See other Dead Constitution Articles
Title: Bill would unlock tightlipped witnesses
Source:
KGW
URL Source: http://www.kgw.com/sharedcontent/APStories/stories/D8AENHG80.html
Published: Jun 1, 2005
Author: AP
Post Date: 2005-06-01 11:48:03 by Mr Nuke Buzzcut
Keywords: tightlipped, witnesses, unlock
Views: 102
Comments: 19
Bill would unlock tightlipped witnesses 06/01/2005 Criminals have the right to remain silent, but a bill sponsored by two retired detectives would require witnesses to talk. House Rep. Jeff Barker, D-Aloha, said the impetus for the legislation was the murder of a Portland girl last year. None of the witnesses would speak when police arrived to investigate. The bill, which passed the House 39-20 on Tuesday and now goes to the Senate, would make it an infraction to "fail to identify" oneself, and would allow police to take suspected witnesses into custody if they don't supply their names. The reluctant witness could be photographed and fingerprinted at the police station and face a $720 fine. "They would not have to make a statement," Barker said. "It doesn't seem to me to be a huge deal to identify who is at the scene of a major crime." Civil libertarians, however, say the measure violates the rights of innocent people. "Law enforcement officers can and do ask people questions, particularly those who may have witnessed a crime, as long as the person is willing," said Andrea Meyer, legislative director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Oregon. "But at the same time, nobody can be required to talk to law enforcement. The Constitution does not allow government to detain a person who is not even suspected of criminal activity." Under the bill, the crime under investigation needs to be a felony, and officers would need to request witness information within six hours of the commission of the crime. Support for the legislation broke mostly along party lines, with most Democrats opposing the idea brought forward by their colleague, Barker, and most Republicans in support. Rep. Tom Butler, R-Ontario, who was one of the few Republicans to oppose the bill, said he expects it will be overturned. "This is far too reaching," he said. "Hours after the commission of a crime, law enforcement can nab people who happen on the scene of a crime and may have been hours away when it occurred." The co-sponsor of the bill, former narcotics detective Rep. Andy Olson, R-Albany, said there are some instances when the ability to identify a potential witness could be essential, such as when a killer is on the loose. "If there is a homicide but a victim clams up, you have got to do something for the protection of the community," Olson said.
Associated Press
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Mr Nuke Buzzcut (#0)
Oh goodie. So the police, who have no responsibility to protect you, and can incur no liability for failing to protect you from someone who wishes to harm you, can force you to provide testimony that will potentially put you in harm's way, then they say "thanks, citizen. Better keep your head down!" as they toss you back out onto the streets. Oh, and if you should buy a gun to protect yourself, the cops will come along and put you in jail for violating "the law". Nowadays the only thing to say to a cop is NOTHING. EVER.
Nowadays the only thing to say to a cop is NOTHING. EVER. Good advice.
This is really so very brilliant. Before when a crime would happen the guy who did it would be the one running away from the scene of the crime. Now with this law in effect, when a crime happens everybody in the vicinity will be running away. Brilliant. Just brilliant.
A new crime category, "suspected witness." Your papers please.
A starship circling in the sky, it oughta be ready by 1990.
I think I'll run out and ask a cop why this linked list code isn't working. I figure if I'm going to be expected to do their job for them they'd damned well better be ready to help me with mine.
On the one hand, under this law, you would be suspected of criminal activity (refusing to talk) when you were arrested. On the other hand, once you're arrested, you have the right to remain silent. Sounds self-defeating to me.
Amendment II - the Reset Button on Governments Don't be afraid to use it.
That's twisted, good job. :)
Mr.TagBox don't do html.
Amendment II - the Reset Button on Governments Don't be afraid to use it.
Amendment II - the Reset Button on Governments. Don't be afraid to use it.
Oh yes, please do. I'll look forward to watching the video of your beating on "America's Funniest Police State Videos".
#2. To: Elliott Jackalope, Nuke, all (#1)
All I can add is AMEN.
#3. To: Elliott Jackalope (#1)
"But at the same time, nobody can be required to talk to law enforcement. The Constitution does not allow government to detain a person who is not even suspected of criminal activity."
#4. To: robin (#3)
#5. To: Elliott Jackalope (#1)
would allow police to take suspected witnesses into custody if they don't supply their names.
