Home | Community | Message Board


Out-Grow.com - Mushroom Growing Kits & Supplies
Please support our sponsors.

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Jump to first unread post. Pages: 1
OfflineBaby_Hitler
Errorist
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 22,840
Loc: To the limit!
Last seen: 2 months, 7 days
Interesting Supreme Court case
    #2357182 - 02/20/04 01:17 AM (12 years, 9 months ago)

They are trying to determine if it is a crime to refuse to show ID. Or rather if laws making it illegal to refuse to show ID are constitutional.

http://papersplease.org/hiibel/index.html


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 33,808
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: Interesting Supreme Court case [Re: Baby_Hitler]
    #2358074 - 02/20/04 05:58 AM (12 years, 9 months ago)

That sucks but it's not hard to see both sides.

On the one hand the guy was standing there doing nothing.

On the other hand it was reported that there was violence.

Once that report was phoned in the cop really had no option. Think about it.....

Cop: Sir, show me some ID.
Dude: No.
Cop: OK then. (leaves)
Next mornings headline: GIRL FOUND DEAD!

Not much of a choice for the cop.

Or senario 2. Cop pulls up, sees a man standing outside the truck yet walks up and starts talking to the girl first. Man pulls gun or knife, assaults cop. Or merely runs away.
Not much of a choice for the cop.

He has to deal with the most immediate concern first. That was the man outside the truck.

Now, police should NOT be able to just walk up and demand ID, but in this case the reported violence takes it beyond that.


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineBaby_Hitler
Errorist
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 22,840
Loc: To the limit!
Last seen: 2 months, 7 days
Re: Interesting Supreme Court case [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #2359075 - 02/20/04 01:24 PM (12 years, 9 months ago)

That's not really the issue. The issue is that he is being charged with the crime of delaying a police officer and fined $250. I believe they had the right to take him into custody, but not to charge him with any crime.


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 1 year, 10 months
Re: Interesting Supreme Court case [Re: Baby_Hitler]
    #2359133 - 02/20/04 01:42 PM (12 years, 9 months ago)

I don't know if this has been decided at the US Supreme Court level yet, but lower courts have always upheld the right of peace officers to demand (with probable cause) that individuals identify themselves. Review boards establish on a case by case basis whether or not the "probable cause" the officer supplies is valid.

The article says Hiibert is appealing his fine to the US Supreme Court. This may not be necessary. A lower court may overturn the fine before it ever reaches The Supremes.

pinky


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineBaby_Hitler
Errorist
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 22,840
Loc: To the limit!
Last seen: 2 months, 7 days
Re: Interesting Supreme Court case [Re: Phred]
    #2359170 - 02/20/04 01:51 PM (12 years, 9 months ago)

It has gone through all the courts except the Supreme court. It is scheduled for March 22.

All the lower courts have supported the charge of "Detaining an officer".


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 1 year, 10 months
Re: Interesting Supreme Court case [Re: Baby_Hitler]
    #2359186 - 02/20/04 01:56 PM (12 years, 9 months ago)

Then your assessment is indeed correct -- it will be an interesting case.

I admit to being a bit surprised The Supremes deigned to even hear the case.

pinky


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 33,808
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: Interesting Supreme Court case [Re: Baby_Hitler]
    #2360216 - 02/20/04 05:57 PM (12 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

I believe they had the right to take him into custody, but not to charge him with any crime.



If the law required the man to produce ID and he refused, he did indeed commit a crime.


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineBaby_Hitler
Errorist
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 22,840
Loc: To the limit!
Last seen: 2 months, 7 days
Re: Interesting Supreme Court case [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #2360401 - 02/20/04 07:03 PM (12 years, 9 months ago)

I didn't say he didn't commit a "crime" I said that the law was faulty.


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 33,808
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: Interesting Supreme Court case [Re: Baby_Hitler]
    #2362737 - 02/21/04 07:11 AM (12 years, 9 months ago)

I didn't say you did.

However as long as it is law, he did commit a crime. As a report of violence was made, the cop was doing his job.


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleEvolving
Resident Cynic

Registered: 10/01/02
Posts: 5,385
Loc: Apt #6, The Village
Re: Interesting Supreme Court case [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #2362981 - 02/21/04 10:48 AM (12 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

luvdemshrooms said:
... the cop was doing his job.



... badly.


--------------------
To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.'  Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence.  Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains.  Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 33,808
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: Interesting Supreme Court case [Re: Evolving]
    #2363042 - 02/21/04 11:16 AM (12 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

... badly.


I can't argue with that, but he was doing his job.


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 33,808
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: Interesting Supreme Court case [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #2484880 - 03/30/04 08:58 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

The latest. Not much new.





Link


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleYidakiMan
Stranger
Male User Gallery
Registered: 09/29/02
Posts: 2,023
Re: Interesting Supreme Court case [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #2489733 - 04/01/04 04:36 AM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Maybe I am too much of a conspiracy theorist but I want to see proof of this "domestic violence" call.

A while ago me and two friends were bored at a childrens playground after dark 30 minutes to close. A cop comes by and asks, "Papers please" saying there was a call of disturbing the peace. We'd been there for the past hour, never talked beyond a normal voice and not seen another person. After harassing us for 20 minutes, he told us to leave because the park was closing in ten minutes.

Cops are liars end of fucking story.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineBaby_Hitler
Errorist
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 22,840
Loc: To the limit!
Last seen: 2 months, 7 days
Re: Interesting Supreme Court case [Re: YidakiMan]
    #2507585 - 04/01/04 07:28 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

The only good cop is a dead cop, or one dieing slowly of cancer. :yesnod:


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Jump to top. Pages: 1

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Couric asks Palin to name a supreme court case she disagrees with --- 90 seconds of hilarity ensues
( 1 2 3 4 ... 9 10 all )
supernovasky 8,572 199 10/08/08 12:56 PM
by Phred
* Canada! Supreme court case.. legalized buds for Xmas? Mixomatosis 686 12 12/23/03 10:00 PM
by trendal
* Sen. Santorum Defends Remarks in Gay Court Case I_Fart_Blue 573 1 04/23/03 04:19 PM
by wingnutx
* for alex123: court cases involving the 2nd amendment
( 1 2 3 all )
Anonymous 5,891 58 01/23/04 06:34 PM
by luvdemshrooms
* Supreme Court Upholds Partial-Birth Abortion Ban
( 1 2 3 all )
Le_Canard 3,804 51 04/23/07 07:54 PM
by zappaisgod
* Ayahuasca Court Case.... What are we waiting for? dr0mni 746 6 06/04/05 08:05 AM
by Psiloman
* US supreme court quashes illegal guantanmo trials carbonhoots 760 5 07/01/06 08:44 AM
by niteowl
* Supreme court and Cross Burning
( 1 2 all )
JohnnyRespect 1,281 31 04/21/03 04:41 PM
by JohnnyRespect

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Prisoner#1, Enlil
772 topic views. 1 members, 1 guests and 1 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Toggle Favorite | Print Topic | Stats ]
Search this thread:
Kraken Kratom
Please support our sponsors.

Copyright 1997-2016 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.046 seconds spending 0.005 seconds on 14 queries.