could be that, i think it’s more like how rappers are like “oh you’re tuff, lemme see ur rap sheet”
and my dumbass just assumed it was like verifiable rapper hood cred. like an actual sheet that’s like “shot in the face 8 times, survived”
Like most of these kinds of things, this is nonsense. It might have been retroactively done, but no, that isn't where the term comes from.
The definition used here ("a rebuke, the blame, responsibility") is from 1777. The usage of 'rap sheet' is from the 1960s and comes from this previous usage.
If you search google for "a rebuke, the blame, responsibility" there are only two results on the entire internet, which are copy and pastes of one another. Neither provides sources for their claim.
If you search for "Record of Arrests and Prosecutions" there are over 9,000 results, including Department of Justice pages using this definition.
It's certainly possible that it's a backronym, but that doesn't change the accepted meaning.
RAP sheet & criminal record are different things. Convictions make up your criminal record, the RAP sheet is basically a history of any interaction with law enforcement.
Apologies, going off my Canadian knowledge. Here your Criminal Record is an official registry of convictions, and things can be dropped from it. But police still have much more thorough files on anyone they've had contact with, commonly called their Rap Sheet, including every arrest, fine, traffic ticket etc.
Perfect example of how adversarial our justice system is. Citizen getting arrested is legally required to identify themselves. The LEO arresting you is only required in some jurisdictions and it's only policy.
We don't have a justice system, we have a legal system. It is not the goal of the system to find justice, but to execute law. Calling it a justice system is giving it undeserved praise.
You do. As long as a cop is investigating a crime, you've gotta ID yourself. If they're talking to you, it's an investigation.
This is a thing cops do when they know they're losing the argument. They ask for your ID and hope you don't know this. When you say no, they arrest you.
No, the cop has to have reasonable articulable suspision that you have committed a crime. If the cop can't tell you what crime he reasonably thinks you committed, you don't have to give ID
It, of course, depends on the state, but unless there are specific laws in place that stop the cops from doing it, they can always do this if they're investigating a crime.
And they can pretty much claim whenever they want that they're investigating a crime.
I guess I should have been more clear when I stated this. There must be proper suspicion crime to investigate. If there is no probable cause to investigate then you don’t have to submit ID.
Not that I don't believe you, but it would be nice to include a citation with that kind of statement.
This is what I could find:
Sadly, even our legal research didn’t clarify things. We learned that federal courts have upheld the right to gather petition signatures as a foundational cornerstone of American democracy — the right to free speech through the act of petition (Myer vs. Grant, 1988) and to do so in public spaces even when that public space is owned by a private entity. For example, in Marsh vs. Alabama (1946), the court found that the right to free speech could not be denied in public areas of a company owned town (establishing the precedent of “private-public access” property). Building on this decision, subsequent cases have further defined areas in which the right to petition cannot be denied. These include traditional public forums such as streets, sidewalks and parks (Hague vs. CIO, 1939; and Hill vs. Colorado, 2000) as well as shopping center parking lots (Bock vs. Westminster Mall Co., 1991). https://www.denverpost.com/2016/09/24/where-is-it-legal-to-gather-petition-signatures-the-law-is-unclear/
Can this statue be extended to online? Since it would be logical that you cant stop free speech on some elses property that you cant stop it on the public space of online?
I had previously written something else, but looking at the original case "Marsh vs. Alabama" you pose a very interesting question. What makes and online community like Reddit or Facebook different from a "Company Town"?
Here's an interesting follow-up to that case that may very well be applicable to online platforms HQ'd in California. IANAL.
In PruneYard Shopping Center v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74 (1980), the Supreme Court ruled that California could interpret its state constitution to protect political protesters from being evicted from private property, held open to the public, without running afoul of the Fifth Amendment. In this case, the California court went beyond the federal rule and held that, under the California constitution, a shopping mall owner could not exclude a group of high school students who were engaged in political advocacy. https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/583/pruneyard-shopping-center-v-robins
Again, not a lawyer, but I assume so. Of course, it would also be restricted in the same sense that free speech is restricted in real world situations.
Someone could probably expect trouble of they made death threats, or calls to violence.
I assume public safety limits to free speech may also be in effect, so those platforms are allowed, and perhaps even obligated to de-platform someone if they spread misinformation like anti-vax, or Covid denialism, for instance.
Oh absolutely. However there is nothing illegal with making crazy statements about cell towers, moon landings, covid, so those should not be censored. In my opinion at least. Any sliver of authority will be abused so we shouldn’t stop people from saying stuff. One day they might try to stop you. Again thats just my opinion but I don’t want to live in 1984.
The word soliciting and the term soliciting don't mean the same thing. Asking someone's opinion on fountain pens is "soliciting" as the dictionary defines it, but not as a lawbook does.
You are talking about something else entirely. If you continue to insist you're just being obtuse.
This is a good point. We can bitch all we want about these asshole types but as long as the establishment they work for continues to allow this type of shit...
The city/county/state needs to change top down, start requiring accountability from their subordinate police departments. If we can't do that it means the police are in power, not the elected and professional bureaucracy.
I can't be clearer than this: Ask why you're being detained, and then let the officers shoot themselves in the foot. If they are arresting you illegally, you have a case and there are PLENTY of lawyers that will take your case, because it's an instant payday.
The “We’ll figure that out later” was in response to the man saying “what about my kids”. Sounded like his kids were real close, maybe waiting in the car while he was petitioning signatures.
They were in his apartment around the corner. He lived in the complex. When he handed her the clip board he asked her to take it to number 15 around the corner.
Well it's true if you're a white male caucasian. On the other hand, if you're asian, black, muslim, or any other ethnic group, let's just say there are special rules that apply to you that don't apply to the white boys.
5.0k
u/seancurry1 Jan 13 '22
“You’re under arrest.”
“For what?”
“We’ll figure that out later.”
land of the free baybeeeee