Jump to content

Dylan Busted!

Stackabones

By Stackabones
in Acoustic Guitars

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 205
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members
Ohioarrow Newbie

Ohioarrow

Posted
  • Members
Posted

I miss Bill of Rights
:cry:
He was my friend!


Let's dust off the peace signs and march again against...
:cop:
The man.

 

Hey totamus has the bus. :lol:

 

Dusting off a faded memory, I don't recall the 'cause' being so fun the first time around.

 

 

The sex, drugs, and rock-n-roll were good though...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Members
missedmyexit Newbie

missedmyexit

Posted
  • Members
Posted


I also reject utterly the suggestion that once the police were engaged, they had no choice but to do what they did. I've personally been warned/cautioned more than once on the road for minor traffic offenses that could have earned me a ticket, points, etc. The idea that the police have NO discretion to exercise, particularly when no one including the person who summoned the cops in the first place is suggesting that any kind of crime had been committed, is ludicrous. Of course they do. They did in this case, and personally I think they {censored}ed it up.


 

 

From what I read they asked Dylan for ID he said he didn't have any on him that it was at the hotel. They offered to drive him there and Dylan agreed. I don't see that as a "{censored} up". Someone reported a suspicious person they found said person and asked him for ID. All perfectly legal. He didn't have any so they offered to drive him to get it. That's fine too. Since, according to the article at least, Dylan didn't refuse we don't know how they would have reacted to Dylan saying no.

 

Again cops can ask you for ID, ask to drive you to your ID, ask you to incriminate yourself. It's up to you to protect your rights by refusing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Members
knockwood Newbie

knockwood

Posted
  • Members
Posted

 

From what I read they asked Dylan for ID he said he didn't have any on him that it was at the hotel. They offered to drive him there and Dylan agreed. I don't see that as a "{censored} up". Someone reported a suspicious person they found said person and asked him for ID. All perfectly legal. He didn't have any so they offered to drive him to get it. That's fine too. Since, according to the article at least, Dylan didn't refuse we don't know how they would have reacted to Dylan saying no.


Again cops can ask you for ID, ask to drive you to your ID, ask you to incriminate yourself. It's up to you to protect your rights by refusing.

 

 

I'm not arguing that Dylan was forced to do anything. It doesn't sound as if he was. I think the {censored}ups were multiple and not limited to the cops (although I do not include Bob Dylan among the folks who {censored}ed up). I don't think they should have asked him for identification in the first place. Aside from the fact that, AFAIK, carrying identification is not a legal requirement for pedestrians in NJ, WTF difference could his name possibly have made? When they did ask for ID and he didn't have it, I don't think that should have become an issue to pursue - if they thought he'd been behaving "suspiciously," would it have made a difference if his real name had been Fred Marmenfeusaleh rather than Bob Dylan? For me, Bob's compliance really doesn't mitigate the cops' actions at all.

 

I agree that we cannot assume how the cops would have reacted if he'd said no (making this assumption would be the same mistake the cops made in assuming Bob was up to no good and needed to be removed from the scene); it's just my opinion that he shouldn't have had anything to say no to.

 

Yes, the cops can ask you for ID, drive you about, etc. I just don't think can always translates to should. In this case, it did [for the cops] and I disagree with that course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Members
missedmyexit Newbie

missedmyexit

Posted
  • Members
Posted

 

and I disagree with that course.

 

 

I don't think we asking for ID simply to know his full name. ID has your name AND address and knowing if the man who is wandering around the area lives in the area might relieve suspicions. Plus they can run it through their system to see if you happen to have prior arrest or even outstanding warrants. I don't think the cops were out of line asking him for the ID. They can't ignore calls of this nature, for instance if they did and the guy ended up walking into a park and shooting 10 kids everyone would point at the call earlier and wonder why the police didn't talk to the guy.

 

As far as if they should ask for ID, our rights are there to protect us but take ALOT of leverage away from the police when it comes to preventing crimes. I don't think we should take the ability to ASK for whatever they think would make their job easier. Weather we give it is another story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Members
knockwood Newbie

knockwood

Posted
  • Members
Posted

I don't think we asking for ID simply to know his full name. ID has your name AND address and knowing if the man who is wandering around the area lives in the area might relieve suspicions. Plus they can run it through their system to see if you happen to have prior arrest or even outstanding warrants. I don't think the cops were out of line asking him for the ID. They can't ignore calls of this nature, for instance if they did and the guy ended up walking into a park and shooting 10 kids everyone would point at the call earlier and wonder why the police didn't talk to the guy.


