4 ms·

It may not be cause for arrest in of itself, but its definitely cause for suspicion and perhaps detainment (especially if the police have reason to believe that

by netfire 11y ago

It may not be cause for arrest in of itself, but its definitely cause for suspicion and perhaps detainment (especially if the police have reason to believe that a crime has just been committed). Can you imagine what would happen if police arrive at the scene of a robbery and see someone running away, but can't detain them for questioning because they haven't talked to witnesses that saw the person performing the robbery? Instead of running away, the more correct approach would be to refuse to be detained for questioning unless the police have reasonable suspicion that you have done the crime and to retain legal counsel, if needed. You can calmly stand up for your rights without acting rashly and invoking suspicion.

logfromblammo 11y ago
There is no detectable difference between running away from a cop and running because you want to get wherever you are going more quickly. Because of this, judges have ruled many times that apparent avoidance of police contact alone is not sufficient to create the reasonable suspicion necessary for searches or seizures. The police, naturally, appeal to themselves and overturn those rulings whenever they feel it to be expedient. They may also proceed from there to summary administrative punishments, such as arresting the suspect on bogus charges, holding him for hours, then releasing him without prosecution. You might beat the rap, but you can't beat the ride. Consider, for a moment, that if the person running is innocent, he will not necessarily be aware that a crime has taken place, or even that there are police behind him. If he stays put, he may be subjected to uncompensated inconveniences from the justice system, regardless of his innocence. So the correct play is to immediately start recording, walk away until a cop tells you to stop, then positively establish that you refuse consent for any searches or seizures, and will not respond to questions without legal counsel present. The one and only thing you ask from that point is whether you can leave. There is no longer any net benefit to hanging around anywhere that a cop can see you. Whatever protection you may have against people committing crimes against you is offset by the possibility of receiving a summons with a monetary fine attached, or possibly even having all your valuables forfeited.
- netfire 11y ago
  I don't see any problem with walking away from police, even running isn't so bad (especially if you didn't start running the moment you saw the police), provided that you stop walking or running if instructed to do so. The important thing is not to cause suspicion by acting like you are fleeing the scene of a crime. Running away by itself is not cause for suspicion, but running away from police when a crime has been committed and failing to stop when instructed to, would be in my opinion.
  - mentat 11y ago
    It's not our responsibility to not cause suspicion. That is a dark dark road. It is the police's responsibility to justify theirs.
    - netfire 11y ago
      Doesn't someone have to be suspicious in order for a police officer to have have reasonable suspicion in order to conduct a search or make an arrest? [1] I completely agree that police have to justify their suspicions and subsequent actions (searches, arrests and other actions), but saying that we, as citizens, should be okay engaging in suspicious behavior, just seems wrong. We should hold those in law enforcement accountable for their actions and the exercise of the authority given to them, but we should also respect what they do and not make their job unnecessarily harder than it needs to be. - [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_suspicion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_suspicion
      - logfromblammo 11y ago
        One man's suspicious is another man's innocuous. This is why a paranoid schizophrenic might become angry at someone watching videos on their phone on the bus. The listener believes himself to be doing a perfectly normal and harmless activity, whereas the paranoid believes that the watcher is beaming mind control rays into the bus driver's skull to make the bus late. Of late, cops have been acting more like the paranoid schizophrenic, assuming that everyone is carrying drugs or terrorist bombs, and that the cameras and camera-phones used to record them are actually deadly weapons. This makes them supremely unqualified to determine what is "reasonable". When I drive my car to work, and see someone running along the sidewalk, I do not assume they are running away from me. They might be exercising. Or perhaps that person saw a bee and is allergic to bee stings. Maybe their wife will be occupied for the next hour and their mistress is 3 blocks away. I don't know. I don't really care. I don't have any reasonable grounds to impute motive to the running. Even if I know that there is a bomb planted in the sidewalk near them, I cannot assume that they are running from the bomb, because I cannot know that they know what I know. If any reasonable person could conceive a plausible and probable reason for it, the behavior is simply not suspicious. And as a reasonable person, I might assume that people would run from the police in my municipality because they don't want to be confronted without cause, thrown to the ground, and hospitalized for spinal injuries causing paralysis shortly thereafter. It's simpler elsewhere; they just don't want to get shot, robbed (forfeiture), or even just have hours of their time wasted by police. And you can't lower the standard when a crime is committed, because there is no magic mobile alert that goes out to everyone in the area whenever that happens. I have no way of knowing what external circumstances are in play that may make what I am doing right now seem more suspicious. The police can't beam their paranoia into other people's heads. We can, and should, make their job harder, and demand higher standards of professionalism from them, right along with removing all the incentives for them to do their work in a lazy and slipshod manner. What they do now is currently so not-difficult that police departments can reject applicants who are too smart for the job.[0] The common functions that people actually want them to perform are also routinely handled by Brink's, Pinkerton, ADT, KBR, Chubb, Booz Allen, Securitas, etc., without any abuse of authority, because they have no more authority than their customers. I'll respect what police do when what they do shows respect for the public, rather than unreasonable suspicion and violent hostility, with a nasty habit of looking the other way when one's co-workers do wrong. [0] http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/05/01/too_smart_to_be_a_cop.html http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/05/01/too_smart_to_... http://abcnews.go.com/US/court-oks-barring-high-iqs-cops/story?id=95836 http://abcnews.go.com/US/court-oks-barring-high-iqs-cops/sto...

