cuz why not here's a more wholesome version of a similar situation



This post was edited by proccy on Oct 26 2021 07:01pm

What's your definition of a police state?

What Love seems to be saying is that police have the legal authority to stop someone in order to investigate a behavior that they think is suspicious.

The right to "investigate a suspicious person" is not unlimited. If it were they could easily harass the public under the guise of "investigations".

The police have to be able to articulate a set of facts that leads to suspicion. Walking down the road and flipping off the police is not suspicious and is protected speech.

I disagree.

This kind of speech (to me) is in the same class as walking into an airport and announcing that you have a bomb. Its stupid and exposes you as a degenerate / possible risk to society - I would want that person looked at to determine any potential criminal or mental health issues.

This post was edited by LoverManGenius on Oct 26 2021 07:20pm

You would need to prove that the police were harassing the public.

Note I am not saying the police's power is unlimited. However, the charge that you are throwing at them needs to be able to stand, especially in a court if it gets to that stage. Just because you got pulled over or questioned by a cop and you hated it, it doesn't necessarily mean they were harassing you.

Also about flipping off an officer: if contempt of court is a thing, then so should contempt of the police.

This post was edited by JessiWan on Oct 26 2021 07:21pm

this is what you voted for pighead

In America you have the right to be free of police intervention unless THE POLICE PROVE they have reason to be suspicious. You have it backwards.



This isn't something where "to you" matters. It's been explicitly enumerated by the courts.

I said (to me) because in the context of this conversation, you inquired about my opinion on police states.

The courts you speak of exist for a reason and it is to make sure that everyone is getting a fair shake with the law - this is why I take no issue with police officers arresting people who stretch the limits of technical legality. People who walk into Government buildings and start filming like a creepy incel deserve to get harassed by the police, because they are harassing others already - that is justice. But ultimately, the court will find that their behavior was legal and they will not be charged, so the system works.

If the court decided it was legal then they were charged, and had to spend money on a lawyer to defend themselves, and had to give up time and money because of it.

Anyway, the police most likely won't have to explain anything to anyone in the vast majority of interactions they have with the public. Only very few cases make it to a court, where they do indeed have to prove to the judge that they had probable cause to investigate someone for suspicious behavior.

This post was edited by JessiWan on Oct 26 2021 07:34pm