Is it a citizen's duty to know their rights, or should they be informed by police?

[level.eleven]

This is shaping into a perfect example regarding the application of rights vs. law.

Miranda
Pirtle
Terry
etc...

Does a passenger have to ID? Was that a lawful order or a request? Can the cabin be searched and does that extend to the trunk? What if I am carrying? What if I am ordered to exit my car and chose to lock the doors behind me? Is a bumper sticker probable cause?

Why do citizens have to put so much effort into protecting their rights against those who are tasked to protect them? In most cases I don't think their violations are necessarily malicious, rather, they are economic. Law enforcement and incarceration are big business. Politicians, prosecutors, etc need to project a tough on crime mentality to get reelected and justify ever increasing budgets and federal handouts.

 

[phylodog]

Politicians, prosecutors, etc need to project a tough on crime mentality to get reelected and justify ever increasing budgets and federal handouts.

I think you hit a nail on the head with that statement. If you could take [STRIKE]politics[/STRIKE] politicians out of police work this country would be in much better shape.

 

[Hotdoger]

This is shaping into a perfect example regarding the application of rights vs. law.

Miranda
Pirtle
Terry
etc...

Does a passenger have to ID? Was that a lawful order or a request? Can the cabin be searched and does that extend to the trunk? What if I am carrying? What if I am ordered to exit my car and chose to lock the doors behind me? Is a bumper sticker probable cause?

Why do citizens have to put so much effort into protecting their rights against those who are tasked to protect them?

The LEO does not have to protect them. Leos are educated how to skirt those rights, the citizen is not.
That is why the LEO can cite:
Miranda
Pirtle
Terry
etc...

 

[hornadylnl]

So if they pass an obscure law that says it's a jailable offense to skip down the sidewalk on Tuesday, it's my duty to know that law. But if I'm arrested for it on Wednsday, is the arresting officer liable for all inconveniences and costs to me when he didn't know the law?

 

[ElsiePeaRN]

I did vote no, for many of the same reasons already mentioned and primarily, my belief in my own responsibility as an American to know my rights. So many lives have been lost to protect those rights. The least every American citizen who is capable can do to repay that sacrifice is to educate oneself about them!

There is something a bit odd to me about the concept of requiring a government employee to notify me of my rights. I think of the Constitution as an anti-government document. The relationship between government and its citizens has always been somewhat adversarial. The constitution is about individual rights, which are inversely proportional to the power of government. Therefore, the government is actually the greatest threat to my own individual rights. Why would I want to depend on a government employee to inform me of my rights?

If we are to require an officer to inform us of our right to say no when he asks our permission, where do we then draw the line? For instance, (and I realize this is overly simplistic, but it illustrates my overly-simplistic point I guess)

I have a right to life. If an officer is about to shoot me because he believes me to be a danger to him, does he have to notify me that I have a right to life that I am about to forfeit?

I have a right to liberty. Does an officer have to inform me of that when he is about to place me in handcuffs?

I have a right to vote. Does the mayor need to tell me that if I don't like the way he's running my town, I have the right to vote for his opponent?

Requiring the government to give us assistance in asserting our rights is sort of like asking the fox to notify the hen, "I'm about to eat you, so you might want to run now."

just sayin'...


"A woman who demands further gun control legislation is like a chicken who roots for Colonel Sanders." -Larry Elder

 

[level.eleven]

So if they pass an obscure law that says it's a jailable offense to skip down the sidewalk on Tuesday, it's my duty to know that law. But if I'm arrested for it on Wednsday, is the arresting officer liable for all inconveniences and costs to me when he didn't know the law?

.

BBZZZZTTTTT!!!!

Law enforcement operates under qualified or absolute immunity.

File the paperwork and we will have our internal review board vote on whether it makes it to committee where it then undergoes peer review in order to be escalated to an actionable complaint. You will be notified in approximately 6 weeks. If you aren't notified you need to file a information request act in order to find out why the rejection was made. At that point, you have the option to refile your complaint with internal affairs. Have a nice day.

