Originally Posted by VPescado

Your references make obstruction seem like it needs to be an overt action. Surely remaining silent, wouldn't provide the basis for an obstruction arrest (although I do understand that it *might* lead to detention for suspicion of a crime - or as a material witness). Or am I missing something?

Originally Posted by infinityplusone

While I respect LEOs in general, statements like that are one of ther reasons I do not TRUST LEOs in general.
An attitude of "my way or the highway (or in this case the jail cell) do nothing to bolster the public's confidence that you have our best interest in mind...




I am not familiar with the swearing in of an LEO but could you share where you agree to protect citizen's rights? Basically what wording is used (I am sure it is different for many agencies but I am curious about the general idea).


I think it had been established that the OP wanted to give out a Tootsie Pop, which is different then a Tootsie Roll. To the folks who accused the OP of being disengenious or whatever you were accusing the OP of... if something seems odd about an OPs post why not take 15 seconds and go back and re-read what they wrote so you do not post an inane comment that shows your lack of reading comprehension?


And to the OP... I wonder if it would have transpired any differently if you had been holding a few of the Tootsie Pops in sight of the FA while you asked your question(s)?
Maybe / Maybe not... maybe the FA would have realized what your intentions were and told you the number of FAs and accepted the gift and everyone would have been happy.
Or maybe she would have thought showing the "gift" was further ruse to gain the information you were seeking - which is publicly available information so I don't understand what the big deal was in the first place.

Originally Posted by Teacher49

I want to thank all LEOs for protecting my rights, for being willing to fight for my rights.

And I want to remind them that they are my rights.

Originally Posted by bdschobel

You cannot remain completely silent. You must identify yourself and may need to take simple steps to assure the law-enforcement officer that you are not a threat. Beyond that, I suggest your first statement should be, "Am I under arrest?" You really need to find out the answer to that question, regardless of what sort of investigation is going on. And anyone who arrests me for asking that is going to have a career-ending lawsuit on his hands. Fortunately, I have the financial resources to defend myself. Most people stopped by the police do not.

Bruce

Originally Posted by Cholula

You're hooked, dude.
Don't even TRY to take the pledge. ;)
As a fellow FT addict, I can recognize the signs of FT addiction from 50 yards.

Originally Posted by 24th ID

Why would you be arrested for asking, " Am I under arrest"?

Originally Posted by bocastephen

That case pertains to Nevada law. Different states might have different laws pertaining to this issue.

Therefore, it is my understanding that a person must identify themselves, however it is my belief that no law requires them to show identification papers to any law enforcement officer.

In addition, unless there is a federal law that requires a person to identify themselves to a federal officer (notwithstanding being on federal property), it would be up to the state to extend state law enforcement privileges to the federal officer attempting to enforce the state law - and it's my understanding that not all states do. Therefore, it is my belief that a federal officer on non-federal property in a state that does not extend state law enforcement privileges to federal officers cannot legally enforce a state law which requires people to identify themselves.

Originally Posted by 24th ID

Oh yeah, they are mine also. :D

Originally Posted by bocastephen

I thought in your answer to a previous post (one of mine, I believe), that asking 'am I under arrest'...and upon hearing the answer 'no'...followed by a response of 'am I free to go'...and repeated in sequence...would result in you arresting such a person for 'obstruction of justice'

Originally Posted by GUWonder

Cholula, how fast you did hit the 10k mark. :D

Originally Posted by 24th ID

It may.

Originally Posted by 24th ID

What it boils down to is that if a FAM stops you for questioning, an investigative detention, he probably has a pretty decent reason for doing it.

Originally Posted by bocastephen

Under what circumstances?

Originally Posted by bocastephen

Under what circumstances?....assuming an absense of evidence the person committed or is about to commit a crime. Are you suggesting you are willing to arrest someone for being "difficult" because they are protecting their rights? No offense, but I hope you have a good lawyer on retainer :)