Olice-pay Ate-stay: What to do if you feel you live in one?

Malor wrote:

He was willing, but apparently the officer refused to let this happen.

And note that 'not providing an ID' isn't even an arrestable offense. Per the Supreme Court, you can be compelled to provide your name, but nothing else.

I'm getting my info from Wikipedia, but it doesn't like like this is true:

FountainOfAllHumanKnowledge wrote:

As of February 2011, there is no U.S. federal law requiring that an individual identify herself during a Terry stop, but Hiibel held that states may enact such laws,[20] and 24 states have done so.[21] The opinion in Hiibel implied that persons detained by police in jurisdictions with “stop and identify” laws listed are obligated to identify themselves,[22] and that persons detained in other jurisdictions are not.[23] The issue may not be that simple, however, for several reasons:
The wording of “stop and identify” laws varies considerably from state to state.
Noncompliance with a “stop and identify” law that does not explicitly impose a penalty may constitute violation of another law, such as one to the effect of “resisting, obstructing, or delaying a peace officer”.
State courts have made varying interpretations of both “stop and identify” and “obstructing” laws.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_an...

The legality of the arrest aside, NYC has a history of arresting people for lack of ID, unfortunately.

I was under the impression that 'stop and identify' meant you had to provide your name, but nothing else.

Malor wrote:

I was under the impression that 'stop and identify' meant you had to provide your name, but nothing else.

How that is interpreted seems to vary from place to place, but

Wikipedia wrote:

As of February 2011, the validity of a law requiring that a person detained provide anything more than stating his or her name has not come before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Which would seem to say that the Supreme Court hasn't had a chance to rule either way on that.

Join the Government.

No, really.

See, Germany was backsliding into Fascism and neo-Nazism in the late 60s. Their youth got fired up, and made a 'long march' through government.

Become a cop. Become a prosecutor. Become the government.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/12...

So, general question prompted by another thread: which countries are *not* a police state by the definition of 'police state' as you see it?

gregrampage wrote:

Obviously I lose points for citing Wikipedia but let's use that definition:

The term police state describes a state in which the government exercises rigid and repressive controls over the social, economic and political life of the population. A police state typically exhibits elements of totalitarianism and social control, and there is usually little or no distinction between the law and the exercise of political power by the executive.

The inhabitants of a police state experience restrictions on their mobility, and on their freedom to express or communicate political or other views, which are subject to police monitoring or enforcement. Political control may be exerted by means of a secret police force which operates outside the boundaries normally imposed by a constitutional state.

The bolded statement is a solid summary of the reasons people (on this board at least) refer to the US as a police state but the entire definition applies to some extent. TSA and DHS are the primary reasons for that, not these recent protests. That said, the police activity in these protests still reinforces the message.

Edit: I don't have an answer for the question in the other thread. If it's better I move this post there regardless, I will.

The problem with that definition isn't that it's from Wikipeida, it's the way you're using it. You're just taking a single portion of it and bolded it as if this is a list of things any one of which qualifies a country as a 'police state'. According to your logic in bolding that part, a country where I can't march into your bedroom while you sleep and share my political opinions with you via a megaphone is a police state. I assume we both see that's a crazy idea.

You're ignoring most of the very definition you cited to focus on one single part, a single part that contains no degrees of severity sitting in the middle of a whole section. That's bad reasoning, and I see it all the time when people cite to dictionaries, let alone Wikipedia. You didn't even bother to read the whole article you cite, where it states: "Genuine police states are fundamentally authoritarian, and are often dictatorships. However the degree of government repression varies widely among societies. Most regimes fall into some middle ground between the extremes of civil libertarianism and totalitarianism."

This is what is so useless about the 'police state' trend: there's no discussion to be had. It's very Rove-ian and "with us or against us." A Wikipedia page can be cited, and then the graphic showing where America ranks according to Reporters without Borders is ignored. What's up with that?

I think you're possibly lumping me in with people that you shouldn't. I specifically said that the bolded part was the reason people say that. If I were trying to make a selective argument and ignore the rest, I wouldn't have included it. I left my post relatively small and included the caveat of "this is why people say that" instead of "this is why we're a police state" because I'm at work and I don't have the ability to type out a giant focused post on it. I don't agree with the assertion there's no discussion to be had. In fact, we're doing it right now and I don't mean that in a snarky way. I think that definition is a suitable starting off point for this kind of discussion, which is why I posted it.

