If the police pull over a driver and the driver indicates he will refuse to answer any police questions, does it violate the Constitution for the police to retaliate against the driver to punish him for refusing to answer their questions? [More]Of course it does.
Succubus explains.
[Via Skip W]
The blackrobes’ opinion appears to have completely avoided one issue, which is the quality of the “retaliation” itself. Can the cops retaliate for your slience by arresting you for obstruction? Almost certainly. Can they retaliate by shooting you in the ass? Pretty clearly not. So where on the continuum between arrest and a slug in the ass is grinding your sternum and face into the pavement for not answering questions, and where is the line of justifiable drawn? I’m having a hard time believing that this question was of absolutely no interest to our esteemed jurists.
ReplyDeleteIt doesn't matter. The Police will do what ever they want to do to the motorist. They will all tell the same story. They will investigate themselves and find they did no wrong.
ReplyDeleteThe whole point is moot.
The only thing left for free men to do is to try to fly under the radar, to appear so law abiding, that no Police attention will be drawn to them.
If an involuntary encounter with The Gang happens anyway, a Free Man should comply minimally and record the Policeman's name and badge number.
We do now live in a Police State, which operates under anti-terrorist rules. The "terrorists" are ANYONE and EVERYONE who is NOT a member of The Gang.
Ask any former or retired cop. The ubiquitous statement is "It wasn't that way back when...". Oh yes it was. You just weren't on the receiving end.