Video of Virginia Man Being Arrested For Remaining Silent and Not Showing I.D.

[jlee]

Try again. The "mall cops" (well, retail security officers) work for me as contractors. I direct them on behalf of my employer, who is not their employer. I also deal with mall security and police on a regular basis since they can operate where my guys and I cannot.

I know the definition better than you it seems. "Arrest" specifically means to detain, stop, or hold back ("Arrested Development"). It has nothing to do with it being justified. It's why people routinely ask a police officer if they are being detained (if not, they are free to go; if so, they they demand the justification for the arrest).

Charging with a crime or locking up in a cell is not required for it to be called an "arrest" and therefore argued to be an "unlawful arrest." If I wrongfully detain someone in a room and that person did nothing wrong, it doesn't matter that I didn't call the cops. It's why I have to be damned sure before authorizing security to make a "stop" (there's that word again).

The dictionary definition of arrest is not of concern. A detention alone is not necessarily classified as a legal arrest (e.g. a traffic stop). Also, see this if you are not familiar with Terry v. Ohio.

 

[her209]

Agreed, dont start shit with cops. Sue them later if you really think you were abused. If you dont feel like getting a lawyer, then obviously you dont really care.

And since I drive everywhere, I always have at least one form of I.D. with me.

Do you think suing the department will make them change their operating policies for the officers when they aren't the ones coughing up the dough to pay for the settlements when they are found liable?

 

[Reasonable Doubt]

UPDATE: Man Arrested For Not Showing His Papers Has Charges Dismissed

Judge dismissed the charges minutes after the trial started.

http://truthvoice.com/2015/07/update-man-arrested-for-not-showing-his-papers-has-charges-dismissed/

 

[glenn1]

UPDATE: Man Arrested For Not Showing His Papers Has Charges Dismissed

Judge dismissed the charges minutes after the trial started.

http://truthvoice.com/2015/07/update-man-arrested-for-not-showing-his-papers-has-charges-dismissed/

Oh thank goodness he was able to successfully prove his intended point that you have the right to refuse a trivially easy request from a police officer on principle, and at the mere cost of multiple hours of time, legal fees, the hassles of being arrested, and a court appearance with a sympathetic judge. I can't wait to sign up for that deal, I'll use that right after I exercise my equally important rights to get kicked repeatedly in the balls and watch "Battlefield Earth" on endless loop for days on end.

 

[jlee]

UPDATE: Man Arrested For Not Showing His Papers Has Charges Dismissed

Judge dismissed the charges minutes after the trial started.

http://truthvoice.com/2015/07/update-man-arrested-for-not-showing-his-papers-has-charges-dismissed/

Or, we could phrase it "FBI reported a suspicious individual filming the FBI building. The individual, who was wearing a holster at the time, refused to cooperate with a responding police officer. He refused to identify himself and was placed under arrest after he attempted to leave the scene."

Your shitty website should go away in favor of accurate non-sensationalized reporting.

http://www.richmond.com/news/local/henrico/article_ba3d07d8-ec25-52b7-8eab-7ef08ea4da68.html

But Hammond, after being taken to the ground and handcuffed by Henrico police as he tried to walk away, provided identification information once he was in custody, his lawyer, Thomas Coatsworth, said last week.
Commonwealth’s Attorney Shannon Taylor said last week that the case would be resolved within days rather than at a hearing scheduled for August.
Hammond said after court that he has been filming federal buildings as part of an unspecified project. FBI security personnel at the headquarters on East Parham Road called Henrico police when they observed a man filming their building from a short distance away.
“Everything he did was within his legal rights,” Coatsworth said after court Monday.
Hammond is the stepson of a Henrico sheriff’s deputy, but he refused to comment on the relationship.
In separate responses Monday, the commonwealth’s attorney and police said the dismissal of the charge was appropriate; Taylor stressed that the relationship to the deputy sheriff was not a factor in the case.
Taylor said it was important to resolve the case after reviewing the video taken by Hammond and the video of the arresting officer, and both supported dismissal. Hammond also was wearing a holster but had no weapon.

