Questions about the Hiible video

Troubleshooter · 07-06-2004, 01:36 PM

I was just reading this article over at Reason and it pointed me to the video of the Hiible takedown here.

Is it just me or was this a little over the top?

I know the situation has been discussed before but I hadn't seen the video.

The way I see it, the domestic disturbance (which had been reported by someone else) had happened the night before and the two people involved were sitting on the side of the road doing nothing.

When they decided to hook him up, his old lady started screaming for them not to.

After they put him in the unit they went over to the truck and dragged her from the truck.

Am I the only person who sees something wrong with the whole situation?

Radar · 07-06-2004, 02:07 PM

1. The girl in the truck was his daughter.
2. She hit him and he asked to be let out of the truck.
3. Someone reported to the police that they saw a woman hitting a man in a car.

This means he wasn't a suspect in anything and was under no obligation to show his identification unless they could give him a reason.

When he asked the cop why he needed to see his ID, the cop replied "for an investigation". When asked "What investigation?" the cop replied, "an investigation of an investigation".

We both see something wrong with this. And what was wrong is the jackbooted thug of a policeman tried to throw his weight around and didn't like it when someone stood up for thier rights. What's also wrong is that our Supreme Court routinely violates the U.S. Constitution which they are subservient to.

glatt · 07-06-2004, 02:16 PM

I think the Supreme Court got this one wrong.

Troubleshooter · 07-06-2004, 02:19 PM

I concur.

Before too long I may have to actually become something of an activist in some way.

glatt · 07-06-2004, 03:00 PM

The best thing I've read on this subject was written by Hiibel himself for the Christian Science Monitor:
He fought the law, and the law won.

He says:

"Here's why this was so important to me: I don't believe that the authorities in the United States of America are supposed to walk up to you and ask for your papers. I thought that wasn't lawful. Apparently I was wrong, but I thought that that was part of what we were guaranteed under the Constitution. We're supposed to be free men, able to walk freely in our own country - not hampered, not stopped at checkpoints. That's part of what makes this country different from other places. That's what I was taught."

"And it's not just because it's in the Constitution. It's something that you just kind of know. It's kind of obvious. If you haven't committed a crime, you shouldn't be harassed by the police. If they suspect you of something, I don't see why they shouldn't explain it. I wasn't violent. And it was proved later in court that I hadn't committed any crimes."

hot_pastrami · 07-06-2004, 03:20 PM

As OnyxCougar pointed out in this thread on the subject, the ruling does not require a citizen to show their ID, only to give their name. I feel that this makes it less bad but still far from right.

Sadly, the US Constitution is no longer the guiding force of the Supreme Court... they are often guided by the Constitution as viewed through the warped, flawed lenses of political correctness, corporate interests, and big government. It's an unsettling pattern, with no end in sight.

jinx · 07-06-2004, 06:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hot_pastrami

As OnyxCougar pointed out in this thread on the subject, the ruling does not require a citizen to show their ID, only to give their name. I feel that this makes it less bad but still far from right.

The cop never asks for the guys name, just asks over and over to "see ID". Seeing the video just makes the ruling even more confusing

07-06-2004, 07:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hot_pastrami

As OnyxCougar pointed out in this thread on the subject, the ruling does not require a citizen to show their ID, only to give their name. I feel that this makes it less bad but still far from right.

I concur with Jinx. The cop kept asking for an ID, not a name. From the way the man acted, he had no ID on him; so he told the cops to go ahead and arrest him. What's an "investigation of an investigation," anyhow? What? Did the police superintendent have a bad case of de ja vu and send the boys out to investigate the mishandling of this case before it ever occurred? And since when is "Because" a reasonable reply for the need to show ID?

The Supreme's messed up badly on this one. They should stick to "mo' town" if you ask me, except that the residents of Detroit would most likely run them out on a rail.

xoxoxoBruce · 07-06-2004, 07:27 PM

The cop asking for ID and arresting him for failure to comply was what the court case was about. The court said no he didn’t have to show ID but then threw the cops a bone by saying you do, however, have to tell them who you are. That sucks! What makes it worse, if the cop misspells your name or if you have a common name, the database may convince him you’re a mass murderer or something.

lumberjim · 07-06-2004, 08:14 PM

i have more of a problem with the way the thug took his daughter down. there was no audio of that exchange, but it appears as though the 2nd cop is imprisoning her in the truck against her will without having placed her under arrest, and then when she pushes her way out of the vehicle, he bulldogs her, and dives on top of her. did she pose a threat to him? can they make you stay in your car? I was told that you should exit your vehicle, lock it, and decline any search. this should be a bigger deal than it seems to be.
The way the guy refers to ID as "papers" was particularly skillful, by the way. i have not seen any footage of him other than that clip. Is it certain that he wrote this? could this be a case of good cause, bad execution? ie, when you send your jv team into the playoff game? high stakes, this case, and not only did he NOT get his way (our way), he lost ground with the setting of that precedent. Shit.

Troubleshooter · 07-07-2004, 09:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

The cop asking for ID and arresting him for failure to comply was what the court case was about. The court said no he didn’t have to show ID but then threw the cops a bone by saying you do, however, have to tell them who you are. That sucks! What makes it worse, if the cop misspells your name or if you have a common name, the database may convince him you’re a mass murderer or something.

