EFifty wrote:Andy wrote:Exactly what I thought as I started reading it. They spout that shite. Free men / freemen of the land / sovereign citizens. Morons, each and every one. They are the walking embodiments of the phrase ‘little knowledge is a dangerous thing’. Example: they’ve read that the Police forces in the UK and elsewhere, ‘police by consent’. This means that the Police operate with the general consent of the public; the public would generally like somebody to prevent and detect crime, and they’d generally like it to be the Police. Freemen think this means that the Police need the consent of each suspect to act. That’s why you see people shouting, “I DO NOT CONSENT,” over and over as they are detained/arrested/tasered for failing to comply with lawful orders. They also generally completely misinterpret the phrase ‘public servant’. This means that the Police serve the public interest. They think it means that a Police officer has to do everything they ask. They love to stop cops walking down the street to quiz them on the difference between ‘legal’ and ‘lawful’. They also like to ask, “Have you taken your oath today?” When an officer explains that a) Police officers don’t take an oath every day, they do it once when they’re sworn in, and b) many make an attestation rather than an oath, the freemen have no comeback but to repeatedly shout, “BUT HAVE YOU TAKEN YOUR OATH TODAY?” When asked their name, they usually spout the kind of nonsense you read in that link. Often, they then get detained or arrested for failing to provide their name. I’ve lost count of how many are going to get the cop sacked once they got out. Sorry, slight derail there. Arseholes, to a (free) man.That gobbledygook reminds me off Freeman on the land
You're right that they don't need the consent of every suspect, but they do require consent from citizens. A cop can't walk down the street and ask someone to provide their name for no good reason.
They do, but they have no authority to do so unless they're a suspect/witness.
davyK wrote:I'd have really liked to have seen someone in 80's Belfast spout that citizen shit with the RUC. Just to see how hard they'd have been hit with the butt of a rifle.
EFifty wrote:You're right that they don't need the consent of every suspect, but they do require consent from citizens. A cop can't walk down the street and ask someone to provide their name for no good reason.
They do, but they have no authority to do so unless they're a suspect/witness.
Andy wrote:Well, you’re right and you’re wrong. Anybody has the right to ask anybody else who they are and what they’re doing. As for having the authority, Police very much have that, and that’s what they have over Joe Bloggs doing the same thing. The Police are charged with preventing crime over detecting it, so that involves occasionally asking people who they are and what they’re up to. They can’t always require them to provide the information, but there’s nothing to stop the asking. Generally, the public like the Police to get in about those who have caught their attention. It all hinges on ‘no good reason’. I don’t know any cops who ask random punters walking down the street who they are and what they’re up to for no good reason. I don’t know anybody who’s got the time to do it. (I have heard horror stories from other parts of Scotland, though.) You’re right that to do so would be wrong, but the other difficulty is that people’s perceptions of ‘good reason’ varies. Police are also charged with keeping the peace, and that means tackling anti-social behaviour that isn’t necessarily criminal. The expectation of the general public has remained the same, while Police hands are increasingly tied by a growing belief amongst many that, unless a crime is being committed, there’s nothing the Police can do. And there is little the Police can do; you can politely ask someone to refrain, you can strongly advise someone to refrain, but if they’re just being a dick and not actually breaking the law, what then? Apologies that I’m wandering slightly from the point. It may surprise you that I’m a huge supporters of people’s civil liberties. Stop & Search has just had a massive overhaul in Scotland, with a shift in focus to address that. It’s unfortunate that in a Venn diagram of people up to no good, and vocal supporters of civil liberties, there’s a substantial overlap, because the shift has made it significantly harder to detect crime. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying there’s not a problem. The fact that stop/search in Scotland needed an overhaul is testament to that. But that's also got a lot to do with tuning some cops in to properly building and, crucially, articulating their grounds for suspicion. It’s a complex issue, and I’d be wary of making statements that sit too far on either side of the line.
Diluted Dante wrote:Where do you live that the police have automatic rifles? My local bobby is armed with a mustache.
cockbeard wrote:Would agree, kinda comes down to 'Don't be a dick' really A couple of horror stories when much younger left me slightly cynical even as an adult. Not to the point that I judge everyone in uniform, just that I'm wary about what information I choose to share. Though even last time I was arrested (around 2100), I was offered psych first thing in the morning which I refused, was then held for the full 24 hours and told that if I'd taken the psych in the morning they would have let me out straight afterwards. Which is crazy, I was no more a threat at 1000 than I was 2000 so it was just holding me for the sake of holding me. The polices job is not to punish it's to prevent and apprehend edit : Didn't see efiddy's posts (welcome back btw), so was agreeing with Andy (believe it or not), but also agree with EFifty as well
EFifty wrote:I know, what fucking pricks they'd be standing up for themselves against an invasive, corrupt and murderous police force!I'd have really liked to have seen someone in 80's Belfast spout that citizen shit with the RUC. Just to see how hard they'd have been hit with the butt of a rifle.
davyK wrote:Depends on your point of view. I'm certainly glad they were there and were armed. They had dicks in their ranks of course, and it's a shame they were required, but there you go. They had to be present at army checkpoints as the army were there assisting the police. The police could ask name, coming from , going to etc. I suspect those powers derived from an NI special case though - prevention of Terrorism Act or some such.I know, what fucking pricks they'd be standing up for themselves against an invasive, corrupt and murderous police force!I'd have really liked to have seen someone in 80's Belfast spout that citizen shit with the RUC. Just to see how hard they'd have been hit with the butt of a rifle.
davyK wrote:They were piggy in the middle too - nobody's darlin' as they say. Even though they were ostensibly recruited from one side of community. That probably engendered a siege mentality of the their own. No doubt the job attracted a breed of head knocker and recruiters were probably under pressure to get the numbers up. They were well paid and enjoyed incredible benefits too - though they did have to check under their car every morning. I suspect the stress involved only hardened the resolve of anyone with a violent leaning. I wouldn't have done it.
Actually, I would encourage challenging, but not necessarily in a challenging tone. If you genuinely have no idea why you’ve been stopped, a polite, “I don’t mean to be rude, but can I ask why?” can help both sides.EFifty wrote:I misunderstood your post and thought you meant generally anyone who challenges the Police when they ask for details is a moron.
No, not at all.EFifty wrote:Anyway, it probably comes across as me having an issue with the Police, and being one of those idiots who shout about the oath.
There’s more to it than that. What you’re describing there is what we refer to as compulsion; some people feel compelled to tell the Police anything, because they’ve been told that’s what you ‘should’ do. We have to be careful with that because, despite the caution, it has been successfully argued that some people don’t fully appreciate that they are not obliged to answer certain questions.EFifty wrote:A lot of people I know shit themselves and tell the Police everything as soon as they're asked, they don't understand they have rights, and it's partly because people with automatic rifles are intimidating, but definitely also to do with the fact that they were never educated properly on important stuff like this.
While I don’t know the exact circumstances, and can’t fairly comment, what I would say is that, without the benefit of the evaluation, they maybe didn’t know your level of risk. And when it comes to safety, an unknown risk can only defensibly be treated as a high risk. But, you’re right, it’s not the Police’s job to hold people.cockbeard wrote:I was no more a threat at 1000 than I was 2000 so it was just holding me for the sake of holding me.
davyK wrote:I agree. I was being flippant earlier. But self preservation would trump that. Have watched videos of those soverigen citizen idiots in the face of rather patient police and set in 80's Belfast the video would have been shorter....
Andy wrote:
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!