Bentley Little

You know what is truly frightening about this is that it is put under the guise of "terrorism".

What right did the officer have to ask for identification for? She did nothing illegal but the officer wanted it to appear that she was by resisting his orders so that he could arrest her for something. This has nothing to do with terrorism or illegal actions. It has everything to with the overfilled ego of this fucking pig abusing his power in the name of terrorism.

__________________
That is my 2 cents.

maleficent

Do you think that this woman bears any responsibility at all? If she hadn't mouthed off to the cop, then she would have been given a ticket which she could have fought in court, instead she made a bad choice.

Her decision got her into trouble.

We're all about personal responsibilty, shouldn't she have shown some as well?

__________________

pocon1

I live near DC, don't take the metro, but I know that you do not eat or drink on the metro. I am ok with that. I don't want some people eating or drinking in my car. Especially their little snot-nosed kids. This woman knew the rules. And she sassed the cop. Did he go overboard? Maybe. But it never would have gotten to this point if she had not been eating in the station. BTW, the station itself is metro property. So I think that they were both assholes.

Nazggul

The officer contends she was eating in a restricted eating area hence the attempt to cite her. Just because she swallowed the last bit quickly doesn't vinidate her from the original offense. The officer asked her to stop because he was going to cite her and she ignored and insulted him.

Now, the articles states that she was "finishing a candy bar on her way into a subway station where eating is prohibited ". To determine the legitimacy you need to know exactly where the trash can was. Was it already in the no eating area or was it outside the no eating area. Given the tendancy of journalists to hype their reports in hopes of getting more play out of it, I would tend to default to the officers perspective.

__________________
"If something has to give then it always will."

-- Editors

maleficent

Ananova had a slightly different version of the story - where she sassed the cop while she was stuffing the last of the candy in her mouth - in my mind, that puts a different spin on it.

__________________

bonehed1

that was totally retarded.....i love how she asked if they had better things to do becuase I would have done the samething. she put the last piece in her mouth on the way down and its not like she still had half the frikin candy bar left. I just think they were being dicks that day.

__________________
Stuff is Good

billege

My god, I do live in a police state, and many of you like the idea.
Not only do you like it, but you have detailed reasons for supporting it. Ayn Rand was right.

I'm in shock.

__________________
I can sum up the clash of religion in one sentence:
"My Invisible Friend is better than your Invisible Friend."

Nazggul

Ayn Rand, in her philosophy of Objectivism, wrote that individuals should be free to pursue their own happiness under two conditions; first, that they do not impinge on anyone elses right to happiness, and two, that they accept the consequences for their actions. Most Americans are only interested in the first half of the bargain (pursuit of their own happiness).

__________________
"If something has to give then it always will."

-- Editors

gondath

It seems to me the woman was doing as she was asked to. I don't see what the cop thought was going to happen with the food in her mouth being chewed and wrapper in the trash can. Her statement wasn't that disrespectful. It's just that cops think you have to treat them like royalty while they treat you like dirt. I'd like to know the reasoning behind his asking for identification.

Nazggul

He was citing her for eating in a no eating area, therefore he required her ID.

__________________
"If something has to give then it always will."

-- Editors

greytone

From what I heard on the news the lady in question followed the rules as any rational person would interperet them. She discarded the wrapper and put the remaining bite in her mouth before entering. If this is a technical violation of the law, she can't really be resposible for knowing the food had to be swallowed. I know that ignorance of the law is no excuse, but there is no one alive who knows all the laws they could possibly be subject too.

It was only after she made an effort to comply with the law as she understood it that the officer approached her and asked for identification. I still believe that the Supreme Court pulled a major boner in there recent ruling that we all have to produce our papers whenever an officer demands them. It may have not been smart to escalate the tension by pointing out the police should have had other priorities, but her right to do so is protected by the First Amendment and the officer can not arrest her for this.

I have the utmost respect for police officers who do a tough and dangerous job. But it is bozos like this that diminish the authority of all law enforcement.

__________________
I was there to see beautiful naked women. So was everybody else. It's a common failing.
Robert A Heinlein in "They Do It With Mirrors"

Cynthetiq

Officers enforce the laws. Judges interpret them.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

Bentley Little

Hey waterboy, get a clue. 90% of the laws on our books are assinine and are there for no reason whatsoever.

Some of Illinois' great laws.

1) You must contact the police before entering the city in an automobile.

2) It is illegal to give a dog whiskey.

3) In the Pullman area, it is illegal to drink beer out of a bucket while sitting on the curb.

Oh sure, there are "reasons" for these laws, but don't you just think they are on the FUCKING stupid side!


Edited to add this: more laws under the guise of terrorism. Go ahead, let freedoms be ripped away. This won't stop diddly dick. (*pissed*!)

