Originally Posted by
mynetdude
greentips
perhaps the LEOs are the secretary & observer for the courts, that doesn't make a whole lot of sense. If a cop says you're the one breaking the law when you haven't or perhaps the one making the complaint really broke the law but they prefer to believe them rather than you and this carries over in court then its totally flawed
Sure it does. The system is not flawed, it is what the courts are supposed to do: sort out the truth. A cop can say anything he/she wants. The only time they have to tell the truth is to the court, under oath. Often there will be an he said/she said component of an incident, as the one you described. This is what the courts are for: to sort out the wheat from the chaff and make a determination as to what actually transpired and render judgment as to what laws, if any were broken and the consequences of same.
Originally Posted by
mynetdude
Also, I should point out that if a cop intends to investigate a possible crime or alledged crime, I have no problem verbally stating who I am. So long as I am not detained nor required to produce ID then the above is fine, that's reasonable.
True it is a civil matter, that is not the point. This is how I sort of see the TSA/LEO issue here, there was no suspicion, there was no cause or probable cause except for a complaint that was nonvalid all the TSA had to do was prevent him from crossing into the secure area until Phill crossed over then they could legitimately make a valid complaint that Phill alledgedly crossed into the secure area without showing ID but even then that is even questionable when the TSA says that you need and ID and don't need one at the same time and any LEO should know that too.
Which may or may not arise to the level of reasonable suspicion. The Albuquerque police were called. They had a reason to come to the moat. They asked to cooperate with the TSA, which he apparently refused. Here is where I'm not clear. They might have asked him to identify himself to them. They were investigating a call, which does might give rise to reasonable suspicion. They have a witness (TSA), and asked Phil to provide identification, which is where it gets gray. If the cop, in the course of investigating the TSA complaint, did indeed ask him for identification, and he refused, then it is likely he did break the law.
NMSA 30-22-3 makes it a crime in NM to refuse to identify oneself with intent to hinder or interrupt a public officer or any other person in a legal performance of his duty. The cop was called to investigate an incident. Phil was involved in that incident. If the cops ordered Phil to identify himself to them and he did, as Steve Beirfeldt did when the TSA tried to have him arrested for carrying $4,700 in cash, then there would be no case, and likely no incident. Whether or not a violation of the statutes took place is a question for judge and jury, with all facts in hand and witnesses examined in open court.
Originally Posted by
FlyingHoustonian
A feckless and inane comment. How does me donating to the prosecution of a grandstanding churlish person-looking-for-a- fight have anything to do with "progress" or the TSA? Don't presume to put words in my mouth kid.
I have actually done more to stop the TSA than most likely anyone on this board, as I actually affected legislation as a federal lobbyist.
The problem here is you people think this case will have some bearing on the TSA. It will not. Listen to the Audio. This case is about a guy being a smart-... with the ABQ-PD, nothing more or less. Even if Mocek "wins", whatever that shall be in a criminal case like this, it will not change anything. You will see some posts on a message board, that is all.
There are ways to go after the TSA. This is not one of them. I've posted some before, especially when some were thinking of starting a lobbying group. This takes money. You want to go after the TSA and its absurd useless policies, you need money, and representation. Not a guy acting like a spoilt brat with the ABQ-PD.
Ciao,
FH
On this we agree. If we are to regain control of the TSA (and I regard the TSA/DHS as a symptom of a far larger problem with our government), we must act carefully and with caution, while their brazenness becomes increasingly obvious until we can rally adequate strength to successfully oppose them.