PatsFanInVa

Should our various police forces be able to stop you, not charge or fine you, yet retain your personal information (for example, name and address,) "just in case they need it"?

It would seem to make law enforcement's job easier. It could be used to keep track of mouthy drunks that get out of control outside bars, gun nuts, mouthy gun nuts, teabaggers... and it could be used for followup on those cases where you just can't make a case against a guy, but your cop gut says he's got something to do with something bad. Of course - - gun nuts are more capable than the rest of us of committing a variety of gun-related crimes. So retaining those names if they're stopped on the street might not be a bad idea.

So what say you - should police be able to retain names for future use, even if they don't charge you or fine you? That is to say, even though you've done nothing wrong under the law?

PFnV

DarrylS

The "easy way" is not always the best way...

The constitution is not the "easy way"...

Pretty confident that our founding fathers would not want the "easy way"..

My vote is not to allow it to happen, perhaps your question would be better framed in a context of an event...

__________________
"Being the best doesn't mean you always win. It just means you win more than anyone else".. tweet from Kurt Warner to Tom Brady.

PatsFanInVa

Well, I guess I just gave an event context.

Let's say there's a big open-carry rally in Virginia. Somebody gets hurt, or gets a wallet lifted, or whatever. I'm a Virginia cop and I'm questioning someone I think might be the perp. Maybe he's being obnoxious too - but the key is, he breaks no specific law. I get his name etc., and enter it into a PDA. They send it back to the precinct.

Turns out he's never tried for any crime, he doesn't even get a ticket, because there's no law I can prove he broke.

So we have his name, we send it back to the precinct, and we can keep it around or trash it.

Should the cops have to purge that name, or should we collect a database of people we at one point thought might have done something?

PFnV

PatsFanInMaine

It has to be kept in a data base in case the person later files a complaint against the officer.

chicowalker

I don't particularly trust cops, but i think I'm ok with this, as long as the initial interaction with the police is legit. No strong opinion yet, though. Is this an issue someplace right now?

DarrylS

Do not agree with that one.. data bases for non crimes frighten me, the same can be accomplished with a simple police report listing witnesses..

__________________
"Being the best doesn't mean you always win. It just means you win more than anyone else".. tweet from Kurt Warner to Tom Brady.

Real World

You've got to love how the person who's always calling for civilized discussion, starts a pointless thread where he uses terms like "gun nuts, mouthy gun nuts, teabaggers..." without provocation.

The police can't just walk up to you and ask for your info. There has to be some form of probable cause. If a person next to you gets pick pocketed, then I'd venture to guess that the cop could then question anyone that was at the scene, that he suspects could be a possible culprit.

Also, your point that "Of course - - gun nuts are more capable than the rest of us of committing a variety of gun-related crimes.", how so, and what constitutes a gun nut? Is it your local gang banger from down the street, as well your neighbor Bob, who is a licensed owner? Are you including both legal, and illegal owners in your blanket stereotype?

Wow, Germany is totally embarrasing Argentina right now. Take that Diego! Next time (Please be quiet - edited) about other teams being lucky, when your team is the beneficiary of a horrid offsides call against Mexico.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


"The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him."
Leo Tolstoy, 1897

PatsFanInVa

We're not talking about whether they should be questioned. We're talking about whether police should maintain the names of non-suspects in a database.

One theory propounded here is that yes, they should do so, to defend themselves from later charges by people who have been questioned.

Should that be forever?

I personally agree with Darryl - maintaining standing databases of the personal information of people who've committed no crime is a bad thing.

As to the term "teabagger," it's a self-descriptive phrase coined by teabaggers and used in their press materials. Nor do I believe it to rise to the level of "Russian spies, I mean liberals" or "liberal loons" or the like so commonly traded around hereabouts. When in Rome, and all that.

I had a whole screed about the gun nuts too, but screw it, I don't want to get sidetracked.

I'm just looking for the answer to that question: if I'm a cop and I want to keep their names around because of a crime they have nothing to do with, should I be able to?

scott c

Are we comparing legal Americans to illegal immigrants being harrassed? I guess we could, as well as all liberal gunhating and some would say communist posters on certain message boards,sure,keep records..... I hate it when people I know are very educated say stupid things......oh well..

Nikolai

Bad idea. Keeping names of non-suspects in a database is a counterinsurgency tactic, not something for our police to be doing.

Damn you! I recorded the game and tried to stay away from anything WC-related. It happened for the England-Germany game too. For all the people who say that the US doesn't like the WC, it's hard trying to avoid news about it, even when you're putting forth a modest effort.

__________________
We get what we deserve.

------------------
“On a day when they could have had impact players David Terrell or Koren Robinson..they took Georgia defensive tackle Richard Seymour, who had 1 sacks last season in the pass-happy SEC and is too tall to play tackle at 6-6 and too slow to play defensive end. This genius move was followed by trading out of a spot where they could have gotten the last decent receiver in Robert Ferguson and settled for tackle Matt Light, who will not help any time soon.”