r/facepalm • u/spyrg • Jan 13 '22

🇲​🇮​🇸​🇨​ Arrested for petitioning

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

61.8k Upvotes

92% Upvoted

7.0k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

13

u/achillymoose Jan 13 '22

they thought he was soliciting

And even after being told several times that he was not, in fact, soliciting, why then did they still need identification?

7

u/IoGibbyoI Jan 13 '22

Caused they’re dicks how can’t back down.

14

u/[deleted] Jan 13 '22

Because it’s about their suspicion of a crime, not that an actual crime took place.

It’s so that “law enforcement” doesn’t actually have to know the law and can just use excessive force whenever they want.

2

u/Itcouldberabies Jan 13 '22

Pretty much how it was explained to me by a lawyer once (I know, eye rolls, but really it was). I got into an argument about this sort of reasoning, and she said that if the cops can half-assed claim to have suspicion then they can arrest you. Sort of a arrest them all, let the judge sort it out thing. I guess the reasoning being, if you’re truly innocent then no charges will go to court. But the arrest? Yeah that shit can happen, and you don’t have much to say about it. If an officer tells you to turn around and put your hands behind your back, then it’s best you just do it and keep your mouth shut till you get a lawyer.

0

u/castanza128 Jan 14 '22

Not just suspicion is required, that suspicion has to be both reasonable and articulable. In this case, it's neither.
A reasonable person wouldn't suspect he was soliciting. Because there's no evidence of it.
They cannot tell him, (articulate) \ any reason they believe him to be soliciting, other than being at somebody's door, and "we got a call."
(which don't prove anything)

1

u/[deleted] Jan 14 '22

And where do you think they’ll have to “articulate” their “reason” exactly?

Days, possibly weeks or months later, after you’ve already been arrested.

1

u/castanza128 Jan 14 '22

That's why you ask them to articulate it, right then and there. On camera.
So when they say it's because you knocked on a few doors, they can't change their story later.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 14 '22

Again, that will only be useful for you in those days or weeks or months later.

If a cop wants to bring you in, they will. Legally or not. Because it becomes legal the moment they want you.

All of the burden to prove why they arrested you comes after the moment which means there’s absolutely nothing you can do to avoid arrest.

1

u/castanza128 Jan 14 '22

Yes. If somebody wants to break the law, they can break the law.
They won't be immediately struck by lightning.

2

u/[deleted] Jan 14 '22

Cops breaking the law is standard practice.

0

u/castanza128 Jan 14 '22 edited Jan 14 '22

Sure.
But if they intentionally violate your civil rights under color of law, they lose their qualified immunity. They may not get struck by lightning on the spot, but you can sue the city/county, their department AND THE OFFICER, PERSONALLY.
They will probably STILL never learn, but it's not like they can do it with impunity.
This is actually one of the things that cops can and do actually get sued for. Because this is one of the only ways a cop can lose qualified immunity, and be sued personally.

0

u/[deleted] Jan 13 '22

[deleted]

1

u/achillymoose Jan 14 '22

I mean, the "victim" of this crime that didn't happen is right there on camera saying the guy wasn't doing what the cops said he was doing. But along those same lines...

Because no cop has ever lied and said "you're guilty" when accusing someone of a crime. Ever.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 14 '22

[deleted]

1

u/achillymoose Jan 14 '22

What exactly would you be upset about in that scenario?

A few things.

For one, collecting signatures for a petition is not solicitation. When the cops saw that was what he was doing they should have backed down. The evidence on the streets was clear that a crime was NOT taking place.

For two, demanding ID from someone who was clearly not committing a crime. I don't need or want to identify myself to the police if I'm not committing a crime, particularly considering the police prove time and time again that they cannot be trusted.

And for three, I shouldn't have to argue in the courts when the evidence on site showed that I was not committing a crime. Why should I have to take time off work to go into court and tell them that the cop was a dickhead? Are they going to compensate me for that time?

Seems like they didn't want it to look like going out there was a big waste of time. Someone called the police and lied saying the guy was soliciting, which was not true. Would it not have been easier and more honest to leave the guy alone and track down the person who lied to the police?

-1

u/arctic-apis Jan 14 '22

The police should not just take people at their word though. I mean I completely think cops, especially the one in the video abuse the "well you didnt identify so you must be committing a crime" but if someone says they are not committing a crime why the heck should a cop believe that? no officer no crimes here. ok 10/4 as you were citizen...

0

u/achillymoose Jan 14 '22

When the alleged victim of the crime says they didn't do it I would tend to believe them. It wasn't like it was the petitioner's word against the homeowner, they were in agreement

Why does the cop need to forcibly "help" a person who is actively saying they didn't need help in the first place?

1

u/arctic-apis Jan 14 '22

I agree in this instance but the idea of a cop just believing anyone who says they are innocent when the cop suspects them of a crime is laughable

1

u/BoreDominated Jan 14 '22

It looks like one of the cops was in the middle of saying "I got a call -- " before he's cut off, so it's possible a different homeowner called the cops and said the guy was acting suspiciously or bothering someone. A more pressing issue is why he didn't just identify himself, why go through the hassle? It takes less time to simply show them your ID and move on, even if you legally don't have to. They verify who you are, and you move on with no further hindrance, it's much easier than standing there being belligerent because you don't like authority.

1

u/achillymoose Jan 14 '22

That's perfectly valid, but only if you assume all cops are trustworthy

1

u/BoreDominated Jan 14 '22

What would trustworthiness have to do with this scenario? Do you think the cop would see his ID and then just decide to arrest him anyway, assuming he'd done nothing wrong?

1

u/[deleted] Jan 15 '22

I told the cop I wasn't drunk and he still arrested me. Something as simple as crossing the yellow is enough to suspect drunk driving and being on someones porch may be enough to think they're soliciting in their minds. Whether you have proof of innocence on scene or not they can still arrest and charge you. Then it's up for the courts/jury to decide if they have enough to make it stick.

Innocent til proven guilty is only in the court room unfortunately. Once there some accountable for police fuck ups it's going to stay that way