 

[Kick]

Eh, I usually try to stay out of this forum but, can't help but say.

I feel that in some situations, when feasible, the police should attempt to make sure citizens are aware of their rights.

However, I also feel that a good educated citizen, especially one who chooses to exercise certain rights, should make a valid attempt to at least be aware of the remainder of their rights.

If one lives their life completely unaware of their rights, with the lack of said knowledge rendering them incapable of exercising said rights, what rights do they actually have?

 

[level.eleven]

If my public education campuses failed to educate me on my rights as a citizen can I sue them?

 

[phylodog]

If my public education campuses failed to educate me on my rights as a citizen can I sue them?

Isn't that the American way? The bigger question is, why wouldn't you??

 

[hornadylnl]

Eh, I usually try to stay out of this forum but, can't help but say.

I feel that in some situations, when feasible, the police should attempt to make sure citizens are aware of their rights.

However, I also feel that a good educated citizen, especially one who chooses to exercise certain rights, should make a valid attempt to at least be aware of the remainder of their rights.

If one lives their life completely unaware of their rights, with the lack of said knowledge rendering them incapable of exercising said rights, what rights do they actually have?

Your career is based on the law. Do you know all of them? The constitution is pretty simple but all of the laws added and case law would stack up to the moon and back. If a LEO can't know all of them, how is a citizen supposed to know? Many here can't agree on what gun laws are and that's just one facet of it.

 

[Keyser Soze]

Not one person knows every law in the indiana criminal code book. Word count may be less because of bigger texts but its much thicker than the king james verison. I dont need law or religion to tell me if something is right or wrong. I guess I have always just known

 

[Kutnupe14]

I did vote no, for many of the same reasons already mentioned and primarily, my belief in my own responsibility as an American to know my rights. So many lives have been lost to protect those rights. The least every American citizen who is capable can do to repay that sacrifice is to educate oneself about them!

There is something a bit odd to me about the concept of requiring a government employee to notify me of my rights. I think of the Constitution as an anti-government document. The relationship between government and its citizens has always been somewhat adversarial. The constitution is about individual rights, which are inversely proportional to the power of government. Therefore, the government is actually the greatest threat to my own individual rights. Why would I want to depend on a government employee to inform me of my rights?

If we are to require an officer to inform us of our right to say no when he asks our permission, where do we then draw the line? For instance, (and I realize this is overly simplistic, but it illustrates my overly-simplistic point I guess)

I have a right to life. If an officer is about to shoot me because he believes me to be a danger to him, does he have to notify me that I have a right to life that I am about to forfeit?

I have a right to liberty. Does an officer have to inform me of that when he is about to place me in handcuffs?

I have a right to vote. Does the mayor need to tell me that if I don't like the way he's running my town, I have the right to vote for his opponent?

Requiring the government to give us assistance in asserting our rights is sort of like asking the fox to notify the hen, "I'm about to eat you, so you might want to run now."

just sayin'...


"A woman who demands further gun control legislation is like a chicken who roots for Colonel Sanders." -Larry Elder

Best post in the fread.

 

[rambone]

I did vote no, for many of the same reasons already mentioned and primarily, my belief in my own responsibility as an American to know my rights. So many lives have been lost to protect those rights. The least every American citizen who is capable can do to repay that sacrifice is to educate oneself about them!

You and I know our rights, but not every American does. I have given several instances who those people might be; they are not just guilty drug dealers. Do they deserve to be intruded upon because they had ignorant parents and a crumby education?

There is something a bit odd to me about the concept of requiring a government employee to notify me of my rights. I think of the Constitution as an anti-government document. The relationship between government and its citizens has always been somewhat adversarial. The constitution is about individual rights, which are inversely proportional to the power of government. Therefore, the government is actually the greatest threat to my own individual rights. Why would I want to depend on a government employee to inform me of my rights?

