Man walking down the street, and a Cop pulls over and stops him.

A Cop asks for a man's ID -- he was just walking down the road.  After 9 minutes of arguing over whether he was required to provide ID, the Cop cuffed and stuffed him.

When asked why he was being arrested, the Cop would not tell him.

Now, the 8th Circuit Court says the Cop has the right to make an arrest and afterward decide what "probable cause" existed -- even if that justification was not stated when the man was brought into the jail.

 

Although generally it is good practice, a cop doesn't have to immediately say what a person is being detained/arrested for. The cop can't keep it hidden forever though, a person has to eventually be informed what they are being arrested for.

Although generally it is good practice, a cop doesn't have to immediately say what a person is being detained/arrested for. The cop can't keep it hidden forever though, a person has to eventually be informed what they are being arrested for.

You didn't watch the video, Captain Obvious.

That point was more than covered by the real lawyer.

You didn't watch the video, Captain Obvious.

That point was more than covered by the real lawyer.

I am watching the video now and my comments are not inaccurate, so what is your point? Are you upset that I made the same point this lawyer stated?

I am watching the video now and my comments are not inaccurate, so what is your point? Are you upset that I made the same point this lawyer stated?

Stop making every thread about you.

if you can't post an original point, then just scroll on by.

Stop making every thread about you.

if you can't post an original point, then just scroll on by.

I didn't make the thread about me, you did.
I made the same point that the lawyer in the video did and you had to stop and reply as if I have said something wrong. I must be getting free rent in your head when you can't help but take issue when I say things even you agree are correct.

I didn't make the thread about me, you did.
I made the same point that the lawyer in the video did and you had to stop and reply as if I have said something wrong. I must be getting free rent in your head when you can't help but take issue when I say things even you agree are correct.

Now you're Captain Butthurt.

Same sh!#, different thread.

Cops should be required by law to state what law was broken when ever a stop is made.

How many vids i saw that when asked, the cops dont say anything until the person is in cuffs. Often things escalate because 1 party has no clue why theyre being stopped and detained. Which causes anger, confusion and distrust. Basically, legal kidnapping. If any one besides a cop did this, they would be arrested.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

Now you're Captain Butthurt.

Same sh!#, different thread.

You are projecting.

Your second statement is accurate though

Cops should be required by law to state what law was broken when ever a stop is made.

How many vids i saw that when asked, the cops dont say anything until the person is in cuffs. Often things escalate because 1 party has no clue why theyre being stopped and detained. Which causes anger, confusion and distrust. Basically, legal kidnapping. If any one besides a cop did this, they would be arrested.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

Yup, this is why I stated it is a good practice. A lot of times cops don't do a good job of explaining to people why they are doing what they are doing. This would avoid a lot of conflict and lack of compliance. Once in a while the situation doesn't allow for this but most times it does.

Now you're Captain Butthurt.

Same sh!#, different thread.

Why argue with a dumb arse? His limited cranial capacity for reasoning and normal thought processes is non existent!

Good clip of Hawaii police chiefs!
And more than a few of their officers.
In action