Black "pastor" arrested for crime of watering his neighbours garden

[August West]

Heck, I remember this one. Cops pulled over an elderly couple because they had an Ohio State Buckeyes sticker on the back of their car.


Bonnie Jonas-Boggioni, 65, and her husband were driving home to Plano, Texas from Columbus after attending her mother-in-law’s funeral when a pair of black police SUV’s stopped the couple a few miles outside of Memphis.

“Knowing I wasn’t speeding, I couldn’t imagine why,” Jonas-Boggioni told the Columbus Dispatch. “They were very serious. They had the body armor and the guns.”

On the back of Jonas-Boggioni’s car was a Buckeye leaf decal, similar to the one players’ have on their helmets, and cops mistakenly thought it was marijuana leaf.

Elderly couple pulled over after their Buckeye car decal is mistaken for a marijuana leaf

Even if it was, there was no justification for pulling them over. Instead of "sorry" the couple got........

After trying to explain that the sticker was not a marijuana leaf and that she and her husband were not trafficking drugs cross-country, the police advised Jonas-Boggioni to remove the sticker as to not cause any more confusion.

The moronic cops assumed that every other cop is as dumb as they are. Butler County is where someone took a shot at Trump at his Klan rally.

 

[horselightning]

I went back to the op to read the article. I'm gobsmacked that the cops were dumb enough to go and check. In the UK, the cops on the phone would just say get lost, "You want us to come out because someone is watering a garden?".

Either American cops are overly bored or dumber than a box of rocks. The dumb rocks are being sued because they were too dumb to know their job.

sounds like uk cops do nothing. she said it was suspicous person and suspicious car at home were no one is supposed to be there. she didnt regconize him tell after the cops were there.

 

[Captain Caveman]

sounds like uk cops do nothing. she said it was suspicous person and suspicious car at home were no one is supposed to be there. she didnt regconize him tell after the cops were there.

What did the guy hosing the plants say when the nosey woman asked who he was? That woman wants her backside kicked for being a dick. Didn't recognise her neighbour?

If you saw someone hosing the plants, would you think it was a burglar robbing the house? Our cops do do something, they would apply common sense and not be so retarded as your cops proved.

Do you guys not possess common sense?

 

[BackAgain]

no they cant,, only if youve been arrested can they ID you,,

Not correct. What is required is a reasonable belief that a crime is being committed, has been committed or is about to be committed.

 

[progressive hunter]

Not correct. What is required is a reasonable belief that a crime is being committed, has been committed or is about to be committed.

I have revised my wording may times since this,,

yes RAS is required for ID

 

[BackAgain]

when you get pulled over its because you comitted a traffic violation and are under arrest,

nope. Getting pulled over doesn’t mean that you have committed a traffic bylaw violation or infraction. And it isn’t an arrest.

they cant just pull you over for no reason and demand ID,,

No. But they can pull you over with the requisite level of reasonable suspicion. And even then you’re not under arrest.

 

[BackAgain]

I have revised my wording may times since this,,

yes RAS is required for ID

Yes. But that doesn’t mean an arrest.

Also, fun fact: if a cop tells you to “stop” or if the cop asks to speak with you (under circumstances not amounting to a reasonable suspicion of criminality), you are free to refuse to speak and free to keep walking.

 

[progressive hunter]

Yes. But that doesn’t mean an arrest.

Also, fun fact: if a cop tells you to “stop” or if the cop asks to speak with you (under circumstances not amounting to a reasonable suspicion of criminality), you are free to refuse to speak and free to keep walking.

arrest in so much that youve been accused of a "crime" and can not leave until all legal proceedings are done,,

some traffic infractions that are ARESSTABLE offences its a little more complicated,,

just because they use a different name for different level of crimes doesnt change anything when youre held under the power of a gun ffrom a government official,,

 

[BackAgain]

arrest in so much that youve been accused of a "crime" and can not leave until all legal proceedings are done,,

some traffic infractions that are ARESSTABLE offences its a little more complicated,,

just because they use a different name for different level of crimes doesnt change anything when youre held under the power of a gun ffrom a government official,,

“Arrest” means something different than a stop or a temporary detention.

Cop sees a couple of young men “congregating” on a sidewalk in a somewhat crime prone neighborhood. So, cop approaches the “yutes” and politely asks them what they’re doing. They remain silent.

Then, when the gents start to scatter and wander off, cop orders one of them to “stop.” The young guy ignores that verbal direction and proceeds to continue walking away. Is he legally allowed to do so?

Yep.

 

[progressive hunter]

“Arrest” means something different than a stop or a temporary detention.

Cop sees a couple of young men “congregating” on a sidewalk in a somewhat crime prone neighborhood. So, cop approaches the “yutes” and politely asks them what they’re doing. They remain silent.

Then, when the gents start to scatter and wander off, cop orders one of them to “stop.” The young guy ignores that verbal direction and proceeds to continue walking away. Is he legally allowed to do so?