__________________
That is my 2 cents.

Xell101

I'm thinking this was more of a, "I'll make an example of you" situation, rather than a, "Casual disregard for my authority, my authority!? *engage asshole mode*"

Kepage23

First thing first, I am a peace officer, so my statements may be a bit bias, but I hope to give at least a small look at things from my point of view. Also, I cannot say I agree with everything that the law says, but what I am stating is what is true (as aplies where I work and was trained).

First, as far as doing nothing illegal, where technically does the eating ban start, if she was eating while entering the area, even if she didn't know it, she was in violation of the law. Second, any time a peace officer has a reasonable belief that a crime has been, is being, or is about to be commited he/she can stop the person and ask for them to identify themself (there is your technical reason gondath). Now I admit that reasonable belief is very broad and can be interprited in many ways, it is for a judge to ultimately decide if stoping the person was justified or not, not the person being stopped. Third, a person who has done nothing wrong in the past (ie. no bad record), has nothing to worry about in identifying themselves, except maybe how the will pay for the ticket they are about to recieve, and sometimes all they get is a warning anyway. When someone refuses to identify themselves, the first question popping into my head is "Why?" do they have an outstanding warrent? Are they going to be a danger to my safety because of a previous record that they might want to keep hidden? Are they (at the extreme) an escaped criminal who is a cop hater and is carrying a gun? Being a peace officer can be a dangerous job, and somtimes you have to think of these things, or at least you should if you want to make it home at the end of your shift. Fourth, in refusing to identify yourself, a peace officer then can arrest you and detain you until you can be identified. Keep this in mind next time you are asked for ID by an officer, and life will be easier.
1968, Court case of Terry vs. Ohio, Resulted in the Terry Stop. http://www.wku.edu/Government/TerryStopRules.html
I think where she made an honest effort to comply with the law, she would have probably just recieved a warning for the offence, that is if the officers weren't told by superiors to ticket EVERYONE who is not in compliance with the law (which can happen somtimes too.
Well said Cynthetiq, I couldn't have stated that any better myself!
I have been asked this same question before, and I would say to you, "No" My job is to enforce the laws, and if you are breaking one, it is my job to do somthing about it, no matter how dumb it may seem to you. As mentioned before, laws are there for a reason. In this case, part of the officers job is to enforce the no eating or drinking law. Peace officers don't like being told by someone how to do their job anymore that you would like some random person walking up to you and telling you that you are doing your job wrong or tell you how you should be doing things. I recieved a 5 minute lecture from someone because they knew better than me that my job was, and of course I calmly listened, then proceded to write the citation.
True. The best response I can think of is this: Just think of the Golden Rule. Trust me, it works both ways. Try being nice to an officer and they might, MIGHT, be a little more leaneant. Big emphasis on MIGHT. I am not saying that it will get you out of a ticket, but it could mean the difference of 5 miles officially recorded on the ticked (lowering the fine), or the difference between a ticket and a warning. Now I am not saying that I agree that this is the way it should be, or that an officer should be biased, but that this is just human nature and the way it is. Deal with it.
All that being said, Do I agree? As I understand the situation, Yes for the most part, if she truly refused to identify herself.
Thanks for reading my long winded reply and I hope someone got somthing out of it.

__________________
Just a TFP Rookie trying to make a name for himself.

billege

Whoa there buddy, I took criminal law too. A Terry stop does not give you the right to ask for ID, nor does the refusal of ID give you the right to hold the person until they can be identified.

A Terry stop is when you, an agent of the government, infringes on a person's civil rights in order to conduct a brief investigation based on articulable facts and it provides for a pat down weapons search. It does not say, hey, show me your ID.

In our case here, Terry doesn't matter anyway. If the lady commited a crime, according to an asnine law, and the officer saw it, he's well within his rights to detain her for the purposes of enforcing that law. At that point, she may need some ID.

Asking for papers in this country is touch and go right now. More and more people want us to be fascist in the name of safety. I seriously wonder if Americans are so stupid as to turn this in to South Africa, but we all get to carry papers.
For the time being, if I have commited no crime, and you have no reason to believe I did, you will not be getting my ID until you can articulate to me why you feel that's necessary.

I must say to you, if you're an officer, that you may want to change your train of thought a little bit.

You say " When someone refuses to identify themselves, the first question popping into my head is "Why?" do they have an outstanding warrent? Are they going to be a danger to my safety because of a previous record that they might want to keep hidden? Are they (at the extreme) an escaped criminal who is a cop hater and is carrying a gun? "

You need to consider that they may believe in civil rights. Even though your job is to deal with the guilty, our great coutnry tries to keep the belief of innocent unitl proven guilty.
Until you see something that tells you otherwise, I'll thank you to not think of me as guilty, until I prove to you I'm not.
That's not the way this country is supposed to work.

