LAPD Confuses Woman Kissing Husband for Prostitue, Arrests Her
124 replies, posted
[QUOTE=FlakAttack;45983754]They can ask you questions but you have absolutely no obligation to tell them anything and not telling them anything [B]does not constitute probable cause[/B] because you have that right to privacy.[/QUOTE]
To add to this point, the police cannot use the fact that you do not answer questions against you, they cannot imply ANYTHING based on that (5th amendment - right to not self-incriminate).
[QUOTE=tek022;45986468]To add to this point, the police cannot use the fact that you do not answer questions against you, they cannot imply ANYTHING based on that (5th amendment - right to not self-incriminate).[/QUOTE]
except if you're under investigation you are required to provide information to who you are for the investigation. It really is probable cause in the first place when they get called out for prostitution and find the woman and man in her own words "I sat on his lap in the front seat of the car and we start making out,". That looks like prostitution from a distance and the police responded to the call by investigating it. If both of them gave their IDs it would have popped up that they were married and they would have been let go.
I believe it was Montesquieu - in The Spirit of The Laws iirc - that says that part of the social contract is to concede any right of revenge or personnal justice in order to delegate it to a larger body of the social estate -[I] or the police[/I]. He also says that from the time you are, in fact, a member of that civic estate you expect the state to keep you safe, therefore [B]granting argumentatory authority[/B] to search and detain you in the name of society's well being. [I]So being part of a lawfully based society is basically [B]asking[/B] to be searched, frisked or detained.[/I]
Of course the constituion of rights and a bunch of emendments are there to protect your civil rights, but what I'm saying is that the practical modus operandi of law preserving units is based upon this code of civil contract.
I don't fucking agree with this, we were born into social contracts and never acually chose to be part of this kind of shit.
[QUOTE=greeds;45987807]I believe it was Montesquieu - in The Spirit of The Laws iirc - that says that part of the social contract is to concede any right of revenge or personnal justice in order to delegate it to a larger body of the social estate -[I] or the police[/I]. He also says that from the time you are, in fact, a member of that civic estate you expect the state to keep you safe, therefore [B]granting argumentatory authority[/B] to search and detain you in the name of society's well being. [I]So being part of a lawfully based society is basically [B]asking[/B] to be searched, frisked or detained.[/I]
Of course the constituion of rights and a bunch of emendments are there to protect your civil rights, but what I'm saying is that the practical modus operandi of law preserving units is based upon this code of civil contract.
I don't fucking agree with this, we were born into social contracts and never acually chose to be part of this kind of shit.[/QUOTE]
Being able to choose if you can obey the law or not, that would work.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.