Police Arrest Alabama Pastor for ( No Joke) Watering Flowers

In court, but you can remain silent when cops ask questions.

 

Nope, the courts have stated that you must assert your right to remain silent to the cops. It does not just apply to the courts.

LINK: Berghuis v. Thompkins :: 560 U.S. 370 (2010) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center

 

When stopped by police you aren’t a criminal defendant

 

OMG...just freaking google it yourself.

 

I dont remember which case it was but once your right is invoked if you so much as make one little peep your invocation is null and void from there forward.

 

I read your link. It basically says if you don’t say I take the fifth, they can keep asking you questions. But you don’t have to invoke in order to refuse to answer questions.

 

911 operator failure is another reason. Operator did not ask what makes the person watering the flowers suspicious. Wait for the caller to reply. If caller says because it’s a black man, operator could put that in the notation so police can better assess. The police on the scene too were too stupid to radio call center and confirm the pastor’s address. All this could have been avoided. Regardless, the county will settle. Pastor won or he could have deliberately baited the police. If so, we need smart and police who can think critically.

 

Meaning that the same thing could be said about me when dog/house sitting . . . something you denied earlier. Make up your ****ing mind. And "They may have entered" isn't reasonable suspicion. "I saw them enter" is. Some random bystander saying "I dunno, maybe" is bull ****. And keep in mind that the witness told the cops that she knew the man, that she knew he was friends with the owner, and that it wouldn't be unusual at all for him to be watering pants.

 

Fake news.

 

My mind has not changed. Yes reporting suspicious personS and they may have entered the house constitutes reasonable suspicious on the the part of the police. The witness only told the officers she knew the man AFTER the encounter and he had already been handcuffed for attempting to leave the scene.

 

Then if the police are called on me for housesitting/dogsitting for my neighbor, they can detain me . . . something you previously denied but are now explicitly arguing. Make up your mind.

He had every right to leave the scene. And you are YET AGAIN proving that you didn't actually watch the video. This is eerily similar to back when you were supporting the murderer of Arbery.

In this case, you asked what would have been wrong with him just offering to call his wife. He did so. The cops forbade him from calling her. He asked them to call her instead. They refused. This proves you didn't actually watch the video that you are expressing "opinions" about.

Now you claim he was handcuffed for attempting to leave the scene. This is also false, as you would have known if you had actually watched the video. He was handcuffed while continuing to try to water the flowers. He wasn't leaving the "scene" (and there was no scene of a crime).

Your mind hasn't "changed" because 1) it was never based on the facts and 2) you refuse to consult the facts.

 

I WARNED you they could detain you. Do you think they would knock on the door ask you who you were and you tell them a friend named John Doe and you refuse to further identify yourself they would just leave?

No sir, not when the police are questioning about a possible crime you cannot just turn and try to flee. And I am the one who watched else you would know he attempted to leave. I posted it to you in message #253 At 1:30 he drops the hose starts to walk away and tell them he doesn't care who called them "LOCK ME UP". He CHALLENGES them to LOCK ME UP he says I WANT YOU TOO. They tell him they just want to talk to him and he continues to try and leave. They continue to try and get him to just talk to them and he continues to try and leave. They stop him and take his phone and cuff him, there is no statement he was calling his wife there was no request he call he wife or they call his wife. If you say otherwise give me the timestamp where he does.

 

I'll cover the rest of this nonsense later. He wasn't trying to leave. He was trying to water the plants on the other side of the house. He explicitly states this. Watch the video. Which, again, you clearly haven't.

 

He had dropped the hose turns his back tells them he wants them to arrest him, that is attempting to leave where they are trying to conduct their investigation.

 

It reads:
where the identified caller using an emergency line was reliable, the reports by three other persons conveyed by the caller contained sufficient indicia of reliability, and the reported activity

In this case the article doesn't mention:
1) the caller being reliable
2) 3 other people conveyed by the caller....

Absolutely not. Your example got debunked.

 

and I add:
https://www.johntfloyd.com/anonymous-tip-reasonable-suspicion/

 

however their reasonable suspicion was quashed by both the caller and the neighbors therefore they had an obligation to release him, but they prefer to waste our tax dollars and give him a large payout of our money.

 

As far as I know there is no such thing. Law enforcement. as fasr as I know, in any state, has no legal right to force you to identify yourslef without suspicion of comitting a crime.

 

How can that be legal?

 

The guy said "Pastor Jennings"
The cops went further and demanded an ID.
They were on private property.
They could have demanded his 'first' name.
When they arrived on the scene he was watering flowers.
Clearly there was no a commission of a crime taking place.
The body cam proves this.
Watering flowers isnt a crime, yet.


If I carry an ID, do I have to identify myself?


Question
Is there a law that requires you to carry any kind of ID card with you? If I carry an ID, do I have to show it if the police ask for it? If I don’t have to show an ID, can I refuse to identify myself?

Answer
There is no state of Illinois or domestic passport law. You cannot be forced to show an ID.

You can be required to identify yourself only if the police reasonably suspect that you are in the process of committing a crime or committed a crime and:

• You are in a public place;
• The police think you are part of a crime; and
• The police tell you that they are police.

The police can suspect you of any crime. The crime can be a past, present, or future offense.

Once the police identify themselves, they can stop and question any person in a public place that they suspect is involved in a crime (past or present). If you are not under arrest, all questioning should occur in the general area where you were stopped and should be for a reasonable amount of time.

The police can ask for the following:

• Your name;
• Your address; and
• A reason for your actions.

Your name is all you may have to give in response. But you are not obligated to give even your name. If you give your name, it must be correct, or you may be guilty of materially impeding a police investigation. Once you’ve done that, you can choose to remain silent, ask for your lawyer, or provide more information and show an ID.
https://www.illinoislegalaid.org/legal-information/if-i-carry-id-do-i-have-identify-myself

 

If they're conducting an investigation they have the authority to request ID and Alabama is a must show state.

 

There never was a reasonable suspicion.


When the bar is so low that "watering flowers" becomes a reasonable suspicion, you might as well kiss the 4th amendment goodbye. All we got going now, are a bunch of far right wing white nationals supporting cops on this. We all know it.

 

They can only do so to any person abroad in a public place whom he reasonably suspects is committing, has committed or is about to commit a felony or other public offense.
That's according to the Alabama Code - Section 15-5-30 — Authority of peace officer to stop and question

And so you got it wrong.

 

But you didn't answer his question. The question was what law requires people to carry identification?

 

The same law that requires you to show an ID upon request. The same law that requires you to have a driver's license with you when you're driving. The same law that requires you show an ID to buy alcohol, or cigarettes. There are several laws that require you to carry an ID, or at least create the circumstances for you to need to carry an ID. I didn't even mention buying a gun, nor carrying a CCW, or cashing a check.