I'm not even going to respond to the accusation that I didn't read the article.

gregrampage wrote:

I think you're possibly lumping me in with people that you shouldn't.

You wrote: "Edwin said the rest better than I can" so I felt it was okay to lump you in with other people if you were doing it yourself. If you don't want to be, sure, but I hope you can see where my misunderstanding may have come from.

CheezePavilion wrote:
gregrampage wrote:

I think you're possibly lumping me in with people that you shouldn't.

You wrote: "Edwin said the rest better than I can" so I felt it was okay to lump you in with other people if you were doing it yourself. If you don't want to be, sure, but I hope you can see where my misunderstanding may have come from.

I am fairly sure I don't mind being lumped in with Edwin. What I meant was the group of people that specifically cite parts of definitions/wikipedia and ignore the rest. Or am I just confused and you're saying they are one in the same?

gregrampage wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:
gregrampage wrote:

I think you're possibly lumping me in with people that you shouldn't.

You wrote: "Edwin said the rest better than I can" so I felt it was okay to lump you in with other people if you were doing it yourself. If you don't want to be, sure, but I hope you can see where my misunderstanding may have come from.

I am fairly sure I don't mind being lumped in with Edwin. What I meant was the group of people that specifically cite parts of definitions/wikipedia and ignore the rest. Or am I just confused and you're saying they are one in the same?

Well, if you say the bolded statement is a solid summary of the reasons people you don't mind being lumped in with believe America is a police state, my question would be why you still want to be lumped in with them upon reading that whole article.

I think this police state hysteria is a bit overblown. I'm not the least bit concerned that the police are going to kick in my front door, stop me without probable cause, or search through my stuff for contraband. If it wasn't for OWS and the UC Davis incident hardly anyone would be talking about it.

Are there instances where they overstep their bounds? Absolutely! Are there law that are unnecessary? Sure! Are the police overzealous with their riot gear and pepper spray? Unequivocally YES. But lets not overlook the fact that they take off their uniforms, drive home to the families and live in the same neighborhoods we do. It's not like they live in guarded compounds for God sakes. I know at least two dozen people employed in law enforcement and their the farthest thing from "jack booted thugs' you could ever imagine.

Comparing what's going on here to what's going on in countries like Egypt is a bit much.

Bear wrote:

I think this police state hysteria is a bit overblown. I'm not the least bit concerned that the police are going to kick in my front door, stop me without probable cause, or search through my stuff for contraband.

Would you still not be concerned if the TSA checkpoints in TN expand to the rest of the country?

NYPD has checkpoints on the side walk asking for ID and reason why you are walking around NY. There is a tweet circulating quoting the tweeter's Iranian born co-working commenting how it reminded him of home.

Edwin wrote:

NYPD has checkpoints on the side walk asking for ID and reason why you are walking around NY. There is a tweet circulating quoting the tweeter's Iranian born co-working commenting how it reminded him of home.

He might know something about police states. Possibly.

gregrampage wrote:
Bear wrote:

I think this police state hysteria is a bit overblown. I'm not the least bit concerned that the police are going to kick in my front door, stop me without probable cause, or search through my stuff for contraband.

Would you still not be concerned if the TSA checkpoints in TN expand to the rest of the country?

How do the folks in TN think about these checkpoints?

gregrampage wrote:

Would you still not be concerned if the TSA checkpoints in TN expand to the rest of the country?

When there are TSA checkpoints in every state and we are no longer allowed to voice opposition to them then I'll start to worry.

Edwin wrote:

NYPD has checkpoints on the side walk asking for ID and reason why you are walking around NY. There is a tweet circulating quoting the tweeter's Iranian born co-working commenting how it reminded him of home.

1. Does this have anything to do with the fact that there's a whole lot of people who keep trying to blow sh*t up in NYC?
2. Could that actually be the police trying to keep some nutter from dropping some pipe bombs on the OWS peeps?
3. Is this within the law? If it is, then the police are doing what they're legally entitled to do aren't they? If it's a problem we have a mechanism to change the law.

Bear wrote:
Edwin wrote:

NYPD has checkpoints on the side walk asking for ID and reason why you are walking around NY. There is a tweet circulating quoting the tweeter's Iranian born co-working commenting how it reminded him of home.

