3 ms·
> I think there should be some provision for Police to officially detain someone if they think there's an issue (but can't quite find a legal reason of doing so
by leetcrew 6y ago
> I think there should be some provision for Police to officially detain someone if they think there's an issue (but can't quite find a legal reason of doing so...). But at the same time, "abusing" the Jaywalking laws to do so is certainly the wrong way of doing it.
why exactly? it's hard for me to imagine a situation where a cop reasonably needs to detain someone but can't come up with even one possible charge.
- dragontamer 6y agoWe all agree with random DUI checks, right? They're pretty effective at scaring off DUI-attempts.
- leetcrew 6y agonot quite sure if you're being sarcastic, as this is a fairly controversial topic. just for the record, my personal position is that the police should not be stopping or detaining anyone without at least reasonable suspicion that a crime is being or about to be committed. "effective at scaring people off from doing X" is not a sufficient justification.
- dragontamer 6y agoI'm not being sarcastic. I understand that in the abstract, people talk about all sorts of situations that may or may not be grounded in reality. Which is why I point out real life situations and real life case. I don't think I've ever met someone who has campaigned against random DUI checkpoints. You're not allowed to leave until you've completed the DUI-test at the checkpoint. There was no evidence for a crime. So under most definitions of "detained" or "detention", it seems to fit the bill. I've heard that DUI measures can be too strict or that gaining a criminal record from DUIs is too harsh, but never really heard complaints about police enforcement of this particular issue. (DUI leading to jailtime is more of a judge / jury issue than a police officer issue anyway).