__________________
I can sum up the clash of religion in one sentence:
"My Invisible Friend is better than your Invisible Friend."

Kepage23

IMO I would say that knowing who I am dealing with is a reasonable inquary. I am not saying, I saw it, you are guilty, but I would think it would be a reasonable precaustion to know who I am dealing with. As far as arresting someone who doesn't show ID, I was not sure of that at first either, until a job interview for a law enforcement job included a scinerio where a man refused to ID himself and I was informed by the people conducting the interview that I could have arrested the person. Everything I have said is from my training, be it in the classroom, or on the job. It could all be different from where I was trained and work, and where you live. Also, I am still fairly new to law enforcement, and I admit there are still some things that I have not learned 100%, but an officer is always training and looking for ways to better him/herself. Or at least they should. I just hope that either the officer or the people on charge learned somthing from this incident.

__________________
Just a TFP Rookie trying to make a name for himself.

Bentley Little

Let me just start off by apologizing for the "fucking pig" comment. When I read some of the previous comment(s), I became a little upset and, well, shit flew from my "mouth". I know as within any profession, there are people who abuse their power and those who do a great service in whatever they are doing. But under todays circumstances with all these new laws, anti-terrorist agendas, and safety precautions being made under the ruse that we HAVE to do and LOSE FREEDOMS because of terrorism makes me angry, rightly so.

I will say that in previous times, the cop asking for identification would have been such a trivial thing and gone unnoticed. But even with that said, she did do what the cop asked her to do but made a smart-ass comment. (Not a crime if I am right?) And hardly a "crime" worthy of the actions taken against her or to ask for ID. The lady was EATING for crying out loud.

Yes, I realize that cops only ENFORCE the laws, but ask cops how many times they have enforced the jay-walking laws. You just don't do it. They realize that if an adult wants to cross (in the middle of) the street after looking both ways when there is no traffic coming, we hardly have the Uni-bomber on our hands now, do we?

As an officer, would you ticket someone for wearing green shoes if the law was there on the books because for the life of me, if this were truly a law, I would not be able to find a logical reason for it to be so. How many officers would say, yes, this is crime against humanity! We must stop all green shoe wearers NOW! Cops are humans as well and they can think rationally. In this example, I think a cop would decide the he/she has better uses of his/her time to enforce other laws and/or protect citizens in a more productive manner.

How far does it have to go before we say enough is enough. Again, officers enforce, and should leave the judicial aspect to the courts, but officers can see the stupidity in some of these laws I would hope.

Besides, I would bet my left nut that any officer will not know every single law on the books for his/her state, county and local township and therefore cannot enforce such said laws. That said, how would the officer know whether or not he/she is enforcing all the laws. Many laws contradict other laws. What then? He/she could very easily be breaking a law this very minute and not even know it. Hmmm? Just go to dumblaws.com, etc. and see for yourself.

This is a judgment call and I think the officer made a terrible one.

Edited for spelling.

__________________
That is my 2 cents.

Kepage23

By god, we can't have those green shoed people running around!! Somthing must be done! No, I understand that perfectly and in this case the only real reason I would support this officers actions fully would be if he was under command of a superior officer to enforce the no eating ban so strictly. Where the person tried her best to comply I would have left things alone.
I have spent many hours wasting my time reading the dumb laws that are wasting space in the law books at dumblaws.com. One of my favorites is in Virginia, MN, You're not allowed to park your elephant on Main Street.

__________________
Just a TFP Rookie trying to make a name for himself.

Karby

...there are no trash cans in metro stations. they were removed i think about 1-2 yrs ago because there were seen as potential 'bomb hiding places'. if you have trash you have to get rid of it before you enter. if it's a newspaper, it goes in the paper bin.
..i only know of two main reasons as to eating/drinking is prohibited in stations. for one thing, it makes the job of the car cleaning crew much harder when they have to clean up food/drink trash on the trains. in the past the had to stay for hours past their regularly scheduled(sp?) work times just to clean that stuff out of the carpets, seats, windows, doors, etc.
the other reason is that sometimes the trash can be blown on to the track, which is a potential fire hazard.
i do agree that metro police went overboard on this one. she got rid of her trash before she enterd the station, and she was going to swallow the bar, so really i didn't see what the big deal was.

__________________
~my karma ran over my dogma.~

eltardo

"Cowardice asks the question: is it safe? Expediency asks the question: is it politic? Vanity asks the question: is it popular? But conscience asks the question: is it right? And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular--but one must take it because it is right. One has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws--and unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law." - MLK

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." B. Franklin

I think they both apply here. Yes, I know it was just a candy bar and not the biggest deal in the world but the quotes really sum up how I feel about the situation.

NoSoup

It's pathetic sometimes what this Country is coming too...

__________________
I have an aura of reliability and good judgement.

Just in case you were wondering...