1. Does this have anything to do with the fact that there's a whole lot of people who keep trying to blow sh*t up in NYC?
2. Could that actually be the police trying to keep some nutter from dropping some pipe bombs on the OWS peeps?
3. Is this within the law? If it is, then the police are doing what they're legally entitled to do aren't they? If it's a problem we have a mechanism to change the law.

The tweet was from before the bomb plot was exposed.

I hope you don't mind if I move this over here to this thread:

DSGamer wrote:

Let's try this. Answer this question.

Do you fear being pulled aside by a police officer, TSA agent, etc. worse than being accosted by some random citizen?

Me personally I can deal with random guy on the street. The officer can detain me, these days often without cause. And we know people can disappear into prisons not in the judicial system. So I'm much more fearful if a police officer talks to me than some random street person.

What does that actually prove?

Edwin wrote:
Bear wrote:
Edwin wrote:

NYPD has checkpoints on the side walk asking for ID and reason why you are walking around NY. There is a tweet circulating quoting the tweeter's Iranian born co-working commenting how it reminded him of home.

1. Does this have anything to do with the fact that there's a whole lot of people who keep trying to blow sh*t up in NYC?
2. Could that actually be the police trying to keep some nutter from dropping some pipe bombs on the OWS peeps?
3. Is this within the law? If it is, then the police are doing what they're legally entitled to do aren't they? If it's a problem we have a mechanism to change the law.

The tweet was from before the bomb plot was exposed.

Wait, do you mean 'exposed' as in before it was made known to the public, or 'exposed' as in coming to the attention of the police?

Bear wrote:
gregrampage wrote:

Would you still not be concerned if the TSA checkpoints in TN expand to the rest of the country?

When there are TSA checkpoints in every state and we are no longer allowed to voice opposition to them then I'll start to worry.

Can't tell if sarcastic...

CheezePavilion wrote:

I hope you don't mind if I move this over here to this thread:

DSGamer wrote:

Let's try this. Answer this question.

Do you fear being pulled aside by a police officer, TSA agent, etc. worse than being accosted by some random citizen?

Me personally I can deal with random guy on the street. The officer can detain me, these days often without cause. And we know people can disappear into prisons not in the judicial system. So I'm much more fearful if a police officer talks to me than some random street person.

What does that actually prove?

It proves this. The police exist to protect people. Protect, serve, etc. If you're more afraid of your protectors than the people they are ostensibly protecting you from, you might live in a police state.

CheezePavilion wrote:
Edwin wrote:
Bear wrote:
Edwin wrote:

NYPD has checkpoints on the side walk asking for ID and reason why you are walking around NY. There is a tweet circulating quoting the tweeter's Iranian born co-working commenting how it reminded him of home.

1. Does this have anything to do with the fact that there's a whole lot of people who keep trying to blow sh*t up in NYC?
2. Could that actually be the police trying to keep some nutter from dropping some pipe bombs on the OWS peeps?
3. Is this within the law? If it is, then the police are doing what they're legally entitled to do aren't they? If it's a problem we have a mechanism to change the law.

The tweet was from before the bomb plot was exposed.

Wait, do you mean 'exposed' as in before it was made known to the public, or 'exposed' as in coming to the attention of the police?

I haven't seen any news pieces saying when the rank and file PD knew of the bomb plot, so I am referring to when it was made public.

Edwin wrote:

I haven't seen any news pieces saying when the rank and file PD knew of the bomb plot, so I am referring to when it was made public.

Well, doesn't that make sense that it would be before the plot was made public? Are we talking about the same plot where they caught the guy? I only remember the headline and I'm hazy on the details.

Yonder wrote:
Bear wrote:
gregrampage wrote:

Would you still not be concerned if the TSA checkpoints in TN expand to the rest of the country?

When there are TSA checkpoints in every state and we are no longer allowed to voice opposition to them then I'll start to worry.

Can't tell if sarcastic...

This. 100%

One of the things that bothered me from the post in OWS that sort of led to this thread was the sentence "there is no slippery slope." If we want to come up with a definition of police state and determine exactly where the US is in location to that point, that's fine. I don't really have a problem with thinking we're not there yet, but to not worry based off the way the last decade has gone is crazy to me.

Also, TSA has plans to expand it beyond TN so part 1 of that hypothetical will happen before you know it.

Bear wrote:

3. Is this within the law? If it is, then the police are doing what they're legally entitled to do aren't they? If it's a problem we have a mechanism to change the law.

How exactly do we go about changing the laws that give the police too much power?