I'd like you to tell me what reasonable person (who is not deliberately trying to start shit) runs around wearing an empty holster while filming federal buildings.

 

[Nebor]

Oh thank goodness he was able to successfully prove his intended point that you have the right to refuse a trivially easy request from a police officer on principle, and at the mere cost of multiple hours of time, legal fees, the hassles of being arrested, and a court appearance with a sympathetic judge. I can't wait to sign up for that deal, I'll use that right after I exercise my equally important rights to get kicked repeatedly in the balls and watch "Battlefield Earth" on endless loop for days on end.

You left out the part where he now sues the city for unlawful arrest and is awarded millions by a civil jury.

 

[JSt0rm]

You left out the part where he now sues the city for unlawful arrest and is awarded millions by a civil jury.

sounds like a good days work.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

You left out the part where he now sues the city for unlawful arrest and is awarded millions by a civil jury.

I will eat my hat if he receives millions. He was not injured and suffered no damages (other than the inconvenience of being arrested). Most lawyers skilled in this area of law would never take this case on a contingent fee basis because he suffered no injury. It is very very likely such a lawsuit, should he find a lawyer to sue it out, would be dismissed on the basis of qualified immunity. If it proceeded to trial, and the plaintiff won (I have tried several cases of this nature and I'd put his odds of success at well under 50/50), he would very likely recover only a very small amount, plus his reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. Because the law entitles a prevailing plaintiff in a police case to reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, the actual fees incurred are normally chopped considerably if the jury awards only a very small amount.

 

[Gerle]

More so than anything you have posted, go figure. People started talking about carrying ID, so I posted what I posted.

I too carry ID most of the time. I didn't think it mattered here, so I didn't feel compelled to share. I was merely wondering if I missed something; it seems I didn't.

 

[LTC8K6]

There is a difference between asking for ID and asking for an ID card.

You are not required to identify yourself merely because a cop asks, as far as I know. Not with a card, or verbally.

Besides, without a card, you can say anything and the cop has no way to check, short of arresting you and taking you to jail.

If he is arresting you, then he must have a reason, which then shifts the burden back. You then have to ID yourself.

So we end up where we started. Absent criminal activity, or activity requiring a permit of some sort, there's no requirement to identify yourself to a cop.

Just say hello, and walk away. :biggrin:

 

[JSt0rm]

I will eat my hat if he receives millions. He was not injured and suffered no damages (other than the inconvenience of being arrested). Most lawyers skilled in this area of law would never take this case on a contingent fee basis because he suffered no injury. It is very very likely such a lawsuit, should he find a lawyer to sue it out, would be dismissed on the basis of qualified immunity. If it proceeded to trial, and the plaintiff won (I have tried several cases of this nature and I'd put his odds of success at well under 50/50), he would very likely recover only a very small amount, plus his reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. Because the law entitles a prevailing plaintiff in a police case to reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, the actual fees incurred are normally chopped considerably if the jury awards only a very small amount.

The point is to punish the pd or whoever pays their bills for violating rights. This will be the only way to stop cops from violating rights.

 

[Ns1]

The point is to punish the pd or whoever pays their bills for violating rights. This will be the only way to stop cops from violating rights.

what better way to punish the cops than by forcing the taxpayers to cough up the cash.


wait, what?

 

[JSt0rm]

what better way to punish the cops than by forcing the taxpayers to cough up the cash.


wait, what?

Then the taxpayer puts pressure on the pd. See how that works?

 

[HeXen]

UPDATE: Man Arrested For Not Showing His Papers Has Charges Dismissed

Judge dismissed the charges minutes after the trial started.

http://truthvoice.com/2015/07/update-man-arrested-for-not-showing-his-papers-has-charges-dismissed/

So what? The dumbass wasted his own time and minutes of the courts just to go right back where he started. I would have just shown the guy the damn ID and go on about my business. Making such points does nothing for no one and it does not stop cops from violating rights...some of them guys don't even know their own rights.

 

[Ns1]

Then the taxpayer puts pressure on the pd. See how that works?

LOL

yes because that's been working great in the US.

 

[malbojah]

I exercise my equally important rights to get kicked repeatedly in the balls and watch "Battlefield Earth" on endless loop for days on end.

