|
Originally Posted by polonius
(Post 14635742)
And that certainly goes for the hypothetical suggested by CtheC -- I would definitely be willing to accept a higher possibility of being a crime victim rather than tolerate harassment by the police.
Originally Posted by Custardthecat
(Post 14636442)
So, I get the picture. Having posed the question with a hypothetical:
The consensus of you (those that have spoken) is that: It's definitley not a case of 'Support your local Sheriff !' Until there is a mad axeman running round your neighourhood, who do you call.......Ghostbusters? And just as well. When seconds count, the police are minutes away. |
Originally Posted by Ari
(Post 14637137)
Just to be clear, do you have familiarity with or understanding of the US Constitution?
Originally Posted by PhoenixRev
(Post 14637459)
Yes, this is where the difference in how we see things, Custard.
Our laws make it very clear that we are always presumed innocent until proven otherwise. I don't need to prove my innocence through the answering of questions to anyone. It is up to the government to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that I am guilty and they can only do that in a court of law. That is why American courts have long held that maintaining your silence is not proof of guilt. What about other aspects of law such as 'probable cause'. This presumably forms part of the equation To be clear, what I was alluding to, was that in the event that I had done something to attract LEO attention and create the interpretation of a suspicion then I would be happy to allow them the leeway to clear that suspicion, presumably demonstrating a misinterpretation on their part but not one that was an unreasonable interpretation. The example of the airport is interesting in that it seems that the HPD officer also seems to referred to trespass. Presumably he is then relying on some code that incorporates that, Is it too much to assume he knows what laws exist on his own patch
Originally Posted by rgfloor
(Post 14637465)
And this is your single most telling point!!
After four days of pointless diatribe you finally say this!! I will draw a picture instead I was stating that I could not attest (as could any of you) to the vebatim that passed between the OP and HPD in that 90mins, every nuance of the conversation and every turn of event that led HPD to make enquiries, those enquiries which, I no not the totality of and the officers mindset leading to him making any that he did. (we only have one side of the story here). I did say 90 minutes seemed like a long time for it all and that I did not agree with the taking of the bag. I have said elsewhere I do not condone the TSA in this case or that my own previous experience disposes me favourably towards them (it does not)
Originally Posted by armandov9
(Post 14637634)
Lol....I wouldn't refer to his points as pointless diatribe. I fully understand your point of view custard. I really do. I know what you're saying.
It boils down to , in my opinion, you seem to simply trust the police and tsa to be reasonable and do the right thing. I don't. So I turn to the LAW to protect me. Even when that means its from them. I think once you have your first bad experience with law enforcement you will understand what we mean and why we think what we think. I'm nor naiive enough to trust the Police totally, even here. Often, there are news items about them in that respect and whether powers are used correctly is often discussed as are their tactics, not all of which I agree with. I do recognise that there are restraints on them for very good reason but that even then, some exceed the mark. I have no bad experience with them in the US. They seem to give directions just fine. Who says I have not had any bad experiences with Law Enforcement, but it's not me we're talking about here. Anyway, thanks for at least making the effort to consider my POV. ^ Trust TSA? Noooooo! Not based on what I've seen but I am only looking at this situation and I have said I do not condone their judgement.
Originally Posted by n4zhg
(Post 14638414)
I have stated in other forums that I would rather live next to a crack house than a police station. I know what to expect from the residents/customers of the crack house. I used to say that I didn't know what to expect from the police, sadly that has changed, and not for the better. All you have to do is google "puppycide" for an example.
In this country, outside of the big cities with illegal gun laws, you pick up your own weapon and subdue the whack job with the axe. Maybe he dies, maybe he doesn't, but here law and legal precedent says you are on your own and the police don't have a duty to protect you from criminals. And just as well. When seconds count, the police are minutes away. |
Originally Posted by Custardthecat
(Post 14636442)
...The consensus of you (those that have spoken) is that:
It's definitley not a case of 'Support your local Sheriff !' Until there is a mad axeman running round your neighourhood, who do you call.......Ghostbusters? Winston Churchill must be rolling over in his grave. The UK had brave men once. Bruce |
Originally Posted by bdschobel
(Post 14638927)
Winston Churchill must be rolling over in his grave. The UK had brave men once.