There is something odd about a government who routinely wants to shake down its citizens. I agree with what you are saying but would add that this idea is simply one last attempt at informing citizens of their rights -- it does not change what the rights are. Those of us who are informed will know the routine already. This idea is an extra roadblock against invasion of citizens' lives.

If we are to require an officer to inform us of our right to say no when he asks our permission, where do we then draw the line? For instance, (and I realize this is overly simplistic, but it illustrates my overly-simplistic point I guess)

The line I envision is the entrance of Government into our personal space. When they are "requesting" to shake us down and invade our privacy, people should be aware that they can say "NO."

I have a right to life. If an officer is about to shoot me because he believes me to be a danger to him, does he have to notify me that I have a right to life that I am about to forfeit?

This example is inherently different because the citizen is actually doing something that brought about the forfeiture of his rights. An driver being asked for permission to search a person's car has not done anything. If probable cause for a search had been established already, they would not be asked!

I have a right to liberty. Does an officer have to inform me of that when he is about to place me in handcuffs?

You have the right to know why you are under arrest don't you? Again, you (maybe) have done something to cause this to take place, and the cop is not asking. Whereas asking for consent means you have not done anything to force a search.

I have a right to vote. Does the mayor need to tell me that if I don't like the way he's running my town, I have the right to vote for his opponent?

This is even more of a stretch. There is no cop trying to invade your privacy in this example.

Requiring the government to give us assistance in asserting our rights is sort of like asking the fox to notify the hen, "I'm about to eat you, so you might want to run now."

You are correct with the fox & hen analogy. Government is not watching out for us, they are looking for the first excuse to eat us. The more warning the better, IMO.

 

[Kutnupe14]

You and I know our rights, but not every American does. I have given several instances who those people might be; they are not just guilty drug dealers. Do they deserve to be intruded upon because they had ignorant parents and a crumby education?

There is something odd about a government who routinely wants to shake down its citizens. I agree with what you are saying but would add that this idea is simply one last attempt at informing citizens of their rights -- it does not change what the rights are. Those of us who are informed will know the routine already. This idea is an extra roadblock against invasion of citizens' lives.

The line I envision is the entrance of Government into our personal space. When they are "requesting" to shake us down and invade our privacy, people should be aware that they can say "NO."

This example is inherently different because the citizen is actually doing something that brought about the forfeiture of his rights. An driver being asked for permission to search a person's car has not done anything. If probable cause for a search had been established already, they would not be asked!

You have the right to know why you are under arrest don't you? Again, you (maybe) have done something to cause this to take place, and the cop is not asking. Whereas asking for consent means you have not done anything to force a search.

This is even more of a stretch. There is no cop trying to invade your privacy in this example.

You are correct with the fox & hen analogy. Government is not watching out for us, they are looking for the first excuse to eat us. The more warning the better, IMO.

Have you ever thought that if police had to inform people of the rights they already should know, it would have an overall detrimental effect? Right now your rights are clearly defined, and the information exists, over and over, on how to protect/express your rights. Surely, if such a thing was to pass, that would not be the end of it. Right now, your best defense is knowing your rights and not waivering.

A great many arrests come from consent searches (ie PC doesnt exist to get in the vehicle). If that tool is rendered "moot," because law enforcement have to advise, people who didnt listen in school, or take their rights seriously, something, I can assure you will take it's place.

I think most have already agreed that driving is not a right, but rather an privilege. You are issued a driver's license and allowed to drive on govt roads, at the pleasure of the state. Even in the obtainment of your license, you agreed that if an officer "suspected" you were driving "under the influence," that you would submit to chemical test. This is simply called "implied consent," and it is perfectly legal. Again, since driving ISNT a right, how would you feel if "implied consent" was expanded to include vehicle searches? Hopefully that day will never come, and if does while I'm on the job, I'll make a quick exit from the profession, but it could happen.... and why? Because people that didnt know their rights. People who couldnt read a book, browse a website, or listen in school.