Yep.

according to the courts the cops have to have a reason to stop them,,

once thats been established he would have to wait until he is released,
the courts say about 20 minutes for traffic stops is a reasonable time to hold someone if no RAS has been established

dont see why it would be different for someone that theres no RAS on,,

 

[BackAgain]

according to the courts the cops have to have a reason to stop them.

Yes.

once thats been established he would have to wait until he is released,

Not quite right. He has to wait to get released until he gets to court. Maybe not even then. But whether the cop had actual probable cause sufficient for an arrest has to be determined BY the prosecution (initially) or BY the court.

the courts say about 20 minutes for traffic stops is a reasonable time to hold someone if no RAS has been established

Not really. The duration of a stop has to be reasonable under all the attendant circumstances. That may vary case by case.

dont see why it would be different for someone that theres no RAS on,,

A cop stopping a person is probably working on the assumption that he is already being reasonable (in most cases). Ultimately, that’s not the cop’s call to make. It will be a determination made by the prosecutors or by the courts.

 

[progressive hunter]

Yes.

Not quite right. He has to wait to get released until he gets to court. Maybe not even then. But whether the cop had actual probable cause sufficient for an arrest has to be determined BY the prosecution (initially) or BY the court.

Not really. The duration of a stop has to be reasonable under all the attendant circumstances. That may vary case by case.

A cop stopping a person is probably working on the assumption that he is already being reasonable (in most cases). Ultimately, that’s not the cop’s call to make. It will be a determination made by the prosecutors or by the courts.

why does he have to go to court??

you skipped over some details,,
what are they being prosecuted for??

the attendant circumstances havent been determined yet,,

no crime they can walk or stand their silently and let their rights get violated,,

 

[BackAgain]

why does he have to go to court??

That depends. I was commenting about scenarios involving an eventual arrest.

you skipped over some details,,
what are they being prosecuted for??

Irrelevant. He could be charged with murder or vandalism. An arrest is an arrest.

the attendant circumstances havent been determined yet,,

Not by a court. But by the cop it sure was (or normally should have been). And it’s usually the cop who will be testifying at any pretrial hearing to determine that very matter.

no crime they can walk or stand their silently and let their rights get violated,,

What?

If I have not committed a crime, and a cop “directs” me to “stop,” I am free to ignore that directive. I also have the option of stopping. In all likelihood, I’d comply. But legally, I don’t have to.

 

[progressive hunter]

If I have not committed a crime, and a cop “directs” me to “stop,” I am free to ignore that directive. I also have the option of stopping. In all likelihood, I’d comply. But legally, I don’t have to.

thats what I said,,

no crime you can walk,,

 

[BackAgain]

thats what I said,,

no crime you can walk,,

Your sentence needed some punctuation. But I grok it now.

 

[AZrailwhale]

I went back to the op to read the article. I'm gobsmacked that the cops were dumb enough to go and check. In the UK, the cops on the phone would just say get lost, "You want us to come out because someone is watering a garden?".

Either American cops are overly bored or dumber than a box of rocks. The dumb rocks are being sued because they were too dumb to know their job.

In the USA police investigate trespassing all the time. It often leads to arrests for more significant crimes. It doesn’t surprise me that the coppers don’t respond to requests for service from subjects of the crown. After all, they don’t work for you.

 

[AZrailwhale]

I went back to the op to read the article. I'm gobsmacked that the cops were dumb enough to go and check. In the UK, the cops on the phone would just say get lost, "You want us to come out because someone is watering a garden?".

Either American cops are overly bored or dumber than a box of rocks. The dumb rocks are being sued because they were too dumb to know their job.

I worked for the phone company, once the cops came by because I had spent about an hour leaning on a connection box outside a bank. It turns out the bank manager called them because he thought I was “casing” the bank for a robbery. In reality I was on hold with one of our offices trying to get a problem fixed and my truck was parked a block away around a corner out of sight. It’s called “proactive policing” and deters crime.

 

[progressive hunter]

I worked for the phone company, once the cops came by because I had spent about an hour leaning on a connection box outside a bank. It turns out the bank manager called them because he thought I was “casing” the bank for a robbery. In reality I was on hold with one of our offices trying to get a problem fixed and my truck was parked a block away around a corner out of sight. It’s called “proactive policing” and deters crime.

just because they can stop and talk to you doesnt mean you have to talk back,, they also can sop you from leaving if they have no RAS to hold you,,

 

[AZrailwhale]

Not correct. What is required is a reasonable belief that a crime is being committed, has been committed or is about to be committed.

In most, if not all states, a citizen is required to identify themselves upon request by the police. If driving, a driver is required by law in all states to provide a valid license, current registration and often proof of insurance upon request. Failure to do so is at least a misdemeanor and can lead to being arrested.

Progressive Hunter seems to be some variety of sovereign citizen from his posts.

 

[progressive hunter]

In most, if not all states, a citizen is required to identify themselves upon request by the police. If driving, a driver is required by law in all states to provide a valid license, current registration and often proof of insurance upon request. Failure to do so is at least a misdemeanor and can lead to being arrested.

Progressive Hunter seems to be some variety of sovereign citizen from his posts.

only if they are believed to be involved in a crime are they required to ID themselves,, ie.. RAS