Woman called for a medical response after fiancé took too many pills, police arrive and shoot him

[Darnell 8,479]

i suspect his behavior was due to his blood sugar levels (he was a diabetic)

Exactly !

What to do ?

Ban Pills !

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

Black Navy guy.. I would have shoot onsite also.

You can't trust black Navy Men.

Swarthy Bunch

[spookyturtle 9,466]

Black Navy guy.. I would have shoot onsite also.

You can't trust black Navy Men.

Swarthy Bunch

I'm telling Marvin.

[TBoneTX 46,151]

That's the way it is. The bad thing is, this is why we as a people have issues with police. I don't mind getting a ticket or being stopped because of something I did wrong. It's that underlying factor of I must be up to no good.

Friend Marvin, try being a lone-traveling male of any race in certain places near the Texas/Mexico border. The area within approximately 100 miles of the border has been referred to as the "de-Constitutionalized Zone," and it's true. Try answering "what are you doing"-type questions with "lawful personal business" and see the reaction. Even worse, try deflecting the question altogether.

The U.S. Constitution isn't all that's ignored. Thanks to the truly awful "Hiibel" Supreme Court ruling a few years ago (Google it and read in horror), states now have their own "failure to identify" laws. Here's for Texas (bolded parts mine):

http://www.bakers-legal-pages.com/pc/3802.htm

This text is from the 1999 Texas Penal Code. For a more current version of this provision, see the FastLaws Texas Penal Code.

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

Sec. 38.02. FAILURE TO IDENTIFY. (a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally refuses to give his name, residence address, or date of birth to a peace officer who has lawfully arrested the person and requested the information.

(b) A person commits an offense if he intentionally gives a false or fictitious name, residence address, or date of birth to a peace officer who has:

(1) lawfully arrested the person;

(2) lawfully detained the person; or

(3) requested the information from a person that the peace officer has good cause to believe is a witness to a criminal offense.

© Except as provided by Subsection (d), an offense under this section is a Class C misdemeanor.

(d) If it is shown on the trial of an offense under this section that the defendant was a fugitive from justice at the time of the offense, the offense is a Class B misdemeanor.

---

Try standing up for your rights under the above, even non-belligerently, and see what happens. It ain't pleasant, no man.

For people who live and travel in less lawless areas, I suggest seeking the wording of the appropriate state's "failure to identify" law, finding a lawyer who'll discuss and clarify it with you, and using that information to your benefit as an on-scene defense mechanism.

Edited October 22, 2013 by TBoneTX

[TBoneTX 46,151]

With apologies for somewhat derailing the original intent of the thread (which has evolved, a hair), I found a writeup on the Hiibel case, with some advice following:

-------

Police responded to a domestic-abuse call & found Lawrence Hiibel parked on the street. He refused 11 times to give his name. He was then arrested for violating a Nevada statute, even though his identity was not in question, due to witnesses.

In a 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court claimed that one's mere name is not inherently self-discriminatory, and thus not protected by the Fifth Amendment. (Such assumes that the detainee is not wanted by police for another matter.) However, all that the cop may legally demand is your name (varies by state; in Texas, also address & birthdate). Once you've stated or written it, you are not required to provide ID (unless a driver in a traffic stop). You are NOT required to answer further questions, such as where you're going, what you do for a living, what's in your trunk, etc.

The four Justices' dissents are worth reading. Although I rarely agree with Stevens, Souter, Breyer, & Ginsburg, I do here:

"Given a proper understanding of the category of 'incriminating' communications that fall within the Fifth Amendment privilege, it is clear that the disclosure of petitioner's identity is protected. The Court reasons that we should not assume that the disclosure of petitioner's name would be used to incriminate him or that it would furnish a link in a chain of evidence needed to prosecute him. But why else would an officer ask for it? And why else would the Nevada Legislature require its disclosure only when circumstances 'reasonably indicate that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime'? If the Court is correct, then petitioner's refusal to cooperate did not impede the police investigation. Indeed, if we accept the predicate for the Court's holding, the statute requires nothing more than a useless invasion of privacy. I think that, on the contrary, the Nevada Legislature intended to provide its police officers with a useful law-enforcement tool, and that the very existence of the statute demonstrates the value of the information it demands." -Justice Stevens, dissenting.

"The lengthy history -- of concurring opinions, of references, and of clear explicit statements -- means that the Court's statement in Berkemer, while technically dictate, is the kind of strong dicta that the legal community typically takes as a statement of the law. And that law has remained undisturbed for more than 20 years. There is no good reason now to reject this generation-old statement of the law. There are sound reasons rooted in Fifth Amendment considerations for adhering to this Fourth Amendment legal condition circumscribing police authority to stop an individual against his will. Administrative considerations also mitigate against change. Can a State, in addition to requiring a stopped individual to answer 'What's your name?' also require an answer to 'What's your license number?' or 'Where do you live'? Can a police officer, who must know how to make a Terry stop, keep track of the constitutional answers? After all, answers to any of these questions may, or may not, incriminate, depending upon the circumstances." -- Justice Breyer, with whom Justices Souter & Ginsburg join, dissenting.

Hiibel affirms merely the police power to demand your name in a Terry stop -- not produce your driver's license, passport, etc. (much less compel one to answer further questions). Again, look into the "stop & identify" or "failure to identify" statute of your own state. While "stop & identify" laws remain unconstitutional during a mere suspicionless contact encounter (Brown v. Texas, 443 US 47 [1979]), we sadly no longer have the previously perfect Fifth Amendment right of silence during a lawful detention.