Bruce |
Fair enough. Winston is nevertheless rolling! :)
Bruce |
Originally Posted by bdschobel
(Post 14639033)
Fair enough. Winston is nevertheless rolling! :)
Bruce |
Originally Posted by bdschobel
(Post 14638927)
I've never seen a police officer confront a dangerous criminal -- and most never do in their entire careers. Most never even draw their guns.
|
Most of my experience is in upper middle-class suburbs, where the police do traffic duty nearly full-time and nothing else.
Bruce |
Originally Posted by bdschobel
(Post 14638927)
And how many "mad axemen" have you seen -- in your neighborhood or anywhere else? Do we really need to build our attitudes around such extreme events? The vast majority of my contacts with the police in my lifetime have been seeing them running radar alongside roadways or otherwise annoying law-abiding citizens going about their business (including taking photographs). I've never seen a police officer confront a dangerous criminal -- and most never do in their entire careers. Most never even draw their guns. But if you want to believe that they are protecting us from these phantom axemen, you go ahead. I'm sure it makes you feel better.
Winston Churchill must be rolling over in his grave. The UK had brave men once. Bruce |
Originally Posted by Custardthecat
(Post 14638642)
Originally Posted by Ari
(Post 14637137)
Just to be clear, do you have familiarity with or understanding of the US Constitution?
Originally Posted by Custardthecat
(Post 14639987)
Speechless!
|
Originally Posted by GUWonder
(Post 14640061)
That response might as well have been replaced by this:
since it "answers" the question equally "well". Bit of a U turn, is it not! |
Originally Posted by bdschobel
(Post 14639033)
Fair enough. Winston is nevertheless rolling! :)
Bruce |
Originally Posted by Custardthecat
(Post 14638642)
Yes, I get the 'innocent until proved guilty' bit. It is indeed the same here.
What about other aspects of law such as 'probable cause'. This presumably forms part of the equation Throughout this discussion there appears on your part to be: 1) a conflation of unparticularized suspicion or hunch with the (U.S.) legal standard of probable cause; 2) ignorance of the legal distinction between reasonable suspicion and probable cause; and 3) confusion about or indifference to whether the threshold of proof for either standard of warrant or arrest was met in the OP's case. The standard of reasonable suspicion is based on specific and articulable facts taken together with rational inferences from those facts. The stricter standard of probable cause is a reasonable belief that a person has committed a crime, supported by circumstances sufficiently strong to justify a prudent and cautious person's belief that certain facts are probably true. If we're to have a fruitful discussion of the OP's case we all should be honest about whether we're posting mere opinion of the incident or commentary informed by the law. . . . . . The $64,000 question remains: What specific, articulable facts did the Houston police officers have to suspect the OP of illegal behavior? (Remember to keep in mind that the TSOs' hunches and unparticularized beliefs about c/p photography are all LEO were presented with.) |
Originally Posted by n4zhg
(Post 14640242)
If you hooked a generator to him, he'd light all of London.
|
Originally Posted by Custardthecat
(Post 14638642)
What about other aspects of law such as 'probable cause'. This presumably forms part of the equation
To be clear, what I was alluding to, was that in the event that I had done something to attract LEO attention and create the interpretation of a suspicion then I would be happy to allow them the leeway to clear that suspicion, presumably demonstrating a misinterpretation on their part but not one that was an unreasonable interpretation. If they truly believe they have probable cause to arrest me, then they should arrest me. Otherwise, if they ask me why I am taking photos inside the airport and I say nothing, they need to either continue their observation of me (without interfering with what I am doing legally) or they need to return to their post and start looking for the bad guys and gals. You said you are more than happy to clear up any suspicion. But who defined that suspicion and why? We have nothing to suggest that taking photos of a TSO or the security area in the airport is the harbinger of terrorism. Nothing at all. But, we have cops detaining people for doing something perfectly legal and, in many cases, telling people they need to delete the photos they have taken as if destroying possible evidence is legal. You may think it convenient to simply answer the cops questions and move along. But where does that stop? If he asks for ID will you give it to him? If he asks for your Social Security number or National Health Care ID number, will you give it to him? If he asks what you do for a living and how much money you make, will you tell him? If he asks you how many children you have and which schools they attend, will you tell him? The example of the airport is interesting in that it seems that the HPD officer also seems to referred to trespass. Presumably he is then relying on some code that incorporates that, Is it too much to assume he knows what laws exist on his own patch. |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 5:41 am. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.