SuperBash Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/york-city-cop-imprisons-college-student-without-id-151221707.html A young college student walking through Central Park with her friend at 3 am was stopped by officers for trespassing since the park closes at 1 am to visitors. They apologized and turned around ut the cops demanded to see I.D. One had their ID and one did not as she left it in her hotel room. So the cop then detained her in two different cells in two different locations for over a day, while taunting her in her cell. When her court case was up, the Judge dismissed it in less than a minute. Cop's with short fuses like this cop should not be allowed to be a cop. The screening process to become a cop should be much much tougher than it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 Recommend you at least alter your title. Suspect you're violating several rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACW Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 Should be: The Lookout (Yahoo! News): New York City cop imprisons college student without ID for two days Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperBash Posted November 3, 2011 Author Share Posted November 3, 2011 Recommend you at least alter your title. Suspect you're violating several rules. Fixed, but the title was very deserving... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosher Ham Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 Technically if you are at 18 you are supposed to carry an ID at all times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
herrmag Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 Sounds like she has a legitimate lawsuit on her hands. Wasn't she allowed a phone call? Couldn't she call her parents? I suspect there will be many lawyers chomping at the bit to represent her. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsfan07 Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 Just another **** cop is right. The sky is blue too, and the sun rises in the east and sets in the west. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teller Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 It's not against the law, of course, to be out on New York's streets without identification--but the courts can detain people without identification in jail until their arraignment in lieu of issuing them a summons. Otherwise, they'd have a stack of bench warrants for failure to appear for "Bob Smith." Still, the period of the detention seems ridiculously excessive to me. And if he taunted her as the (clearly unbiased) article says, she should file a complaint. In all honesty, the officer probably wouldn't experience any repercussions from something so minor. But if he gets enough similar complaints, he sure as hell will. ---------- Post added November-3rd-2011 at 09:01 PM ---------- Sounds like she has a legitimate lawsuit on her hands. Wasn't she allowed a phone call? Couldn't she call her parents? I suspect there will be many lawyers chomping at the bit to represent her. It's hard to say, considering only one side of the story was presented. When there are police are involved though, that's all you need for a large part of the board to reach a conclusion. I hope my jury, if I ever face one, comes from another site. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G.A.C.O.L.B. Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 I wonder what the straw that breaks the camels back will be. Where people are just at their boiling point with the police and aren't going to take it anymore. I guess probably if it hasn't happened yet, it never will though. I'd like to think that when my generation takes over, we'll do something but I know we'll just become curmudgeony old ****s like the previous 200 generations. Such is life. Anyway, **** the police. That's where I'm at at. Where I've been at. They don't do **** for me except play Sherrof of Notingham and collect taxes with bull**** tickets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
herrmag Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 Otherwise, they'd have a stack of bench warrants for failure to appear for "Bob Smith."Still, the period of the detention seems ridiculously excessive to me. And if he taunted her as the (clearly unbiased) article says, she should file a complaint. In all honesty, the officer probably wouldn't experience any repercussions from something so minor. But if he gets enough similar complaints, he sure as hell will. ---------- Post added November-3rd-2011 at 09:01 PM ---------- It's hard to say, considering only one side of the story was presented. When there are police are involved though, that's all you need for a large part of the board to reach a conclusion. I hope my jury, if I ever face one, comes from another site. True, but it seems a little odd that one had ID, one didn't and was let go, and the one that was detained was kept at 2 separate locations. No way of knowing whether or not she was "taunted". It's quite possible she was under the influence and/or acting poorly, but that's just speculation. Like you said, just one side of the story. Curious why the judge didn't take issue with the detainment. EDIT: Even more interesting that the cop didn't let her boyfriend go get her ID which was 2 blocks away apparently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hubbs Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 Technically if you are at 18 you are supposed to carry an ID at all times. Wait, what? I'd be stunned if this is a law in any state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teller Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 True, but it seems a little odd that one had ID, one didn't and was let go, and the one that was detained was kept at 2 separate locations. No way of knowing whether or not she was "taunted". It's quite possible she was under the influence and/or acting poorly, but that's just speculation. Like you said, just one side of the story. Curious why the judge didn't take issue with the detainment.EDIT: Even more interesting that the cop didn't let her boyfriend go get her ID which was 2 blocks away apparently. I would never let someone leave a scene and return to it. That's just asking for trouble, even in a minor case. Good catch by you though. It appears as though the officer intended to cite the boyfriend, then didn't. But again, it would be nice if you were going to call something "news" in big letters at the top of the page, if you would report both sides. I know that's asking a lot of many journalists these days though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 Recall having an attorney inform me of some things, once. You heard about 'You have the right to remain silent"? Well, there's exceptions. And one of the big ones is, you do it have the riht not to identify yourself. In fact, you've herd the one that says they can only hold you for 24 hours, and then they have to charge you or let you go? Well the 24 hour clock STARTS when they identify you. Now, was this a case where those rules should have been followed? The story makes it appear not. But yes, they CAN. Remember Timmothy McVeigh? Reason he was still in custody, when they figured things out, was because he didn't have ID on him. ---------- Post added November-3rd-2011 at 09:25 PM ---------- When there are police are involved though, that's all you need for a large part of the board to reach a conclusion. I hope my jury, if I ever face one, comes from another site. Eaglesphan.com? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teller Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 Eaglesphan.com? On second thought, I kinda like y'all. Seriously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCsportsfan53 Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 It's hard to say, considering only one side of the story was presented. When there are police are involved though, that's all you need for a large part of the board to reach a conclusion. I hope my jury, if I ever face one, comes from another site. Yeah, and for the other half of the board, and more importantly, just about all courts of law, the police's side of the story is the one that carries the weight. Not saying both sides of this story aren't needed or that I have much of a reaction to this story, just pointing out that it goes the other way too, particularly when it consequentially matters. :2cents: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 I would never let someone leave a scene and return to it. That's just asking for trouble, even in a minor case.Good catch by you though. It appears as though the officer intended to cite the boyfriend, then didn't. But again, it would be nice if you were going to call something "news" in big letters at the top of the page, if you would report both sides. I know that's asking a lot of many journalists these days though. You're defending this bull****? Two sides... It's painfully obvious what happened here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skin'Em84 Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 Yeah, and for the other half of the board, and more importantly, just about all courts of law, the police's side of the story is the one that carries the weight. Not saying both sides of this story aren't needed or that I have much of a reaction to this story, just pointing out that it goes the other way too, particularly when it consequentially matters. :2cents: Why should I hear both sides of the story? The one I react to first is the only correct one.:pfft: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.