a better cop than somebody who has 60 hours of coursework? You know... you don't just go to the police department and say "I want to be a cop" and you are in, this isn't McDonalds. People become cops because they want to serve their community, and they want to help people. They don't say "I want to be a cop so I can boss around people". They go through many weeks of training at an academy, are continuously evaluated, put their life on the line every day, deal with the lowest people in society, and then get little to no respect from people like you. Do you expect a cop to treat you with all the respect you deserve when you treat them with none? You be a dick to them, they'll be a dick to you.
You've got a lot of growing up to do kid.
Yes, stealing it is a crime. But I dont think the police ask for your name to steal your Identity. Tell me, why is this an issue NOW and not 2 years ago? 4 months ago? Yesterday?
There are people that are required to carry identification in the US. It's not everyone but I would guess it's a good portion of the population.
One other thing I was just thinking about...is it possible that failing to indentify oneself could be seen as suspicious by the police and be used as probable cause for detainment. Does this make any sense (or no sense at all) to anyone else?
MartyMcFly3
Lifer
cheapbidder.... your threads are hilarious. Not because of your attempt to rip on police officers and those who study to become police officers, but because of how dumb they make you sound. How the fvck does 60 hours of COLLEGE coursework = dicks and dumbasses? Believe it or not, not every cop is crooked... They ask for your name so they know what they are dealing with. When you get pulled over and asked for license and registration, what exactly do you think they are doing with it? Could it be checking your background? Noooooooo, dumbasses wouldnt come up with something THAT smart to do. You must think that they are checking to see how tall you are, or what color your eyes are, or just sit their drooling over the fvcking thing. God damn kid, I hope some emergency happens to you that you need a policeman to help you, because then you might learn of the importance of their job instead of being an ignorant fvck.
FYI, I do not argue with police officers. I'm always very courteous to them. Its always been the case that they try to treat me like dirt. I just try to say as little as I can and take the ticket.
Do you think your regular dumb*ss bully can get a master's degree? Even if he could, would he? That would eliminate alot of people who are in the profession for the money and the bullying rights don't you think?
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,415
- 14,305
- 136
What do you mean? This has always been an issue to me. If I am driving a car, I can understand why an officer would need to see my drivers license, but not if I am just walking down the street or otherwise going about my lawful business.
Allow me to be the first to invoke Godwin's Law:
<Nazi voice>Your papers please</Nazi voice>
MartyMcFly3
Lifer
Why is it a big deal to give them your name? If you aren't doing anything illegal, then you have nothing to hide, so why not tell them your name? You tell a whole bunch of people it whether you realize it or not. Its in the phonebook (unless you are unlisted). They aren't stealing your identity by asking it...
Why are we forced to tell them our names? Maybe they're being a jerk at the time and we just don't feel like talking to them anymore. If a cop was being nice about it, maybe they wouldn't have to twist an arm to get it out of us.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 9K
-
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 7K
-
Facebook
Twitter