As far as if they should ask for ID, our rights are there to protect us but take ALOT of leverage away from the police when it comes to preventing crimes. I don't think we should take the ability to ASK for whatever they think would make their job easier. Weather we give it is another story.

 

 

We're not going to agree here.

 

Name, address, whatever. My fundamental issue with what happened is that I don't think he should have been bothered at all. "Suspicious" is almost as subjective as the crazy bridge pin question. So they look at his ID and it says he lives in South Wales. Still doesn't make a bit of difference to me. And I don't think checking for warrants, criminal background, etc. on pedestrians who don't seem to be dressed quite right makes any sense at all.

 

This idea that the cops HAD to do something is false. Maybe the cops can't ignore a call altogether, but they have worlds of discretion in terms of how they choose to respond. ANYONE can walk into a park and harm children, regardless of preferred wardrobe. No one ever suggested in this case that any kind of crime had been committed. Our criminal laws are predicated on the principle of citizens being innocent until proven guilty, so I consider this kind of preemptive action to be not only invasive, but antithetical to our entire constitutional approach to justice.

 

I've lost count of the number of times I've heard of cases where people - chiefly women - have complained to the police of threats and been told that there is nothing they can do without some kind of proof, or unless the offending party actually tries something. And as much as this sucks, I actually agree with this - we can't go around arresting everyone on the basis of verbal claims alone. So an actual threat of bodily harm, which itself actually is a crime in many states, nada. But dress a bit wrong for the neighborhood you're strolling through, and this is behavior worthy of attention in order to prevent whatever random crime we want to imagine? I don't think so.

 

What I see in this case, net, is just that a guy was trying to take a walk and got hassled by the cops.

 

There is a reason why so many people, myself included, are untrusting of the police in this country. For me, it's continuous unnecessary bull{censored} like this case. For the second time, I'm not talking about removing a police officer's ability to ask for anything. All I'm saying is that - IMHO - they need to be much smarter about how and when they exercise that ability.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Members
rjoxyz Newbie

rjoxyz

Posted
  • Members
Posted

All I'm saying is that - IMHO - they need to be much smarter about how and when they exercise that ability.

 

 

There you go. In this case, it's a 68 year old man wandering around. Nothing wrong with asking him if he's ok, lost, etc. Maybe even tell him to move along and not peer into houses for sale. Could even cruise around the block and come back and make sure he's not trying to break in for a bottle of Geritol or a crack pipe.

 

I just see no legal justification for sticking him in the back of the car and driving around to prove who he is.

 

On the other hand, in this case it is Dylan. I suspect he may have intentionally laid on the odd eccentric persona pretty thick and found the whole thing entertaining. He was Andy Kaufman before Andy Kaufman was Andy Kaufman.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Members
DennisF6 Newbie

DennisF6

Posted
  • Members
Posted

 

I rarely lock my doors. Only when I am gone for more than 24 hours.


And, I bet for at least the next year and maybe a lifetime.....People who do lock their doors really don't need to. I don't care where you live.


Has your dog ever woke you at night due to someone rattleing your locked door.


Doubt it.


Paranoia drives security.


FREEDOM.....Richie Haven sings......FREEDOM>!!!!

 

 

I want to come live in your world!

 

Yes I have awakened, at 2am, to my door being rattled.

The door in question was my side entrance - you have to go thru a gate into my yard to get to it. It has a big window in it. I could see out and it was no one I knew. The guy could see in and he could see me coming toward him with my handgun pointed right at him. That dude could really RUN!

This was within the Seattle city limits, in a fairly "nice" part of town...

I didn't sleep very well for quite a while after than night.

 

I have also served on a jury where a woman was asleep in her apartment, door locked but window unlocked. She woke to a man pinning her down. He raped her then robbed her. (He also left fingerprints which were in the criminal database already.)

 

I could go on with other experiences from people I know directly. It's not just media hype trying to make us all paranoid.

 

I understand there are places where locking your doors is not necessary. Please understand there are also places where it absolutely IS necessary!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Members
rhancox Newbie

rhancox

Posted
  • Members
Posted

We're not going to agree here.


