Do I need to be co-operative when stopped by a law enforcement officer? This question asks how you should respond to a police stop, and one of the answers sited what I believe is common wisdom, ie "be co-operative". This got me thinking - what are the advantages of being co-operative, rather then being non-responsive except to the extent you are obliged to be - ie simply not answering any questions you are asked (without explaining why), while still following lawful instructions (eg handing over your papers when asked, getting out of the car if instructed etc) ?
The advantages are: police officers, like all enforcement officers, have discretion on how they treat what they perceive to be transgressions of the law they enforce. If you are cooperative and helpful they may exercise that discretion to your benefit, if you are obstructive and difficult they may exercise it to your detriment: this may be the difference between a warning, a ticket and an arrest. one of the things that judges are allowed to take into consideration when sentencing is remorse. While the linked podcast indicates that this is not an easy thing to objectively define, it includes accepting that what you did was wrong and mitigating the harm that was done which would include cooperating with law enforcement. The disadvantages are: you may reveal information that is not known to the officer. This may or may not be admissible evidence but, notwithstanding, it may serve as a basis for further investigations which can discover things you would rather the police officer did not discover. For example Officer: "Do you know why I stopped you?" You: "I assume because of the dead body I have in the boot."
In short, no, that cant be a pardon for those police officers who would be now influenced to take more violent actions towards those they detain. Pardons are only applicable to past actions. You may be pardoned before charges are filed, but the actions must have already occured. Though I less certain about this, simply because Ive never heard such a thing proposed, I would also note that it is highly improbable that the actual statement he made - generic and during a speech - could everbe interpreted as an affirmative act intending to grant pardons to anyone who may act in that manner in the future.
Police officer failing to act is specifically protected by Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005)? Almost every general rule of law has exceptions. In particular, there are exceptions to the general rule that there is not a legal duty to take action to enforce a law. Law enforcement officers have a duty to guard the physical health and safety of someone in their custody. When they are acting as a team, this duty is owed by all of them. Law enforcement officers are responsible for crimes that they commit. An &quot;aiding and abetting&quot; charge implies that the jury must find that the officers present were intentionally working together as a team to commit a crime, rather than acting as individual. In the same vein, you can be liable for conspiracy or felony murder by serving as a look out for a murderer, even if you don't actually pull the trigger. These officers actively prevented third-parties from intervening or creating a credible threat that they would intervene if a bystander stepped in to help Floyd and as part of the same patrol owe duties with respect to each other's conduct that unrelated third-parties dod not.
No For the same reason that requiring a licence to drive might, in some circumstances, result in harm to a person who cannot drive because they don’t have a licence. The city (or any government) has legislative immunity for the laws they put in place even if those laws have negative consequences to some people. All laws have negative consequences to some people, for example, laws against theft are extremely prejudicial to thieves. Similarly, the executive is immune for exercising their discretion in the enforcement of the law. This is the basis of the police not having a general duty to protect. However, police have a specific duty to protect when they have taken an individual into their care and control.
What is the correct way to handle this situation? Strictly speaking, each driver exceeding the speed limit is in violation of the traffic sign even if everybody else also infringes it. Thus it is completely valid for the police to pull &amp; fine anyone from among those drivers. Statutes like the one you mention are intended for scenarios where a driver departs significantly --and for no apparent [lawful] reason-- from the speed limit, such as driving at 20 mph in a 55 mph zone. Typically a driver would not get pulled over in the scenario you mention (driving at 62 mph where everybody else drives at 65 mph). The exception would be some police department(s) requiring its cops to meet a quota of fines per week, but that would be quite a questionable practice having nothing to do with the legislative intent. Speed limits are supposed to represent normal and reasonable movement of traffic. If informed consensus is that a particular speed limit is inconsistent with that principle (for instance, where limit is artificially low and raising it would not compromise safety), then a request could be submitted to the Oregon Department of Transportation.
No If the police want to arrest you your legal obligation is to submit and, if the arrest was a violation of your rights, pursue a legal remedy afterwards. You do not have a right to resist an arrest even if that arrest is without legal basis. "Resisting arrest" is a specific crime with a specific definition. For example, in new-south-wales it is in s546c of the Crimes Act 1900 and it says: Any person who resists or hinders or incites any person to assault, resist or hinder a police officer in the execution of his or her duty shall be liable on conviction before the Local Court to imprisonment for 12 months or to a fine of 10 penalty units, or both. If you are charged with resisting arrest the state needs to prove each element of that crime beyond a reasonable doubt. If they can't do that the charge will be dismissed. If they can prove it then you may have a defence to resisting arrest if: you did not know that the person was a police officer or you did not know that you were being arrested if the police officer was not acting lawfully. However, a police officer will be acting lawfully even if the arrest is subsequently found to be unlawful provided they are acting in good faith and without malice. Suspecting you of committing a crime even if you didn’t makes it lawful to arrest you.
You have an agreement with the store that allows you to use scan and go technology. Part of that agreement a bit that says we may ask you to help us confirm that the service is working effectively by allowing us to check your goods against the scanner or to re-scan your shopping They also say that they are entitled to withdraw your right to use the Scan and Go service at any time if you do not comply with these Terms and Conditions. If we do that, the legal agreement created between ASDA and you under these Terms and Conditions will come to an end immediately, although any relevant statutory rights that you may have will not be affected. More generally, ASDA reserves the right to withdraw the Scan and Go Service at any time, at its sole discretion You have implicitly consented to a brief stop for a rescan. I don't see any implication that they assert a right to search your person. You can refuse a re-scan and they can process you like an ordinary customer. As for shoplifting, as this article summarizes, security can make a citizen's arrest if they suspect that you have committed a crime (theft). They have to have reasonable grounds for thinking that an arrest is necessary to prevent the loss. Hence they can detain you until the constable arrives.
In principle, police are liable for the safety of anyone they detain. If an officer creates a hazardous condition, as was described in this scenario, he or his agency (which effectively means the taxpayers who fund his agency) can be held liable for damages resulting from that action. (Whether it is the officer or instead the taxpayers who get stuck with the bill is a separate question of "qualified immunity.") This idea has been formalized under two theories: The "special relationship doctrine" would apply in this case because the officer was detaining the driver. Otherwise, the liability could be argued under the more broad "state-created danger doctrine."