Political Crossfire Forums

[The Comrade]

Marzelvane wrote:

In the case of this thread, you are right, the guy needed to show ID. However, if I am walking down my street on public property and a cop drives up, has no reason to believe I am guilty of a crime, and asks for ID I do not need to show my ID.



because you are not in a situation where you are doing something wrong(which is what i thought you meant). if a cop finds you suspicious of an illegal act he can ask you for your ID and search your person.

[Marzelvane]

The Comrade wrote: Marzelvane wrote:

In America you don't have to cooperate with the police in every situation. We have rights here. When a cop asks to search my car, I say NO. Not because I have something to hide, but because I know he's going to f**k up my car digging around in it.

I know its different where you live in Russia.

you don't have that right. it was challenged in the supreme court and was considered perfectly legal.




A) yugoslavia is not russia.
B) i live in america.


1.) You're telling me I don't have the right to be free of an unreasonable search/seizure? You're telling me that a cop can search my car whenever he wants if I'm driving on public property? Do you have a link? This is news to me...last time I checked I did not have to allow an officer to search my car.

2.) Yugoslavia...Russia... whatever, we don't need to get down to specifics.

[StrangerWitCandy]

The Comrade wrote: mic i could kill you with a spoon if i want to. would you consider spoons lethal?

Eugh... I'd much rather be killed with a knife than a spoon. :-|

[Marzelvane]

The Comrade wrote: Marzelvane wrote:

In the case of this thread, you are right, the guy needed to show ID. However, if I am walking down my street on public property and a cop drives up, has no reason to believe I am guilty of a crime, and asks for ID I do not need to show my ID.



because you are not in a situation where you are doing something wrong(which is what i thought you meant). if a cop finds you suspicious of an illegal act he can ask you for your ID and search your person.

yes, f**k yes he can. and he should.

[micfranklin]

The Comrade wrote: micfranklin wrote:

Spoons do not use electricity to subdue people. I thought you'd know that...


your brain uses electricity to send signals. is your brain lethal? can i kill you with it?


and answer the question. would you rather he was beaten into submission?

Note the word "subdue" in my previous sentence. The brain uses electricity, but not to subdue people (at least in the way of a taser).

From a certain POV beaten into submission and stunned by a taser are the same thing.

[The Newb]

Marzelvane wrote: The Comrade wrote: Marzelvane wrote:

Well in this particular case it doesn't say anything about him acting like a smart ass or superior until after a CSO grabbed his arm. A community service officer (CSO) is usually a student/wannabe cop douche bag.

And I definately agree with you on your "two things that you don't do with police." However, we still do have rights. And under many circumstances you have the right to NOT show your ID.

Not sure if you've seen this video, but its kind of cool: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3435730304776119545&q=police+encounter+rights

I don't know how old that video is, but it goes through scenarios of police encounters and how you should exercise your rights. It is interesting... although I am not sure how old it is and how many rights we have lost since the video was made.

no, you don't have the right to not show your ID. just like you don't have the right to not get your bags checked at an airport.

In the case of this thread, you are right, the guy needed to show ID. However, if I am walking down my street on public property and a cop drives up, has no reason to believe I am guilty of a crime, and asks for ID I do not need to show my ID.

you are correct, yet the correct responce to an officer would be, is there a particular reason that you need to see it?

the reason you cooperate with the cops in said manner is that you may match a vague description, there may have been a prowler reported, a mugging anything and all they need is your id and you are gone a few seconds of my time rather than have to be considered "off" by the police is well worth it

[The Comrade]

Marzelvane wrote:

1.) You're telling me I don't have the right to be free of an unreasonable search/seizure? You're telling me that a cop can search my car whenever he wants if I'm driving on public property? Do you have a link? This is news to me...last time I checked I did not have to allow an officer to search my car.



2.) Yugoslavia...Russia... whatever, we don't need to get down to specifics.[/quote]


if you're stopped at a roadblock, or a police officer has suspicion of wrong doing, you don't have the right to refuse a search. if you do refuse, you just incriminated yourself.

[Marzelvane]

and in reply to a taser not being a lethal weapon. I think its time to consider this weapon lethal. You can DEFINATELY kill someone with a taser (and yes, you can kill someone with a spoon)...but how about this analogy.

I come out with a new type of handgun and say "this handgun is designed to ONLY shoot people in the leg. This is not a lethal handgun, as shooting people in the leg is not considered lethal."

Well now....isnt that stupid? The gun could be aimed wrong or the user could purposely use it incorrectly and shoot somebody in the stomach or chest. It is TOO EASY to kill someone with a taser and they should be considered lethal.

Here is a link to 167 US taser related deaths since 1999: http://www.azcentral.com/specials/special43/articles/1224taserlist24-ON.html

[The Comrade]

micfranklin wrote:

Note the word "subdue" in my previous sentence. The brain uses electricity, but not to subdue people (at least in the way of a taser).

From a certain POV beaten into submission and stunned by a taser are the same thing.

a taser shorts out your brain signals and you can't use your muscles. it hurts for about a minute. a beating in most cases will leave you with brokan bones, bruises, cuts, and a myriad of other problems.


yeah they sound like the same thing.


now answer the question. would you rather he was beaten into submission or tasered?

[The Comrade]

Marzelvane wrote: and in reply to a taser not being a lethal weapon. I think its time to consider this weapon lethal. You can DEFINATELY kill someone with a taser (and yes, you can kill someone with a spoon)...but how about this analogy.

I come out with a new type of handgun and say "this handgun is designed to ONLY shoot people in the leg. This is not a lethal handgun, as shooting people in the leg is not considered lethal."

Well now....isnt that stupid? The gun could be aimed wrong or the user could purposely use it incorrectly and shoot somebody in the stomach or chest. It is TOO EASY to kill someone with a taser and they should be considered lethal.