I don't have a copy of Battlefield Earth, but I do have a good pair of under-utilized kicking boots that I volunteer.

 

[mikeford]

You don't just, walk away. The phrase to use is "am I free to go?"

Days of ID having a lot of meaning won't last much longer, body cams and facial recognition.

Dorian Johnson months prior to Michael Brown attacking officer Wilson, was arrested and his trick was keeping ID in his sock and giving police a false name, then skipping out of town when released. Seems like a common scheme.

 

[BUTCH1]

This. Never understood making a mountain out of a molehill like that.

KT

But then he'd have no video of police "brutality" to put on YT. We, (the taxpayers) pay the cops to investigate anything suspicious, how can they possibly accomplish that task if your not allowed to ask a simple question to someone about basic information. I'm sorry, he's an "attention-whore" IMO, the whole "right to remain silent" comes into play IF you are being charged with a crime and you'd prefer an attorney to be present during questioning.

 

[Craig234]

One recent supreme court case said you have to explicitly state you're right to remain silent.

YET another ridiculous 5-4 ruling by the radical right 5 over the reasonable 4.

 

[Craig234]

The point is to punish the pd or whoever pays their bills for violating rights. This will be the only way to stop cops from violating rights.

I think there's a tricky balance, a 'gray area'.

On the one hand, there's a certain amount of recognition that not every arrest has to result in a conviction to not result in the officer being charged with false arrest.

On the other, if there's an established practice of the officer being free to arrest people on things that clearly won't result in a conviction, it's a recipe for abuse of power.

So, the trick is trying to find how to balance the two.

 

[dabuddha]

This is a first. Usually these dumb fucks can't stfu in these videos.

 

[Brainonska511]

YET another ridiculous 5-4 ruling by the radical right 5 over the reasonable 4.

But this isn't something new. Rights have been chipped away for a generation now. Mostly under the guise of "law and order" and cuts in budgeting. After all, if you've done nothing wrong....

-Expansive use of no knock warrants coupled with wrong addresses/poor evidence for the warrant in the first place (We shot your unarmed dog/grandmother/father and/or we're at the wrong house? Oops.)
-Illegal searches are okay, if it was an honest mistake that led to it
-Other chips at the 4th amendment
-Rights of prisoners to seek relief in Federal courts
-Rights for people to have competent lawyers
-Overzealous prosecution and plea bargains
-Unpunished prosecutorial misconduct and the ability to seek relief over it.
-The FISA court and domestic spying
-The ability for governments to make your life a living hell, even if you haven't done anything wrong
etc...

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

I assume the dude had to post bail to get out between waiting for the trial?

Was it REALLY worth it all? Just to get a case dismissed? I'm not saying show the cop your ID next time, I'm saying I hope you have a lawsuit ready to put them in their place to prevent this shit in the future.

 

[glenn1]

I assume the dude had to post bail to get out between waiting for the trial?

Was it REALLY worth it all? Just to get a case dismissed? I'm not saying show the cop your ID next time, I'm saying I hope you have a lawsuit ready to put them in their place to prevent this shit in the future.

He had to make his important intellectual point about not showing ID and remaining silent that 99.99999% of the population doesn't care about. Almost every other normal person when meeting a police officer investigating a complaint of so-called "suspicious activity" would have identified themselves promptly and explained what they were doing. That way the officer could quickly conclude they were acting legally and the suspicious activity claim was without merit and they'd be allowed to go their merry way. Total time elapsed probably would have been 30-90 seconds. It's hardly an oppressive police state to have a law enforcement officer make a brief investigation after a complaint was filed.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

The point is to punish the pd or whoever pays their bills for violating rights. This will be the only way to stop cops from violating rights.

It won't have that effect unless a jury makes a significant award in his favor, which I do not believe is a realistic possibility on these facts. The guy was recording at a highly secure site and acted totally bizarre when confronted by the police. I don't see this as a case of jackbooted thugs crossing a line - I see it as a case of a weirdo who acted like a weirdo toward no legitimate end. The police's handling of the situation was, to me, reasonable and did not represent a clear violation of his rights.