Also, whether or not it's within the law has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not we're in a police state. If it's happening, it's happening. Actually, if it's within the law, doesn't that actually make it worse, not better?

Bear wrote:

1. Does this have anything to do with the fact that there's a whole lot of people who keep trying to blow sh*t up in NYC?

Does that justify random stops of anyone for walking down the street? I don't think it does.

DSGamer wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:

I hope you don't mind if I move this over here to this thread:

DSGamer wrote:

Let's try this. Answer this question.

Do you fear being pulled aside by a police officer, TSA agent, etc. worse than being accosted by some random citizen?

Me personally I can deal with random guy on the street. The officer can detain me, these days often without cause. And we know people can disappear into prisons not in the judicial system. So I'm much more fearful if a police officer talks to me than some random street person.

What does that actually prove?

It proves this. The police exist to protect people. Protect, serve, etc. If you're more afraid of your protectors than the people they are ostensibly protecting you from, you might live in a police state.

Why does that line remind me of Jeff Foxworthy?

Does that mean it's a police state? Or does that just mean there are institutionalized problems with law enforcement that go beyond a couple of bad apples? Isn't there some kind of middle ground between 'police state' and 'happyville'?

gregrampage wrote:
Bear wrote:

3. Is this within the law? If it is, then the police are doing what they're legally entitled to do aren't they? If it's a problem we have a mechanism to change the law.

How exactly do we go about changing the laws that give the police too much power?

We're not to the point where the police are so powerful that democratic means can't be used get them back under control. It's not the police that ended the Warren Court's expansion of our civil rights, it was the politicians we elected.

I picked that part out because I actually agree with the rest of what you say in your two posts, by the way.

CheezePavilion wrote:
gregrampage wrote:
Bear wrote:

3. Is this within the law? If it is, then the police are doing what they're legally entitled to do aren't they? If it's a problem we have a mechanism to change the law.

How exactly do we go about changing the laws that give the police too much power?

We're not to the point where the police are so powerful that democratic means can't be used get them back under control. It's not the police that ended the Warren Court's expansion of our civil rights, it was the politicians we elected.

That's actually a really good point, but I don't see how it disagrees with mine. The police need to be stopped through democratic means, but the politicians are the ones who aren't concerned with protecting our rights. So how can we do anything?

Also does it matter if the laws exist? Who's enforcing them? Anthony Bologna was docked 10 vacation days. If he were charged with assault or kicked off the force, maybe I'd have some faith in democratic control of the police.

DSGamer wrote:

Let's try this. Answer this question.

Do you fear being pulled aside by a police officer, TSA agent, etc. worse than being accosted by some random citizen?

This just happened the other day. I was getting in my car at around noon when some random guy was walking down the street towards me, trying to get my attention. He looked kind of shady, so I tried to ignore him and just get going. But he was persistent and approached my driver side door. I was pretty freaked.

At this point, he raised his shirt up to expose his badge. I was still nervous, but not because he was a cop. It was because he now might be faking that he is a cop. He proceeded to tell me that they had some break ins in the neighborhood, and if I had seen a certain truck or any suspicious people. I told him I hadn't, and he moved on. I now felt a lot better that we had a cop undercover in the neighborhood keeping an eye on stuff. This is the kind of police state I like. I was worried when I thought he was a random dude, but relieved when he turned out be a cop.

Me personally I can deal with random guy on the street. The officer can detain me, these days often without cause. And we know people can disappear into prisons not in the judicial system. So I'm much more fearful if a police officer talks to me than some random street person.

I think you are either lying to make a point, or you smoke way too much weed.

Jayhawker wrote:

But seriously, do you think I could not get on a plane and go to Seattle tomorrow with my laptop without having to have it approved by the police state? Yeah, they may want to check and make sure it is not a bomb, but they sure aren't checking the contents of my laptop, verifying my reading materials, or making me explain why I need to go to Seattle.

DSGamer wrote:

That's already being covered. Your emails are being read by the intelligence agencies and the telecoms have been immunized against prosecution.

Oh, that's right. I saw this show on Thursdays. It's Person of Interest. Fascinating, but it's not real, you know. Just because they have the right to look at my emails, it doesn't mean they are actually reading them.

And while I don't agree with the Patriot Act, and I'd hoped Obama would repeal this crap, it's still not the big bad evil you are making it out to be. If you thought so, you wouldn't write half of what you do.