People that don't care to know their rights until it applies to them, are more dangerous than those who would take our rights away. Why? Because they don't complain until there gone.... which is obviously too late.

 

[turnandshoot4]

To me, this thread reads should the gov't be a nanny state or not?

I vote no.

 

[squirrelhntr]

yes, they should

 

[rambone]

Have you ever thought that if police had to inform people of the rights they already should know, it would have an overall detrimental effect?

Believe it or not I never saw any detrimental effects from people being reminded of their rights. Still don't.

Right now your rights are clearly defined, and the information exists, over and over, on how to protect/express your rights.

Our rights are rarely defined with clarity. We have all these heated debates about procedures to follow on traffic stops, right here on this site. I consider a lot of these folks to be generally more aware than a lot of the population. If we can't even agree about these things, I think it is fair to say that our rights are anything but clear to the average person who is oblivious to politics.

A great many arrests come from consent searches (ie PC doesnt exist to get in the vehicle). If that tool is rendered "moot," because law enforcement have to advise, people who didnt listen in school, or take their rights seriously, something, I can assure you will take it's place.

These fishing expeditions and arrests over illegal contraband do nothing but clutter our prisons with non-violent offenders and strain the taxpayers. Inform people of their right to say no before pressuring them to let you search their vehicle. I don't understand what you meant by "something [..] will take its place."

Even in the obtainment of your license, you agreed that if an officer "suspected" you were driving "under the influence," that you would submit to chemical test. This is simply called "implied consent," and it is perfectly legal. Again, since driving ISNT a right, how would you feel if "implied consent" was expanded to include vehicle searches? Hopefully that day will never come, and if does while I'm on the job, I'll make a quick exit from the profession, but it could happen.... and why? Because people that didnt know their rights. People who couldnt read a book, browse a website, or listen in school.

This sounds like a divergent thread topic, but nobody is chemically testing me or my blood without "real consent." How would I feel if police broke the constitution in one more way? Outraged. But every day we lose another freedom, so it is pretty routine at this point.

People that don't care to know their rights until it applies to them, are more dangerous than those who would take our rights away. Why? Because they don't complain until there gone.... which is obviously too late.

I have more of a problem with people who actively seek to infringe our rights. Just my opinion.

 

[turnandshoot4]

This poll is so intresting.

One minute everyone wants the gov't OUT of their lives. Let us smoke what we want to smoke. Stop kicking in our doors. Quit teaching our kids what we don't want you to teach. Let us eat what we want to eat. Scared that the FBI bought .50 rifles. Don't want to pay more in taxes.

Then on the other hand no one wants a crack head to break in their house. They want the drug dealers next door out of town. They aren't willing to teach THEIR OWN kids. They want help when they have heart problems from too many cheese burgers. They want to own .50cal rifles. They want better roads and services.

Now here we have a case where the majority that voted in the poll WANT the gov't in their lives. So which is it? You can't have it both ways.

To be brutally honest what I see here is I'm too weak, lazy, and stupid to understand my rights. Please exercise them FOR me.

















Flame suit on.

 

[Kutnupe14]

This sounds like a divergent thread topic, but nobody is chemically testing me or my blood without "real consent." How would I feel if police broke the constitution in one more way? Outraged. But every day we lose another freedom, so it is pretty routine at this point.

If you have an Indiana's driver's license, you've already consented.

 

[Kick]

Your career is based on the law. Do you know all of them? The constitution is pretty simple but all of the laws added and case law would stack up to the moon and back. If a LEO can't know all of them, how is a citizen supposed to know? Many here can't agree on what gun laws are and that's just one facet of it.

I will give you that many on here cannot agree on gun laws. I will also give you that it is nearly impossible to know ALL of the LAWS. But, researching and attempting to understand the RIGHTS that pertain to your everyday life is not all that time consuming or difficult.

As far as case law goes, I would rather not get into that.