Dancing in public while black

[Darat]

If the only reason for an arrest is resisting arrest, then you shouldn’t be trying to arrest them in first place.

In the U.K. there isn’t an offence of “resisting arrest”, it always seem strange that it is in other countries and seems to be used as a general catch all.

It seems rather illogical to me, being arrested for resisting being arrested for resisting arrest.

(Obviously if you assault a police officer whilst they are arresting you for something else that is as all assaults are an illegal offence for which you can be arrested.)

 

[P.J. Denyer]

This town needs Kevin Bacon. Now!

 

[cullennz]

In the U.K. there isn’t an offence of “resisting arrest”, it always seem strange that it is in other countries and seems to be used as a general catch all.

It seems rather illogical to me, being arrested for resisting being arrested for resisting arrest.

(Obviously if you assault a police officer whilst they are arresting you for something else that is as all assaults are an illegal offence for which you can be arrested.)

Assaulting a police officer in most places while being arrested does you no favours.

Tbf it is virtually the same thing as resisting arrest and just worded differently.

Still police word against yours

 

[dann]

This town needs Kevin Bacon. Now!

Kevin Bacon was replaced a loooong time ago.

 

[Darat]

Assaulting a police officer in most places while being arrested does you no favours.

Tbf it is virtually the same thing as resisting arrest and just worded differently.

Still police word against yours

No it isn't. The person at the centre of this thread topic wouldn't have a criminal record in the UK. It is a huge difference.

 

[bruto]

Assaulting a police officer in most places while being arrested does you no favours.

Tbf it is virtually the same thing as resisting arrest and just worded differently.

Still police word against yours

The important difference is that no assault needs to occur for resisting arrest to be charged. If you say "what the hell" when you're surprised by a false arrest, there comes the charge. If you put up your hands and a cop comes and kicks you to the ground from behind, there comes the charge. If you dispute the arrest, even if you're entirely right, there comes the charge. "Resisting Arrest" is explicitly not now related to whether the arrest is correct, or expected, or properly conducted. It rests on the assumption that as soon as a cop engages anyone in any way, the detainee has no recourse and no rights. Even when the charge is dropped later, it's a nuisance, face-saving charge whose main function is to assert that inherent elevation of the police above the rules for ordinary civilians.

It has always of course been police word against yours, but the proliferation of video is making this more difficult. I think, perhaps over-optimistically, that this may have an effect eventually, not only in reducing such bogus charges, but in changing the attitude of people who have traditionally assumed that the cops are the good guys and telling the truth.

 

[Lplus]

The important difference is that no assault needs to occur for resisting arrest to be charged. If you say "what the hell" when you're surprised by a false arrest, there comes the charge. If you put up your hands and a cop comes and kicks you to the ground from behind, there comes the charge. If you dispute the arrest, even if you're entirely right, there comes the charge. "Resisting Arrest" is explicitly not now related to whether the arrest is correct, or expected, or properly conducted. It rests on the assumption that as soon as a cop engages anyone in any way, the detainee has no recourse and no rights. Even when the charge is dropped later, it's a nuisance, face-saving charge whose main function is to assert that inherent elevation of the police above the rules for ordinary civilians.

It has always of course been police word against yours, but the proliferation of video is making this more difficult. I think, perhaps over-optimistically, that this may have an effect eventually, not only in reducing such bogus charges, but in changing the attitude of people who have traditionally assumed that the cops are the good guys and telling the truth.

Hmmm, if it's all on video, they may have no choice but to tell the truth....
Wanting to tell the truth though, that's another matter.

So if the police have the legal right to stop someone and question them if they think a crime might have occured, does the person have the right to walk away before the police have completed their questioning and are satisfied? If the person being questioned doesn't have the right to walk away but walks, what recourse do the police have to continue the questioning?

 

[Meadmaker]

Assaulting a police officer in most places while being arrested does you no favours.

Tbf it is virtually the same thing as resisting arrest and just worded differently.

Still police word against yours

In America, unfortunately, they are not virtually the same thing.

In this case, and in many other cases I've seen, there's no assault. There's no hint of assault. Any form of non-cooperation with cops is "resisting". As they try to shove you in one direction, do you brace you muscles? That's resisting. If you say, as this man did, "Get your hands off of me", that's resisting. Do you let your body go limp so that you must be carried by the policeman? That's resisting. If they feel like the "have to" Tase you to get your full cooperation, that's resisting. If you get really mad after they just tased you, that's resisting. If you demand to know what charge you are under arrest for? That's resisting.