Name, address, whatever. My fundamental issue with what happened is that I don't think he should have been bothered at all. "Suspicious" is almost as subjective as the crazy bridge pin question. So they look at his ID and it says he lives in South Wales. Still doesn't make a bit of difference to me. And I don't think checking for warrants, criminal background, etc. on pedestrians who don't seem to be dressed quite right makes any sense at all.


This idea that the cops HAD to do something is false. Maybe the cops can't ignore a call altogether, but they have worlds of discretion in terms of how they choose to respond. ANYONE can walk into a park and harm children, regardless of preferred wardrobe. No one ever suggested in this case that any kind of crime had been committed. Our criminal laws are predicated on the principle of citizens being
innocent until proven guilty
, so I consider this kind of preemptive action to be not only invasive, but antithetical to our entire constitutional approach to justice.


I've lost count of the number of times I've heard of cases where people - chiefly women - have complained to the police of threats and been told that there is nothing they can do without some kind of proof, or unless the offending party actually tries something. And as much as this sucks, I actually agree with this - we can't go around arresting everyone on the basis of verbal claims alone. So an actual threat of bodily harm, which itself actually is a crime in many states, nada. But dress a bit wrong for the neighborhood you're strolling through, and this is behavior worthy of attention in order to prevent whatever random crime we want to imagine? I don't think so.


What I see in this case, net, is just that a guy was trying to take a walk and got hassled by the cops.


There is a reason why so many people, myself included, are untrusting of the police in this country. For me, it's continuous unnecessary bull{censored} like this case. For the second time, I'm not talking about removing a police officer's ability to
ask
for anything. All I'm saying is that - IMHO - they need to be much smarter about how and when they exercise that ability.

 

 

Well put. Even after all we've discussed, I would have to agree with all of this.

 

As a Monday morning QB, I would have just watched him instead of approaching him.

 

I believe the story said the officer knew of Bob Dylan. Since she didn't recognize him as Bob Dylan, she handled the situation with caution, maybe thinking this guy was confused more than dangerous. As Frets99 said, if that was my confused uncle Phil, I would have been grateful the police picked him up and drove him to where he could prove who he was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Members
missedmyexit Newbie

missedmyexit

Posted
  • Members
Posted

There you go. In this case, it's a 68 year old man wandering around. Nothing wrong with asking him if he's ok, lost, etc. Maybe even tell him to move along and not peer into houses for sale. Could even cruise around the block and come back and make sure he's not trying to break in for a bottle of Geritol or a crack pipe.


I just see no legal justification for sticking him in the back of the car and driving around to prove who he is.


On the other hand, in this case it is Dylan. I suspect he may have intentionally laid on the odd eccentric persona pretty thick and found the whole thing entertaining. He was Andy Kaufman before Andy Kaufman was Andy Kaufman.

 

 

I can agree with this. Hell maybe the cops thought he was an escaped Crazy Dylan sometimes acts a little out of sorts. The fact that he had no idea where he was or where his and saying he's a Folk hero playing in the stadium tonight might have got the cops thinking he's a victim of demensia.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Frets99 Newbie

Frets99

Posted
Posted

"Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither" - Benjamin Franklin


The "Old folks in the Bronx" shouldn't have to give up their civil rights to walk to the store safely. We are the riches Country in the world less bail outs and more money for cops in bad areas would go a long way to fix the issue.

 

 

Anyway you look at it. Whether you have more cops on the street. Cameras on street corners, whatever. Excessive crime cannot be managed without some loss to liberty and privacy.

 

Ol Ben, needed to live in the Bed Stuy I grew up in for awhile and I think he would have given a more measured and reasoned quote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Members
missedmyexit Newbie

missedmyexit

Posted
  • Members
Posted

 

Anyway you look at it. Whether you have more cops on the street. Cameras on street corners, whatever. Excessive crime cannot be managed without some loss to liberty and privacy.


Ol Ben, needed to live in the Bed Stuy I grew up in for awhile and I think he would have given a more measured and reasoned quote.

 

 

This is true but I tend to think of it more in the Liberties represented in the Bill of Rights. Is there a right to privacy in public places? I don't know so I am not sure cameras apply. As for more police on the street, I don't see more police being a loss of liberty as long as the police follow the proper rules. I don't think it was intended as a absolute as mentioned in an previous text, I don't think we should have the right to carry bazooka's down main street.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...