[Q-ball]

MisterEd, on May 13 2005, 06:06 AM, said:

Quote

She resisted arrest and got what she deserved....period.

No she did not because the "arrest" happened as a result of her decision not to sign the ticket WHICH SHE HAS A RIGHT TO NOT DO! We, as American Citizens have an inalienable right to NOT sign our name to anything, but we may have to suffer the consequences because of it but not by being tasered or arrested. You may choose to not sign your 1040 but you will face fines and a late filing status, you may not sign a check and you will face late payment fees. This LEO had no right to continue to insist she sign the ticket. Again an example of zero tact and diplomacy by an overzealous LEO. Regardless of whether she signed or not she still "got" the ticket and either has to pay the fine or appear in court - NOW, her failure to do that IS grounds for arrest to which I have no argument with but not until she fails to show or pay!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Maybe you can get away with not signing a ticket in Oregon but Washington law has a different viewpoint of not signing tickets...it is an arrestable offense.

Washington Law

I used italics and underlines for the juicy parts

RCW 46.64.015
Citation and notice to appear in court -- Issuance -- Contents -- Written promise -- Arrest -- Detention.
Whenever any person is arrested for any violation of the traffic laws or regulations which is punishable as a misdemeanor or by imposition of a fine, the arresting officer may serve upon him or her a traffic citation and notice to appear in court. Such citation and notice shall conform to the requirements of RCW 46.64.010, and in addition, shall include spaces for the name and address of the person arrested, the license number of the vehicle involved, the driver's license number of such person, if any, the offense or violation charged, the time and place where such person shall appear in court, and a place where the person arrested may sign. Such spaces shall be filled with the appropriate information by the arresting officer. The arrested person, in order to secure release, and when permitted by the arresting officer, must give his or her written promise to appear in court as required by the citation and notice by signing in the appropriate place the written or electronic citation and notice served by the arresting officer, and if the arrested person is a nonresident of the state, shall also post a bond, cash security, or bail as required under RCW 46.64.035. An officer may not serve or issue any traffic citation or notice for any offense or violation except either when the offense or violation is committed in his or her presence or when a person may be arrested pursuant to RCW 10.31.100, as now or hereafter amended. The detention arising from an arrest under this section may not be for a period of time longer than is reasonably necessary to issue and serve a citation and notice, except that the time limitation does not apply under any of the following circumstances:

(1) Where the arrested person refuses to sign a written promise to appear in court as required by the citation and notice provisions of this section;

(2) Where the arresting officer has probable cause to believe that the arrested person has committed any of the offenses enumerated in RCW 10.31.100(3), as now or hereafter amended;

(3) When the arrested person is a nonresident and is being detained for a hearing under RCW 46.64.035.

[Lawhobbit]

Jim_Linch, on May 16 2005, 05:58 AM, said:

ebd10, on May 15 2005, 10:38 AM, said:

...I mean c'mon, if we allowed people to smoke pot and buy hookers and stuff, wouldn't our country collapse under the weight of immorality???

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, and it already is.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Odd. It didn't seem to have collapsed when such things weren't subject to "law enforcement" a century or two ago. Or maybe it did and I just missed it.

[Lawhobbit]

Barak, on May 15 2005, 10:36 AM, said:

Whyn'tcha gimme a hand instead?  What do you think about the issue of victimless crime?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No blood, no foul. Makes keeping the peace (as opposed to law enforcement) easier and promotes a better and stronger social group.

Of course, a stronger social group is not what the State wants by any stretch of the imagination. Makes it harder to loot and pillage in peace, y'know.

[Barak]

Say, ebd10, who's this Lawhobbit guy? I like 'im. First lawyer I've ever met who talks like that.

[ebd10]

Don't know, I'm pretty new here myself, but if I ever need a lawyer, he's the guy I want! Hey Lawhobbit, what's yer specialty?

[Lawhobbit]

ebd10, on May 16 2005, 08:21 AM, said:

Don't know, I'm pretty new here myself, but if I ever need a lawyer, he's the guy I want! Hey Lawhobbit, what's yer specialty?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The second attorney I office-shared with in Beaverton put it pretty well when he said that I really don't come off well as a lawyer, I sound more like a guy who knows a bit about the law. He was very much the stereotypical lawyer except for having a GREAT sense of humor. Stick him in a double-breasted suit and a set of wingtips and he'd fly anywhere. I, on the other hand, have custom made suits that still make me look like I'm a refugee from the Bulgarian KGB.

Nevertheless, the State of Oregon does license me to practice law here - though not in areas that are of much use to you folks. I don't do criminal or PI stuff, my main areas tend to be business (formation and litigation), landlord/tenant, family law, and a bit of collections work.

[Barak]

Lawhobbit: I had a curiosity question to ask you, but then I realized it'd be a major thread hijacking...so I started another thread.

Not that anyone was using this one anyway...

[Lawhobbit]

Barak, on May 16 2005, 12:59 PM, said:

Lawhobbit: I had a curiosity question to ask you, but then I realized it'd be a major thread hijacking...so I started another thread.