"What's the big deal?" we may ask. OK, how about this: The cops ask your name, and you give it. They run a computer check and find an outstanding traffic ticket. Or, they see your name in the gun-permit database -- and thus subject you to an immediate Terry frisk of your person & your car interior. If a firearm is found that (unbeknownst to you) has a stolen past or was prohibited after the fact, then simply having given your name will result in your arrest. Nifty.

Although Hiibel does not allow a systemwide ID check, it does help pave the way for such in the future. Terrifyingly, we are just a few laws away from biometric "Homeland Security" National ID Cards, gun registration, & owner licensing.
---

Cops rely upon the public's overwhelming desire to have the confrontation end. Most people will -- in the hope of speeding up a cop's exodus -- divulge, consent, placate, whatever -- ANYTHING to make him go away. While this wimpy expediency can sometimes work to that effect, you may instead further confirm the cop's suspicions, or even give him probable cause to arrest you.

For example: By voluntarily surrendering ID during a mere contact, he could discover some unpaid ticket & warrant for your arrest. By offering your prior whereabouts, you could unknowingly place yourself at the scene of some crime. By admitting association with certain persons, you could drop yourself into their legal mess. One never knows.

The police exist to arrest criminals. During ANY confrontation with the police, there is at least SOME risk that YOU could be arrested. Remember that they wouldn't be talking to YOU in the first place unless YOU were somehow a potential "customer." This is not to say that cops are always, or even generally, our adversaries, but they CAN be during any contact. It's one thing to assist the police in catching criminals by giving information, but WATCH OUT when they start asking about YOUR activities. My own rule is not to discuss with officials anything relating to myself. I do not answer personal questions, and I NEVER consent to a requested search of my property.

If a cop asks to search your property, all sorts of warning bells should go off. Understand this: There is never any real advantage to a consented search. Always, always, always refuse consent. This doesn't mean often, or usually; it means always!

"Why not let me search if you're innocent and have nothing to hide?" a cop may taunt. A good reply is, "Well, if you thought I were innocent, you wouldn't be interested in me."

"Well, I can get a warrant!" the cop may menacingly retort. We should reply, "I doubt it. Warrants are based on probable cause, and since I haven't done anything wrong, there can be no probable cause of any crime. Good day, Officer."

Fish are caught only because they opened their mouths. Keep yours SHUT!

Edited October 22, 2013 by TBoneTX

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

Friend Marvin, try being a lone-traveling male of any race in certain places near the Texas/Mexico border. The area within approximately 100 miles of the border has been referred to as the "de-Constitutionalized Zone," and it's true. Try answering "what are you doing"-type questions with "lawful personal business" and see the reaction. Even worse, try deflecting the question altogether.

The U.S. Constitution isn't all that's ignored. Thanks to the truly awful "Hiibel" Supreme Court ruling a few years ago (Google it and read in horror), states now have their own "failure to identify" laws. Here's for Texas (bolded parts mine):

http://www.bakers-legal-pages.com/pc/3802.htm

This text is from the 1999 Texas Penal Code. For a more current version of this provision, see the FastLaws Texas Penal Code.

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

Sec. 38.02. FAILURE TO IDENTIFY. (a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally refuses to give his name, residence address, or date of birth to a peace officer who has lawfully arrested the person and requested the information.

(b) A person commits an offense if he intentionally gives a false or fictitious name, residence address, or date of birth to a peace officer who has:

(1) lawfully arrested the person;

(2) lawfully detained the person; or

(3) requested the information from a person that the peace officer has good cause to believe is a witness to a criminal offense.

© Except as provided by Subsection (d), an offense under this section is a Class C misdemeanor.

(d) If it is shown on the trial of an offense under this section that the defendant was a fugitive from justice at the time of the offense, the offense is a Class B misdemeanor.

---

Try standing up for your rights under the above, even non-belligerently, and see what happens. It ain't pleasant, no man.

For people who live and travel in less lawless areas, I suggest seeking the wording of the appropriate state's "failure to identify" law, finding a lawyer who'll discuss and clarify it with you, and using that information to your benefit as an on-scene defense mechanism.

Did a two year tour in FT hood back in the 90's. That's the worse part, most blacks don't try to stand up for our rights because we know it's different for us. This is why you just comply and keep it moving. The hardest part is not getting angry. If they do that to you there, it's like that for us everywhere.

I've watched drunk white guys acting a fool getting into clubs and bars in Japan and other places in Asia that turn us down flat, while we are being sober and acting like normal guys. We couldn't get a cab in Hong Kong without a white guy decoy in our group.

[Karee 4,191]

Bottom line, don't involve Gov't Police in your life unless absolutely needed.

Fixed. Nothing good comes from calling the cops.

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

Fixed. Nothing good comes from calling the cops.

Wow, you seem more afraid of cops then most black folks.

[Karee 4,191]

Wow, you seem more afraid of cops then most black folks.

It's been my experience in this country and others that getting the police involved, usually doesn't end well.

Edited October 22, 2013 by Karee

[decocker 7,198]

mine too.

[Teddy B 17,252]

It's been my experience in this country and others that getting the police involved, usually doesn't end well.

I agree, and my brother is a cop. Unless it's a life or death situation, most situations are better off solved without the po po.