Here is a link to 167 US taser related deaths since 1999: http://www.azcentral.com/specials/special43/articles/1224taserlist24-ON.html


and those cases far outweigh those in which people did not die, especially considering that's over a seven year period. like i said before, you can kill someone with anything if it's not use properly. should everything be deemed lethal?

and if you can find me out of those 167 deaths how many were a direct result of a taser being used properly then i'll agree it's lethal.

[micfranklin]

The Comrade wrote: micfranklin wrote:

Note the word "subdue" in my previous sentence. The brain uses electricity, but not to subdue people (at least in the way of a taser).

From a certain POV beaten into submission and stunned by a taser are the same thing.

a taser shorts out your brain signals and you can't use your muscles. it hurts for about a minute. a beating in most cases will leave you with brokan bones, bruises, cuts, and a myriad of other problems.


yeah they sound like the same thing.


now answer the question. would you rather he was beaten into submission or tasered?

I said "from a certain POV," so pay attention to those details. Internal damage can be more severe, because even with a broken bone you still can technically move that limb, but it'll be painful. Plus, if your brain signals short out then you have a certain inability to process information, and you need your brain for all bodily functions.

I wouldn't prefer either of the two options listed above, but being beaten seems a hair lesser than being tasered.

[Zoot]

I am seriously disturbed at the number of posts in this thread that amount to, "If you don't respect cops, it's your fault they abuse their power."

[The Comrade]

micfranklin wrote:
I said "from a certain POV," so pay attention to those details.

answer the f***ing question and stop skirting around it.


micfranklin wrote: Internal damage can be more severe, because even with a broken bone you still can technically move that limb, but it'll be painful. Plus, if your brain signals short out then you have a certain inability to process information, and you need your brain for all bodily functions.

it isn't perminant mic. check your facts please.

micfranklin wrote: I wouldn't prefer either of the two options listed above, but being beaten seems a hair lesser than being tasered.


okay so you would be hit with a metal stick for up to a minute then be tasered?

i didn't know you relished in abuse mic.

[micfranklin]

The Comrade wrote: micfranklin wrote:
I said "from a certain POV," so pay attention to those details.

answer the f***ing question and stop skirting around it.


micfranklin wrote: Internal damage can be more severe, because even with a broken bone you still can technically move that limb, but it'll be painful. Plus, if your brain signals short out then you have a certain inability to process information, and you need your brain for all bodily functions.

it isn't perminant mic. check your facts please.

micfranklin wrote: I wouldn't prefer either of the two options listed above, but being beaten seems a hair lesser than being tasered.


okay so you would be hit with a metal stick for up to a minute then be tasered?

i didn't know you relished in abuse mic.

Well a broken bone and bruises and cuts aren't permanent either in a sense, for one thing. Second, I'm not a fan of abuse at all.

[The Comrade]

micfranklin wrote:

Well a broken bone and bruises and cuts aren't permanent either in a sense, for one thing. Second, I'm not a fan of abuse at all.



ooh technicalities. the death throws of a dead argument.


okay mic, once lasts longer then the other.


secondly, answer the question. would you rather he was beaten into submission or tasered?


you really like avoiding questions mic.

[The Grandmaster]

The Comrade wrote: micfranklin wrote:

Well a broken bone and bruises and cuts aren't permanent either in a sense, for one thing. Second, I'm not a fan of abuse at all.

ooh technicalities. the death throws of a dead argument.

okay mic, once lasts longer then the other.

secondly, answer the question. would you rather he was beaten into submission or tasered?

you really like avoiding questions mic.

Looks like a false dichotomy to me. You don’t have to do either. Just cuff him and cart his ass out of there, like any other arrest. Cops do it all the time, and it seems to work fine.

[The Comrade]

The Grandmaster wrote:

Looks like a false dichotomy to me. You don’t have to do either. Just cuff him and cart his ass out of there, like any other arrest. Cops do it all the time, and it seems to work fine.



when someone gets combative(verbally in this case), especially when they're in a place they wouldn't be with no ID, the officer has to take into consideration the person is dangerous.

the cop made the right choice. obviously in hindsight the kid wasn't dangerous. but hindsight isn't very useful in real time is it?

[The Grandmaster]

The Comrade wrote: The Grandmaster wrote:

Looks like a false dichotomy to me. You don’t have to do either. Just cuff him and cart his ass out of there, like any other arrest. Cops do it all the time, and it seems to work fine.

when someone gets combative(verbally in this case), especially when they're in a place they wouldn't be with no ID, the officer has to take into consideration the person is dangerous.

the cop made the right choice. obviously in hindsight the kid wasn't dangerous. but hindsight isn't very useful in real time is it?

I don't know, in the majority of times the cops put them on the ground and cuff them. It gets the job done just as well, so obviously it works, and the taser wasn't needed, unless this guy was some 400 pound musclebound monster.

[The Comrade]

The Grandmaster wrote:

I don't know, in the majority of times the cops put them on the ground and cuff them. It gets the job done just as well, so obviously it works, and the taser wasn't needed, unless this guy was some 400 pound musclebound monster.



the kid had no ID and there was no way to prove he wasn't dangerous. the cops made the safest choice.

[micfranklin]

The Comrade wrote: micfranklin wrote:

Well a broken bone and bruises and cuts aren't permanent either in a sense, for one thing. Second, I'm not a fan of abuse at all.



ooh technicalities. the death throws of a dead argument.


okay mic, once lasts longer then the other.


secondly, answer the question. would you rather he was beaten into submission or tasered?


you really like avoiding questions mic.

If you do either long and hard enough, you can kill somebody. And if this helps, you could just hit him once and do what they do on Cops and sit on him and then cuff him.