Not that anyone was using this one anyway...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm thinking that at, what, over fifty posts now that this one may be the all time stress-the-server champion of the board! And if we all start attaching pictures to support our respective positions.....

[Barak]

Lawhobbit, on May 16 2005, 02:02 PM, said:

I'm thinking that at, what, over fifty posts now that this one may be the all time stress-the-server champion of the board!  And if we all start attaching pictures to support our respective positions.....

Fifty posts? Heck...you're just an amateur, my boy! On some of the other boards I frequent, a thread with 1000 posts begins to be notable for length.

Of course, a thread with 1000 posts is never any longer about the same subject it was started on.

[Lawhobbit]

OrDVOP, on May 16 2005, 08:16 PM, said:

should she have been arrested? Probably.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Arrested for what? Failure to sign a piece of paper? That's something that needs to have a person deprived of personal liberty? Some ink marks not put on paper are worth, if necessary, KILLING someone (i.e. "shot while resisting arrest").

In the current imperial police state, sure. But let's take a moment and imagine - those of us who can - Jefferson or Washington or Franklin suggesting that a person should be killed for driving too fast. I doubt sincerely whether any of the Founders would agree that that's a proper function of government.

But then I'm just a crusty old dinosaur, left over from two centuries ago, and recognize that my species is on the way out to make way for more modern sensibilities.

[Lawhobbit]

OrDVOP, on May 17 2005, 01:14 PM, said:

Key word is "Probably". Why, as I pointed out none of us knows what actually transpired other then what the press had to say and to be fair they have a tendency to "copbash" every chance that they get. Reading between the lines I'm sure that a lot more happened and that this lady's attitude had a lot to do with the situation. Have I ever arrested anyone for failing to sign a ticket that I issued to them? Yes on many occasions but I can guarantee that their attitude is what lead to the arrest or in some cases something that the person forgot to "put away" such as a weapon, drugs, etc. No LE officer that I know or have known is looking to or would arrest someone for a traffic infraction unless something else comes to the officers attention that would allow probable cause for an arrest.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'll stand on the original comment. Being arrested - and risking being killed for resisting that arrest - for "failing to sign a ticket" or "having an attitude" is NOT what this nation was founded on. But that was, as I pointed out, 200 years ago and not many people today cling to those patriotic concepts.

[Barak]

Actually, I'm not sure it's the arrest that's the issue here. At least, I know that the phrase "arrested a harmless pregnant woman" doesn't particularly raise my hackles. Arresting is what police do for a living; whether it should be or not, it's what I expect of them, and news that they've done it again really doesn't push my outrage buttons.

What gets me is the phrase "Tasered a harmless pregnant woman." Whoo boy, now I'm all ready to go. If that had been my mother or my sister or my wife or my daughter, somebody would be in jail or in the hospital or worse by now. I suspect there are lots of others who feel the same way.

One day the police will learn that their Taser policies are making them some serious enemies. I hope that lesson comes sooner, from somebody like me telling them so, rather than later, in a more emphatic fashion.

[ebd10]

Quote

Did the cop(s) overreact? Probably.

I think it's obvious that they overreacted, even with the limited knowledge we have of the actual events. The problem was that she was speeding. As I pointed out earlier, when they pulled her over, that problem had been solved. Everything that happened afterward was about revenue enhancement and asserting the state's authority over her.

[MisterEd]

And, hopothetically speaking, what if she were to "lose" the baby due to "Medical confirmation of trauma induced by electrical shock" Would the LEO be a murderer then?

[Rolem]

Ok I'm back again.

As for the point of why people fear to police when they get pulled over. This is due to the knowledge of them doing something wrong and will be recieving a ticket. I get the same way. But I also get that way when my supervisor at work informs me I did something wrong. It is not that I fear physical harm. If someone fears physical harm from the police then they have reason to. I/E they have a major attitude and are assaultive themselves, they know they have done something wrong and expect to be arrested, or they just just need some major proffesional help. People by nature do not like being corrected so they get upset by someone doing so.

As for just letting her go and getting a bench warrent. MMM Can anyone tell me how hard it is to get a warrent. I have been told on some things it is not easy and alot of times won't be enforced. Besides lets say they let her go. Then they pull over a male and he does the same thing. He gets arrested, as the law directs, for not signing the citation. That opens the department and those officers up to a discrimination lawsuit.

As officers they do not have the luxury to pick and choose which laws to enforce and not face possible diciplinary action. I have seen people fired for not enforcing rules. So as long as they follow the department policys and state laws they are covered.

As citizens, law enforcement and lawers we elect the legislature to write our laws. We have law enforcement to enforce them. And we have the lawers and judges to interprit them. We may not agree with all of the laws but they are there. If we choose to break those laws we should expect to be held accountable.

[Barak]

Rolem, on May 18 2005, 02:38 AM, said:

If someone fears physical harm from the police then they have reason to.

You seem to imply that everyone harmed by the police deserves it. Is that what you mean? If so, I have a list of names for you to Google.