by netfire 11y ago

logfromblammo 11y ago

There is no detectable difference between running away from a cop and running because you want to get wherever you are going more quickly. Because of this, judges have ruled many times that apparent avoidance of police contact alone is not sufficient to create the reasonable suspicion necessary for searches or seizures. The police, naturally, appeal to themselves and overturn those rulings whenever they feel it to be expedient. They may also proceed from there to summary administrative punishments, such as arresting the suspect on bogus charges, holding him for hours, then releasing him without prosecution. You might beat the rap, but you can't beat the ride. Consider, for a moment, that if the person running is innocent, he will not necessarily be aware that a crime has taken place, or even that there are police behind him. If he stays put, he may be subjected to uncompensated inconveniences from the justice system, regardless of his innocence. So the correct play is to immediately start recording, walk away until a cop tells you to stop, then positively establish that you refuse consent for any searches or seizures, and will not respond to questions without legal counsel present. The one and only thing you ask from that point is whether you can leave. There is no longer any net benefit to hanging around anywhere that a cop can see you. Whatever protection you may have against people committing crimes against you is offset by the possibility of receiving a summons with a monetary fine attached, or possibly even having all your valuables forfeited.

netfire 11y ago
I don't see any problem with walking away from police, even running isn't so bad (especially if you didn't start running the moment you saw the police), provided that you stop walking or running if instructed to do so. The important thing is not to cause suspicion by acting like you are fleeing the scene of a crime. Running away by itself is not cause for suspicion, but running away from police when a crime has been committed and failing to stop when instructed to, would be in my opinion.
- mentat 11y ago
  It's not our responsibility to not cause suspicion. That is a dark dark road. It is the police's responsibility to justify theirs.
  - netfire 11y ago
    Doesn't someone have to be suspicious in order for a police officer to have have reasonable suspicion in order to conduct a search or make an arrest? [1] I completely agree that police have to justify their suspicions and subsequent actions (searches, arrests and other actions), but saying that we, as citizens, should be okay engaging in suspicious behavior, just seems wrong. We should hold those in law enforcement accountable for their actions and the exercise of the authority given to them, but we should also respect what they do and not make their job unnecessarily harder than it needs to be. - [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_suspicion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_suspicion
    - logfromblammo 11y ago
      One man's suspicious is another man's innocuous. This is why a paranoid schizophrenic might become angry at someone watching videos on their phone on the bus. The listener believes himself to be doing a perfectly normal and harmless activity, whereas the paranoid believes that the watcher is beaming mind control rays into the bus driver's skull to make the bus late. Of late, cops have been acting more like the paranoid schizophrenic, assuming that everyone is carrying drugs or terrorist bombs, and that the cameras and camera-phones used to record them are actually deadly weapons. This makes them supremely unqualified to determine what is "reasonable". When I drive my car to work, and see someone running along the sidewalk, I do not assume they are running away from me. They might be exercising. Or perhaps that person saw a bee and is allergic to bee stings. Maybe their wife will be occupied for the next hour and their mistress is 3 blocks away. I don't know. I don't really care. I don't have any reasonable grounds to impute motive to the running. Even if I know that there is a bomb planted in the sidewalk near them, I cannot assume that they are running from the bomb, because I cannot know that they know what I know. If any reasonable person could conceive a plausible and probable reason for it, the behavior is simply not suspicious. And as a reasonable person, I might assume that people would run from the police in my municipality because they don't want to be confronted without cause, thrown to the ground, and hospitalized for spinal injuries causing paralysis shortly thereafter. It's simpler elsewhere; they just don't want to get shot, robbed (forfeiture), or even just have hours of their time wasted by police. And you can't lower the standard when a crime is committed, because there is no magic mobile alert that goes out to everyone in the area whenever that happens. I have no way of knowing what external circumstances are in play that may make what I am doing right now seem more suspicious. The police can't beam their paranoia into other people's heads. We can, and should, make their job harder, and demand higher standards of professionalism from them, right along with removing all the incentives for them to do their work in a lazy and slipshod manner. What they do now is currently so not-difficult that police departments can reject applicants who are too smart for the job.[0] The common functions that people actually want them to perform are also routinely handled by Brink's, Pinkerton, ADT, KBR, Chubb, Booz Allen, Securitas, etc., without any abuse of authority, because they have no more authority than their customers. I'll respect what police do when what they do shows respect for the public, rather than unreasonable suspicion and violent hostility, with a nasty habit of looking the other way when one's co-workers do wrong. [0] http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/05/01/too_smart_to_be_a_cop.html http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/05/01/too_smart_to_... http://abcnews.go.com/US/court-oks-barring-high-iqs-cops/story?id=95836 http://abcnews.go.com/US/court-oks-barring-high-iqs-cops/sto...