Part of the bigger problem is that some states require you to carry, and produce upon command, picture id.

The SCOTUS ruling, combined with the state laws effectively nullifies any ability to not comply.

07-06-2004, 01:36 PM	#1
Troubleshooter The urban Jane Goodall Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Florida Posts: 3,012	Questions about the Hiible video I was just reading this article over at Reason and it pointed me to the video of the Hiible takedown here. Is it just me or was this a little over the top? I know the situation has been discussed before but I hadn't seen the video. The way I see it, the domestic disturbance (which had been reported by someone else) had happened the night before and the two people involved were sitting on the side of the road doing nothing. When they decided to hook him up, his old lady started screaming for them not to. After they put him in the unit they went over to the truck and dragged her from the truck. Am I the only person who sees something wrong with the whole situation? __________________ I have gained this from philosophy: that I do without being commanded what others do only from fear of the law. - Aristotle

07-06-2004, 02:07 PM	#2
Radar Constitutional Scholar Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Ocala, FL Posts: 4,006	1. The girl in the truck was his daughter. 2. She hit him and he asked to be let out of the truck. 3. Someone reported to the police that they saw a woman hitting a man in a car. This means he wasn't a suspect in anything and was under no obligation to show his identification unless they could give him a reason. When he asked the cop why he needed to see his ID, the cop replied "for an investigation". When asked "What investigation?" the cop replied, "an investigation of an investigation". We both see something wrong with this. And what was wrong is the jackbooted thug of a policeman tried to throw his weight around and didn't like it when someone stood up for thier rights. What's also wrong is that our Supreme Court routinely violates the U.S. Constitution which they are subservient to. __________________ "I'm completely in favor of the separation of Church and State. My idea is that these two institutions screw us up enough on their own, so both of them together is certain death." - George Carlin

07-06-2004, 02:19 PM	#4
Troubleshooter The urban Jane Goodall Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Florida Posts: 3,012	I concur. Before too long I may have to actually become something of an activist in some way. __________________ I have gained this from philosophy: that I do without being commanded what others do only from fear of the law. - Aristotle

07-06-2004, 03:20 PM	#6
hot_pastrami I am meaty Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Salt Lake City, UT Posts: 1,119	As OnyxCougar pointed out in this thread on the subject, the ruling does not require a citizen to show their ID, only to give their name. I feel that this makes it less bad but still far from right. Sadly, the US Constitution is no longer the guiding force of the Supreme Court... they are often guided by the Constitution as viewed through the warped, flawed lenses of political correctness, corporate interests, and big government. It's an unsettling pattern, with no end in sight. __________________ Hot Pastrami!

07-06-2004, 07:27 PM	#9
xoxoxoBruce The future is unwritten Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 71,105	The cop asking for ID and arresting him for failure to comply was what the court case was about. The court said no he didn’t have to show ID but then threw the cops a bone by saying you do, however, have to tell them who you are. That sucks! What makes it worse, if the cop misspells your name or if you have a common name, the database may convince him you’re a mass murderer or something. __________________ The descent of man ~ Nixon, Friedman, Reagan, Trump.

07-06-2004, 02:16 PM	#3
glatt ™ Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Arlington, VA Posts: 27,717	I think the Supreme Court got this one wrong.

07-06-2004, 03:00 PM	#5
glatt ™ Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Arlington, VA Posts: 27,717	The best thing I've read on this subject was written by Hiibel himself for the Christian Science Monitor: He fought the law, and the law won. He says: "Here's why this was so important to me: I don't believe that the authorities in the United States of America are supposed to walk up to you and ask for your papers. I thought that wasn't lawful. Apparently I was wrong, but I thought that that was part of what we were guaranteed under the Constitution. We're supposed to be free men, able to walk freely in our own country - not hampered, not stopped at checkpoints. That's part of what makes this country different from other places. That's what I was taught." "And it's not just because it's in the Constitution. It's something that you just kind of know. It's kind of obvious. If you haven't committed a crime, you shouldn't be harassed by the police. If they suspect you of something, I don't see why they shouldn't explain it. I wasn't violent. And it was proved later in court that I hadn't committed any crimes."

07-06-2004, 08:14 PM	#10
lumberjim I can hear my ears Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 25,571	i have more of a problem with the way the thug took his daughter down. there was no audio of that exchange, but it appears as though the 2nd cop is imprisoning her in the truck against her will without having placed her under arrest, and then when she pushes her way out of the vehicle, he bulldogs her, and dives on top of her. did she pose a threat to him? can they make you stay in your car? I was told that you should exit your vehicle, lock it, and decline any search. this should be a bigger deal than it seems to be. The way the guy refers to ID as "papers" was particularly skillful, by the way. i have not seen any footage of him other than that clip. Is it certain that he wrote this? could this be a case of good cause, bad execution? ie, when you send your jv team into the playoff game? high stakes, this case, and not only did he NOT get his way (our way), he lost ground with the setting of that precedent. Shit. __________________ This body holding me reminds me of my own mortality Embrace this moment, remember We are eternal, all this pain is an illusion ~MJKeenan

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)