How they treat a soldier....BIGTIME BS!

[Guest USMarine7564]

I find it interesting that the Officer's name was Johnson. Was it really, or an appropriately generated name for the story?

[Guest southernstriker0311]

I know that we only have one side of this story and all of my replies are based on the assumption that the soldiers story in the OP is accurate and includes all pertinent details. If this is the case, and I will admit that it is a big if, then the officers clearly broke the law when they charged the soldier with trespassing. And yes, I do think that they should be terminated and the soldier should receive some sort of settlement for his aggravation. Maybe a few thousand dollars. I also don't believe that the officers found a crime that they thought fit. I believe they found a crime that they thought they might be able to MAKE fit.

If the soldier had shown the officers his ID right from the start then none of this may have ever happened. But that isn't really the point. The point is that he had absolutely no legal obligation to produce ID. This, perhaps understandably, made the officers angry. But that still doesn't give them any right to violate a persons civil rights or to break the law. I've been angry before, but, as far as I know, my anger didn't afford me any expansion of my rights or allow me to violate the rights of others.

The police didn't cause this soldier more aggravation because they were wrong. That aggravation started as soon as he was arrested, regardless of whether or not it was right or wrong.

Regardless of whether or not it was right or wrong? So even if the officers were right they would still need to compensate this guy? Are you serious right now?

[Mike.357]

seems to be a lot of this going on now, thread revival I mean.

While maybe he did not need to show ID, I can't help but think showing his ID might have helped him avoid a ride to jail.

I dunno, if I am doing nothing wrong and just a hint of cooperation lets me go home without a ride in the cruiser, I am showing the ID. But thats just me.

[Guest xd40guy]

Wow, that was interesting. Good job keeping your cool!

[USMCJG]

Regardless of whether or not it was right or wrong? So even if the officers were right they would still need to compensate this guy? Are you serious right now?

I believe you may have taken this statement out of context. Of course the officers shouldn't have to compensate anyone if they were right. But we know that they weren't right, as the officers involved were reprimanded by the judge and the case was immediately thrown out. What I meant by that statement was that the reason the military was so hard on this soldier, in spite of the fact that he was unlawfully arrested on trumped up charges, was because he was charged in the first place. SWJewell said what I meant better than I did-

Having also been in the Marine Corps I know they have ways to punish people without making it official, and there is absolutely no hearing or trial in the process, but it can definitely ruin a career. They don't care what the truth is; they only care about their appearances.

PS- Welcome to TGO.

[Guest Glocked-N-Loaded]

Now I've been out of L.E. for a couple of years and I'm not familiar with the laws in NC but I do believe if the officers are called out to the location then they are at that time in an investigatory manner and thus fully within their rights to require identification to identify the subject in question. Also, when asked if he was being detained the correct response would have been yes he was as the officers were called to the scene, were in an investigatory state, thus he was not free to leave. To answer the OP question as to his rights being read to him, once under arrest they did not ask him any questions which would have incriminated himself, therefore they are not required to read him his rights.

If the OP would have simply provided his ID and offered to place his firearm in his vehicle he likely would have avoided this incident and could have followed up the next business day with either the agency officials or his attorney. Arguing with the LEO is never the best course of action as the LEO is likely to not back down from his position, deal with him thru the appropriate channels if you feel your rights have been violated. The likely charge should have been disorderly conduct and not trespassing had there even been cause to do so.

Edited March 29, 2010 by Glocked-N-Loaded