Kelly writes “The subject line for this item is quoted from a policeman in a police video where a housewife, Abby Newton, is stopped for no reason.
Aside from the outrage of being stopped, even though she did nothing wrong, is the fact that, after they pull her out of her car and arrest her for not sharing her name, they go through the books in her car, and make a number of odd comments that indicate their ignorance of constitutional law, e.g., stating that some books she had — though not all — could enable them to arrest her for posssessing because they were, they thought, subversive. I guess one could be grateful that some of the books she had were ok, by their lights.
It is not clear how they decided which ones are subversive or what qualifications they have to judge this. Look at this chilling video and see for yourself, and find out the outcome of her court trial:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EahooGbQrUs&eurl=“
Daniel’s note: YouTube notes this clip as being part of Alex’s Jones’- 911 Road to Tyranny series. So there might be more to the story than meets the eye.
We report, you judge for yourself.
2000
The date on the video is from 6 years ago. I’m not even going to bother watching the whole thing. If you want to cherry pick the news from a lengthy period of time you can make the case for anything. Grow up.
It worked fine.
I’m unclear what the problem is here. The system worked as designed. The officers made a lawful arrest and the defendant took it to trial and was found to be not to have violated the law. It is important to remember that the standard for an arrest and the standard of proof for a conviction are miles apart, and rightly so.
At first glance it appears the stop was legal. It could have been a Terry stop, it could have been a permitted road block, it could have and most probably was one of any number of legal traffic stops. We all know that US citizens do not enjoy a constitutional right to refuse to reveal their identity when requested by police (Hiibel v. Nevada) so this woman who though she was a roadside Constitutional lawyer was wrong.
The search of the car was an inventory search pursuant to an arrest. The woman opposed the officer, the woman resisted a lawful arrest.
The officers mention some of the reading material the woman has which they thought was weird. I think the woman is into weird stuff too, but it does not seem to matter as the discussion among the officers did not apparently result in any charges. To ask that police officers be experts on the law is simply not realistic. Do we have to have the Wise Nine from DC making all of our traffic stops now?
This woman was an arse, she could have simply showed her driver’s license – she must have gone along with the government that far as she insists she was driving legally – and been on her way. Rather she used the bad advice she was given in her weird reading material to play roadside lawyer and it got her arrested.
I’m glad she was not convicted, but I have no sympathy for people who go out of their way to be idiots.
Re:2000
6 years, that all? That’s as long as George “Let’s Destroy US Civil Liberties” Bush has been president. What a coincidence!
Re:It worked fine.
“We all know that US citizens do not enjoy a constitutional right to refuse to reveal their identity when requested by police (Hiibel v. Nevada) so this woman who though she was a roadside Constitutional lawyer was wrong.” The Nevada decision I believe – could be wrong – came after this incident, so she would not have been in the wrong at the time.
In either case, it’s a dramatic example of the constriction of our rights that good old George and his cabal of cronies and court appointees have been perpetuating upon us. The fact this doesn’t bother you much, if at all, is all-too-predictable, though I am grateful for the small crumb that you are “glad she was not convicted.” You may after all have a place within you, however tiny, for some freedom still to be permitted in the good ole US of A. Perhaps there is still hope for you, but maybe I misinterpret your motives for approving her not being convicted.
Re:2000
This happened before his presidency began. Wipe the spittle off your chin.
Re:It worked fine.
Wow! George must be magically or something! It is amazing that he got his “cronies” on the court and that these court pcronies became cops and stopped people all BEFORE he was elected PRESIDENT (let alone took the office!!!!).
BTW: The narrator says that it was a roadside checkpoint. These have been found legal time and time again. I don’t like them, but the courts ruled on them long before George or any of his cronies were in power.
Re:2000
I assume you are a librarian since you are on lisnews. Maybe you should ask yourself a reference question and find out when George W. Bush became President. Newsflash: It wasn’t in 2000.
Re:2000
Ah, good old Greg Shushie! Always the tough guy!
Cooperate fully with authorities at all times
There would be no problems if people cooperated fully with the authorities at all times and not acted silly. This would really put the authorities in deep trouble if they assaulted you in any way, wouldn’t it?