He has rights..? - TTLG Forums

Ko0K on 5/9/2007 at 04:00

By the way, my guess is that the cop was already irked a bit before he even showed up there because of the fact that the guy dialed 911 for a non-emergency situation. Every available resource counts when it comes to life-threatening situations, and paramedics and cops are not quite fond of people who abuse the rapid response system. On top of that, someone who was 'standing up for his rights' would've had the look of determination on his face that could've given off the wrong vibe.

I think cops should know their place, which is to protect and serve the public. That said, a part of their work is to gather facts, and the information presented on an ID card would be closer to facts than a verbal statement, which is why they're often in the habit of asking for ID. In the end, I think this Righi guy was fundamentally right, but made a very poor practical decision by keeping the cop from doing the job that he himself wanted the cop to do in the first place. I'm tempted to say that courage and idiocy seem to go hand in hand sometimes. However, as others said, he stood up for all of us, and that's more than a selfish person like myself could ever do.

crunchy on 5/9/2007 at 04:17

Quote Posted by 37637598

You idiot, he wasn't creating the fuss, the store clerk was! Just take the advice of the poll and leave!

WTF? Have you taking to hurling abuse at yourself now? :confused:

Starrfall on 5/9/2007 at 04:30

If people are going to stand up for me I wish it would be for something more important than "I don't want to stop for two seconds while a circuit city employee pretends to look at my receipt while he thinks about how lame it is that he has to check receipts."

Malygris on 5/9/2007 at 05:42

This doesn't look to me like anything more than a collision of pig-headed assholes. The employee's behaviour was inexcusable, the cop was obviously a little too high on his badge-and-gun, and the "victim" is more concerned with his own personal "rights" - as pissant as they are in this particular case - than with not fucking up his little sister's birthday and the family reunion planned by his father. Maybe the guy is in the right legally. So what? I don't see anything too overly admirable in someone so completely unwilling to set aside his selfishness for the benefit of others, especially in such a trivial matter.

PigLick on 5/9/2007 at 06:35

also, Wynne's first post for almost a year!:eek:

Sinister Handed on 5/9/2007 at 06:59

So the charges against this guy will probably be dropped but he likely won't receive any damages from it. A similar thing happened in California ((http://usff.com/hldl/courtcases/kolendervlawson.html) Kolender v. Lawson) where a jogger was arrested around 15 (!) times for not producing his ID when asked. The charges were dropped but the police were found to have been acting in good faith so no damages were awarded.

As far as this guy never being Mirandized, this is only necessary if there was an attempt to interrogate him after his arrest. Without an interrogation his rights weren't violated.

Of course, the penal code in Ohio could be vastly different from that of California's and I could just be talking out of my ass here

Ko0K on 5/9/2007 at 08:01

Will over-abundance of information ultimately make the Internet useless, or will it make TV and printed media obsolete, or both? Whatever the case, I'm thinking that this wouldn't have made news if it wasn't for the Internet. It was a good discussion piece, though.

Ko0K on 5/9/2007 at 08:11

fett on 5/9/2007 at 12:12

Quote Posted by Subjective Effect

Of course it's fair. To use your stupid analogy - this guy was standing up for a group of people who were being treated unequally for reasons beyond their own control.

Rosa *chose* to use public transport, *chose* to sit there, and *chose* not to move.

This guy more or less had no choice but shops of that ilk with asshats of that ilk running them or choice of cops of that ilk that didn't subject him to incorrect treatment, and so had no other options to chose from as the whole point is that this crap can be pervasive.

It was either resist as he did, or keep getting his rights violated. Rosa could have said 'fuck the public transport, I'm going to use anther method/sit in another seat/go to another country where I won't have to put up with this.

Btw - your last point makes NOOOOO sense at all because this guy is no Hiro Nakamura and he had already bought the stuff.

You ARE familiar with the Civil Rights movement, yes? Humor me with a few examples of other transportation Parks could afford to use where the same discrimination didn't apply. You're also aware I'm sure that the fucking point is that her seat was the last one on the bus so there wasn't another one to sit in. It's also unlikely that she could have simply 'moved to another country' given the typical income and types of jobs available to the average black person at that time.

I'm having trouble believing that he had no choice but to shop at Circuit City. In fact, if the city in question has a Circuit City, I'd bet my ass they also have a Best Buy, Radio Shack, Wal-mart, and at least one or two small stores that would have met his need without the bag check.

I agree his rights are being violated and it was reasonable for him to refuse the bag check. But there's a huge difference between being violated because you have no other realistic options (don't work? walk 10 miles to work? Fly?) like Parks, and being violated at a specific establishment when there are others that you can shop at.

In a nutshell, I support the guy's actions, but I think comparing it to Rosa Parks is a bit overboard.

(http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c294/Fett42/negrofrowns.jpg" target="_blank">

Inline Image:

http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c294/Fett42/negrofrowns.jpg)

Inline Image:

http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c294/Fett42/negrofrowns.jpg

*Zaccheus* on 5/9/2007 at 13:02

Didn't they boycott the bus company?

Quote Posted by Pyrian

"slippery slope" arguments almost never hold in practice.

Not sure what you mean by "almost never", but here's a classic example of slippery sloping:

When the DNA database was first introduced in the UK, it was only for people convicted of crimes. Then they changed it to be only for people who have been arrested, whether they were convicted or not. Now a senior judge is (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6979138.stm) arguing that everyone should be on it, because it is unfair to have some innocent people on it but not others.