Oh.....and those Miranda rights we hear so much about on the cop shows....they don't need those, either. I'll have to look up some things, but I don't think they even need to say the magic words, "you're under arrest". Did they in this case? I'll watch the video again.

ETA: Yes, they did, at some point, say "You are under arrest", but he was under arrest for resisting arrest.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Kevin Bacon was replaced a loooong time ago.

Maybe in your world but in my reality that did not happen.

 

[Darat]

Hmmm, if it's all on video, they may have no choice but to tell the truth....
Wanting to tell the truth though, that's another matter.

So if the police have the legal right to stop someone and question them if they think a crime might have occured, does the person have the right to walk away before the police have completed their questioning and are satisfied? If the person being questioned doesn't have the right to walk away but walks, what recourse do the police have to continue the questioning?

In the UK yes.

 

[Babbylonian]

Hmmm, if it's all on video, they may have no choice but to tell the truth....
Wanting to tell the truth though, that's another matter.

So if the police have the legal right to stop someone and question them if they think a crime might have occured, does the person have the right to walk away before the police have completed their questioning and are satisfied? If the person being questioned doesn't have the right to walk away but walks, what recourse do the police have to continue the questioning?

I have walked away from a police officer who stopped me while providing no articulable reason for doing so besides "someone reported a suspicious individual." I was free to go on my way...almost certainly at least partially because I'm white.

ETA: To be clear, I was apparently considered "suspicious" because I was walking in a street that had no sidewalks.

 

[Meadmaker]

I have walked away from a police officer who stopped me while providing no articulable reason for doing so besides "someone reported a suspicious individual." I was free to go on my way...almost certainly at least partially because I'm white.

ETA: To be clear, I was apparently considered "suspicious" because I was walking in a street that had no sidewalks.

I have often wondered how much cooperation you are required to give to police, and I really don't know the answer. Many years ago when I was a young, long-haired individual, I got stopped a few times for being suspicious looking. I always was very polite and cooperative, but only out of a sense of expediency. On a moral level, I thought the cops were absolute gits.

The most recent time I got stopped for no apparent reason I was sitting in my car in my own neighborhood when a cop car showed up behind me. I can't recall if he had his lights on, but he walked up to my car window and asked me what I was doing. I responded that I was making a phone call. I had been driving when my phone rang. I pulled to the side of the road to answer the call. Apparently, someone inside a nearby house decided it was suspicious for a person to park on their street with no explanation.

The cop wanted my license, because it was policy to record the identities of everyone they talk to, to fill in the paperwork for the police reports. Fine. Needless to say, I was very nice to the cop, and I gave him my license.

But....here's the thing......I shouldn't have had to be nice to him. If I were in a bad mood, I should have been able to say, "Up yours! I don't have to present my papers to you just because you feel like it. It's a public street and I have a right to be here. Get lost." I'm old enough and smart enough not to do that, but it's unfortunate that that is considered "smart".

And if I had been a young black guy instead of an old white guy, I have a feeling he would have asked me a few more questions before he was satisfied there was no trouble based on a guy sitting in his car.

 

[Thermal]

Throw your dice and take your chances with flipping off cops. Ask George Floyd how it feels to be on the right side of the law and the wrong side of cardiorespratory function.

 

[bruto]

In America, unfortunately, they are not virtually the same thing.

In this case, and in many other cases I've seen, there's no assault. There's no hint of assault. Any form of non-cooperation with cops is "resisting". As they try to shove you in one direction, do you brace you muscles? That's resisting. If you say, as this man did, "Get your hands off of me", that's resisting. Do you let your body go limp so that you must be carried by the policeman? That's resisting. If they feel like the "have to" Tase you to get your full cooperation, that's resisting. If you get really mad after they just tased you, that's resisting. If you demand to know what charge you are under arrest for? That's resisting.

Oh.....and those Miranda rights we hear so much about on the cop shows....they don't need those, either. I'll have to look up some things, but I don't think they even need to say the magic words, "you're under arrest". Did they in this case? I'll watch the video again.

ETA: Yes, they did, at some point, say "You are under arrest", but he was under arrest for resisting arrest.

I think they told him he was "detained." I don't recall the world "arrest," perhaps because even those bozos realized you can't actually arrest someone for something that isn't an arrestable offense, which in this case, according to their own statement, was "dancing in the street."

 

[Meadmaker]

I think they told him he was "detained." I don't recall the world "arrest," perhaps because even those bozos realized you can't actually arrest someone for something that isn't an arrestable offense, which in this case, according to their own statement, was "dancing in the street."

At first they said "detained". in the video linked in the OP they said "You're under arrest" at 2:15.

 

[sphenisc]

while being arrested. If you're not being arrested, you can't be resisting it.

Thus the officer is aiding and abetting him in committing the offense and should be arrested.

 

[Lplus]

I have often wondered how much cooperation you are required to give to police, and I really don't know the answer. Many years ago when I was a young, long-haired individual, I got stopped a few times for being suspicious looking. I always was very polite and cooperative, but only out of a sense of expediency. On a moral level, I thought the cops were absolute gits.

The most recent time I got stopped for no apparent reason I was sitting in my car in my own neighborhood when a cop car showed up behind me. I can't recall if he had his lights on, but he walked up to my car window and asked me what I was doing. I responded that I was making a phone call. I had been driving when my phone rang. I pulled to the side of the road to answer the call. Apparently, someone inside a nearby house decided it was suspicious for a person to park on their street with no explanation.

The cop wanted my license, because it was policy to record the identities of everyone they talk to, to fill in the paperwork for the police reports. Fine. Needless to say, I was very nice to the cop, and I gave him my license.

But....here's the thing......I shouldn't have had to be nice to him. If I were in a bad mood, I should have been able to say, "Up yours! I don't have to present my papers to you just because you feel like it. It's a public street and I have a right to be here. Get lost." I'm old enough and smart enough not to do that, but it's unfortunate that that is considered "smart".

And if I had been a young black guy instead of an old white guy, I have a feeling he would have asked me a few more questions before he was satisfied there was no trouble based on a guy sitting in his car.

Ok, so you reckon you shouldn't have to be polite to the cop, but I suspect you expect him to be polite to you, even though he has no idea who you are or why you happened to be parked up and have been reported as looking suspicious, and even though he may also be in a bad mood, cause he was just about to go off duty and now his coffee is going to be cold and his wife is nagging him and his kids are a pain and so on and so forth.....

Double standards?

 

[Lplus]

In the UK yes.

Might as well not bother to stop then.

 

[Thermal]

Ok, so you reckon you shouldn't have to be polite to the cop, but I suspect you expect him to be polite to you, even though he has no idea who you are or why you happened to be parked up and have been reported as looking suspicious, and even though he may also be in a bad mood, cause he was just about to go off duty and now his coffee is going to be cold and his wife is nagging him and his kids are a pain and so on and so forth.....

Double standards?

Double standards? Does that mean MeadMaker has wide police powers to as well as a duty to protect and serve? And is MeadMaker likely to fire on the cop for making a furtive movement and enjoy police protection and free representation, if his case were somehow to go to trial? Wait, can he also detain and question a cop he finds suspicious?

Yeah, I think there are double standards.

 

[bruto]

Ok, so you reckon you shouldn't have to be polite to the cop, but I suspect you expect him to be polite to you, even though he has no idea who you are or why you happened to be parked up and have been reported as looking suspicious, and even though he may also be in a bad mood, cause he was just about to go off duty and now his coffee is going to be cold and his wife is nagging him and his kids are a pain and so on and so forth.....

Double standards?

Not necessarily a double standard. First of all, the cop has voluntarily put himself in a position where, at least at work, he is expected to adhere to standards that might not apply when he's not. It's not the only job in the world where cold coffee and a nagging wife are poor excuses for bad performance on the job. And second, a satisfactory and civil answer was given to the operative question. The cop asked what he was doing, and he gave a reasonable answer. Barring suspicion of anything else, it should be enough. (..e.t.a. and if there is suspicion, then I think the cop owes the citizen a clear explanation of what that is, and why he fits it. Cops need to get off their high authoritarian "need to know" horses and explain to people what they're doing! People are really often quite agreeable if they understand what's going on.) After all, we're told over and over again that this is exactly what we should do when we need to use the phone, and in many cases penalized if we don't.


While it's probably prudent to go along with the cop and give him what he wants, it is in fact not necessary and might easily be viewed as excessive invasion of one's right to be left alone, and the demand for ID goes beyond the expectation of civil exchange, which was met if the cop asked politely "what are you doing," and the civil answer was "this legal thing."