Quote

As officers they do not have the luxury to pick and choose which laws to enforce and not face possible diciplinary action. I have seen people fired for not enforcing rules. So as long as they follow the department policys and state laws they are covered.

One of the major reasons to advocate for privatizing law enforcement.

Quote

As citizens, [...] we elect the legislature to write our laws.

Aren't you being a bit too general there? Me, for instance. I've never elected a single legislator. I've never had any input in the making of any law.

Quote

We may not agree with all of the laws but they are there. If we choose to break those laws we should expect to be held accountable.

By what just authority? Merely because somebody said so?

[Lawhobbit]

Jim_Linch, on May 18 2005, 06:10 AM, said:

Barak,

Tell me how privatized law enforcement would work?  I've never heard of the idea, interested to see what would be different.  (maybe deserves it's own thread?)

Are you saying you don't vote? 

You submit to the authority of the area you live in.  It's called incorporation, and it's why statutory laws apply to you.  Common law is all but dead in that statutory law overrides it.  You allow it to by submitting to contractual agreements like driver's licenses, taxes, CHLs, etc.

What's worse is you submit to them, but choose not to be a part of their direction by not exercising your vote.  If I misunderstood your earlier response and you do vote, then disregard that last statement.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sure you've seen privatized law enforcement - it's called "contract!" The Modern Model of Law Enforcement ("MMLE") envisions a "state" that makes "laws" then appoints its own agents to enforce them. Sort of the way the Mongols or Huns did when they took over an area and pillaged it. The Private Model of Law Enforcement (PMLE) involves two or more individuals freely agreeing to the "rules of the road" and then abiding by them. We see that here on this board (and over on the gun sale board) all the time. I've agreed to accept whatever rules you and Thomas establish as a condition of being allowed to post. No abide-ance (if that's a word), no posting. Simple, effective, enforcement.

Barak's already done a fair amount of "pillaging" of Rolem's points previously, though I'd add a quick "and the Gestapo was acting under THEIR laws when they shipped people off to the ovens - does that mean it's okay?" (and I won't even START on how many of today's "laws" are unconstitutional at the state or federal level - how can a cop be "upholding the constitution" if he enforces an unconstitutional law?).

Don't know about Barak, but I don't vote, for the same reason I'd pass on any other illegal activity. Mark Twain (or it might have been Mencken) put it best - "elections are an advance auction of stolen goods." If I give my support and encouragement to criminals, that's called "aiding and abetting."

As for the "you submit to the authority of the area you live in," does that mean you submit to the authority of the gang of five guys in the alley demanding your wallet? They have the same "authority" as the current crowd that occupies the area I live in - said authority being "overwhelming firepower" in the truest Hobbesian sense of the word. No idea what your comments about "common law" mean - I've got a library full of books that are "common law." Perhaps you're using a different definition than lawyers would use? And as far as all the folderol and paperwork of MMLE being "contractual," Law School 101 teaches that it's not a contract if one side puts a gun to your head and forces you to do it. Unless you'd care to suggest that I can refuse to get a driver's license and not suffer any penalty for it in today's world? Didn't think so.

[Barak]

Jim_Linch, on May 18 2005, 06:10 AM, said:

Tell me how privatized law enforcement would work?  I've never heard of the idea, interested to see what would be different.  (maybe deserves it's own thread?)

It probably does deserve its own thread. But briefly, it'd work like landscaping companies, like alarm services, like cable TV, etc. Each customer would buy exactly as much law enforcement as his preferences and budget justified. Customers would be able to specify which laws they wanted enforced and how, and LE companies would be free to reject any contracts they didn't like. Via free-market competition, with the cops working directly for their customers, all this cop-bashing and "badge-heaviness" would be eliminated. Be a dick to your LE agency, and you'll find your contract terminated and be on your own. Be a dick to your customers, and you'll find yourself fired as a liability to your company's bottom line.

Basically, don't be a dick.

Quote

Are you saying you don't vote?

Actually, I do vote, but never coercively. For example, I'll vote against a tax, but never for one. I'll vote against an anti-smoking ordinance, but never for one.

When it comes to candidates, I figure if I vote for somebody and he wins, I bear responsibility for all the people he kills and all the lives he destroys. (Imagine how I'd feel if I had voted for Clinton or Baby Bush!) So I only ever vote for somebody who can't possibly win (i.e. Michael Badnarik) as a message to folks who follow election results.

Quote

You submit to the authority of the area you live in.

I understand that this is accepted practice: but why? Where does "the authority of the area you live in" get its authority, and how can that authority be justly applied to you, especially without your consent?

Quote

What's worse is you submit to them, but choose not to be a part of their direction by not exercising your vote.

Actually, I personally don't submit; and I wouldn't want to "be a part of their direction."

[tap22a]

this whole thread has gotten a little deeper than it really should have i think. bottom line, if the woman hadn't violated a traffic ordinance, and would have shown some respect to the officers, who have to deal with jackasses all day long, then she wouldnt have been put under arrest and wouldnt have been tased. she is responsible for what went on that day. i hope she learned a lesson....