#6. To: Mr Nuke Buzzcut (#0)
#7. To: Mr Nuke Buzzcut (#0)
The Constitution does not allow government to detain a person who is not even suspected of criminal activity.
#8. To: Barak (#7)
Just testing my tag here.
#9. To: Barak (#7)
#10. To: All (#8)
Crapolla
#11. To: lodwick (#10)
Once more...
#12. To: Dakmar (#6)
I think I'll run out and ask a cop why this linked list code isn't working. I figure if I'm going to be expected to do their job for them they'd damned well better be ready to help me with mine.
 | Gold is money, paper is but a promise. |
#13. To: Elliott Jackalope (#1)
As John Ross said, if the cops can say for sure whether or not you speak English, then you've been talking too much.
Nowadays the only thing to say to a cop is NOTHING. EVER.
#14. To: Elliott Jackalope (#4)
Shouldn't be that big a deal. Just grab the nearest guy running past and prosecute 'im. While I'm sure the police don't mind putting the occasional criminal behind bars, it's important for them not to be too effective, else crime will fall to the point where people start looking around and asking, "So remind me...why do we have all these police all over the place again?" If they imprison the wrong guy every so often, that means A) that the right guy is still out there and can commit more crimes to justify their existence, B) that his success may inspire criminal behavior on the part of others (further justification), and C) that a community of people, terrified that at any moment they may be arrested and imprisoned for no reason, may be cowed enough to finally show them the deference and trembling respect to which they would like to become accustomed.
Now with this law in effect, when a crime happens everybody in the vicinity will be running away.
#15. To: Elliott Jackalope (#1)
Every day it becomes more and more like what we were taught life was like behind the Iron Curtain. Effectively, all this legislation would accomplish is giving police the power to effect a massive roundup, detention and booking of everyone in a given area. Heck, it works so well in Iraq, they thought they would give it a try here?
- This space intentionally left blank.
#16. To: Barak (#14)
Funny you should mention that. That is how you would think things would work out. The reality is rather different. I saw a documentary once concerning life in the old Soviet Union, not long before "the fall" of Communism. The cameraman was walking along the street with a couple of Soviet police officers, and they walked up to a couple of little old ladies sitting on a bench in the park and said the Russian equivalent of "good morning, ladies". Well, you would not believe the stream of invective that came out of those two little old ladies. The sweet-faced old grandmamas launched into a tirade that would make a drunken sailor blush. By the time they were done they had called into question the policemen's parentage, sexual orientation, behavior, ethics, genetics, habits and beliefs, all before having to take their first breath. Then they really started in on them, shouting increasingly purple invective at the policemen as they walked away. The cameraman was quite shaken up by the sheer intensity of the verbal assault. He commented to the policemen as they walked away, something to the effect of "why did they say such awful things to you?" The answer was memorable: "Everybody always talks to us like that". This is the direction we are heading in.
...and C) that a community of people, terrified that at any moment they may be arrested and imprisoned for no reason, may be cowed enough to finally show them the deference and trembling respect to which they would like to become accustomed.
| Gold is money, paper is but a promise. |
#17. To: Elliott Jackalope (#16)
Oh, believe me, I understand that. I have problems getting the old "deference and trembling respect" thing right myself. No...I think that if the LEOs in this country--not the chiefs, not the commissioners, but the grunts on the street--don't smarten up, the day is coming--and not all that far off--where there will be certain communities in which uniformed LEOs will be routinely shot on sight, as a public service to protect the populace, and nobody will help them find the shooters.
Funny you should mention that. That is how you would think things would work out. The reality is rather different.
#18. To: Barak (#17)
Which is why they need the ability to round up the entire neighborhood and torture them into snitching on the perp.
... there will be certain communities in which uniformed LEOs will be routinely shot on sight, as a public service to protect the populace, and nobody will help them find the shooters.
- This space intentionally left blank.
#19. To: Mr Nuke Buzzcut (#18)
No, I don't think they've thought that far. Imagine that you were an LEO. Can you come up with a law that would make you feel comfortable about going into a community where LEOs are shot on sight to round up witnesses? The corpses of you and your buddies would be stacked in the paddywagon, and a liberated police radio would be used to tell your superiors where to come pick you up. Somebody needs to think that far, and pretty soon, if we're going to avoid bloodshed.
Which is why they need the ability to round up the entire neighborhood and torture them into snitching on the perp.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest