0
JohnRich

Bug Collector Handcuffed in Woods

Recommended Posts

In the news:

Handcuffed in the Woods for the Crime of Beetlemania

"One minute he was alone in the woods, collecting beetles in glass jars, and then he saw police cars with lights flashing and officers running toward him yelling, 'Come out of there.' Baffled, he said the only thing that came into his mind: 'Me?'

"Next came visceral fear. Officers pointed guns at his head from a few feet away and barked at him to take off his coat, throw it on the ground and lie face down on his belly. Then they slapped the handcuffs on.

"'My name is Harry Zirlin,' he said, though no one had asked. 'I am collecting beetles.'

"'Do you have a knife?' an officer demanded.

"'Absolutely, I have a knife,' he responded. 'I use it for prying bark off dead logs.'

"Despite a call to the police that a man had been spotted in the woods with a knife, Harry Zirlin was not an armed menace..."

Full Story

If you get a screen requiring registration when accessing the above link, use the following:
Member ID: dz.com
Password: dz.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And good on him for contunuing to fight for his point. Many would have given up long ago as there is probably no "carrot" at the end of this one. It's the principle of the thing.....
----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sigh - This is probably going to wind up in the Speakers corner.

From the Report...
Quote


In one sense, that was the whole story. The police soon removed the handcuffs and apologized for inconveniencing him.



Okay, lets take a step back and look at the whole thing. Somebody sees a guy wandering around the woods with a knife. They call the police concerned (as they probably should!), police arrest this person thinking they are dangerous, soon realize their mistake, apologize, and let the man go.
The Police were doing their job. No harm was done, and an apology was issued. He probably returned to collecting his beetles in a matter of minutes.
Why did he even sue in the first place?!?!?

Edited to add...............................................

Alright, maybe my comment "As they probably should" might stirr up some upsetness. Let me Explain - This report was very vague in a number of things. Location of the woods may play a part. Please, take this with a grain of salt..
=========Shaun ==========


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Umm, carrying a knife in the woods is not illegal. Now, if he was dragging a garbage bag about six feet long and dripping blood, i could understand

or maybe if he had somebody with him who was blindfolded.

or maybe even if he tried running from the cops.

but he wasn't doing anything. he happened to have a knife in the woods. I know that when I go in the woods I generally have a knife with me.

They could have simply approached him. If he really was a criminal he would have reacted in a noticeable way upon seeing the cops. You don't go around arresting anybody because they're carrying something which, may, under certaing circumstances, be considered a weapon.
This ad space for sale.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

ou don't go around arresting anybody because they're carrying something which, may, under certaing circumstances, be considered a weapon.



Good point. The police screwed up. But all I don't understand is why he is sueing and pursuing something in which no damage was done, and an apology was issued at the scene...
=========Shaun ==========


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Because by placing him in handcuffs the police took away his freedom and in effect "arrested" him, they had no probable cause to affect anything more than a consential encounter or at best a "terry stop" see (Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 1968) . His civil rights were violated, and for that, he has the right to sue. Far too many people have their rights violated by over aggressive law enforcement because they are not aware of their rights. Personally, I feel the officers in this situation were overly aggressive and were out of line. Its not unreasonable to be walking through the woods carrying a knife.

my .02

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

but he wasn't doing anything. he happened to have a knife in the woods. I know that when I go in the woods I generally have a knife with me.



Hell, I have a knife on my right now. Please don't call the police.



That's just messed up. I carry a knife on me all the time. It's a boot knife I carry in my back pocket. It's clipped in place. I even go in bars and restraunts with it. Never once have I had a problem with it. Guess I need to stay out of the woods & collecting beetles.



"Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
***Okay, lets take a step back and look at the whole thing. Somebody sees a guy wandering around the woods with a knife

I'm not worried.......I pack a 45 auto when I go backwoods;)hell if your not packing backwoods in Colo..........you must be a "Californian":P
Marc SCR 6046 SCS 3004


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Umm, carrying a knife in the woods is not illegal. Now, if he was dragging a garbage bag about six feet long and dripping blood, i could understand

or maybe if he had somebody with him who was blindfolded.

or maybe even if he tried running from the cops.

but he wasn't doing anything. he happened to have a knife in the woods. I know that when I go in the woods I generally have a knife with me.

They could have simply approached him. If he really was a criminal he would have reacted in a noticeable way upon seeing the cops. You don't go around arresting anybody because they're carrying something which, may, under certaing circumstances, be considered a weapon.



Perfect example - My X wife owns a car - and she goes out in public with it. They don't arrest her!:|
I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

ou don't go around arresting anybody because they're carrying something which, may, under certaing circumstances, be considered a weapon.



Good point. The police screwed up. But all I don't understand is why he is sueing and pursuing something in which no damage was done, and an apology was issued at the scene...



If there are no negative consequences, then they will be encouraged to do it again and again and violate everyone's civil rights.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
YOU know maybe the cops did overreact and shouldd have been a bit less zealous... but at the same time, i think that our beetle collector seems a bit too overzealous in "fulfilling his obligation as an American citizen" in suing...

I find the mere fact that he thinks he has an obligation to sue a bit disconcerting... our court systemse are way too clogged with people suing for all their pain and suffering. I mean, didn't he feel that he got some response after his 12 page letter??

"I'd feel I wasn't fulfilling my obligation as an American citizen if I didn't,'' he finally said. "I've got an obligation to do this."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

YOU know maybe the cops did overreact and shouldd have been a bit less zealous... but at the same time, i think that our beetle collector seems a bit too overzealous in "fulfilling his obligation as an American citizen" in suing...

I find the mere fact that he thinks he has an obligation to sue a bit disconcerting... our court systemse are way too clogged with people suing for all their pain and suffering. I mean, didn't he feel that he got some response after his 12 page letter??

"I'd feel I wasn't fulfilling my obligation as an American citizen if I didn't,'' he finally said. "I've got an obligation to do this."



12 pages of boilerplate cut and pasted into a letter is not a serious deterrent.

We already confer great powers of coercion and intrusion on the police. The least they can do in return is work within the bounds of the legitimate power they have.

Allowing "the authorities" to get away with violating civil rights is the first step towards a dictatorship. I hope he wins his case.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

ou don't go around arresting anybody because they're carrying something which, may, under certaing circumstances, be considered a weapon.



Good point. The police screwed up. But all I don't understand is why he is sueing and pursuing something in which no damage was done, and an apology was issued at the scene...



If there are no negative consequences, then they will be encouraged to do it again and again and violate everyone's civil rights.



Not to mention this guy was put at risk with loaded guns being pointed at him.

One thing I failed to mention in my thread the other day about Philly on COPS was that they arrested 2 men, suspected of armed robbery, without drawing their guns. I know a couple of Philly cops who have NEVER drawn their weapons. On the next episode after that in Memphis, the cops had 3 guns pointed at the driver of a car that had no plates and they suspected might be stolen.

Watch this scary shit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I find the mere fact that he thinks he has an obligation to sue a bit disconcerting... our court systemse are way too clogged with people suing for all their pain and suffering. I mean, didn't he feel that he got some response after his 12 page letter??



Uh, no.... After all, their response was that they had handled everything by the book and done nothing wrong. That would indicate they had no remorse or any incentive to change. The facts as he states them are correct, if you are over 16 years of age, carrying a knife in NY is no more illegal than wearing a hat. And there was no indication of any crime that had been committed.

How many of us know of someone who's called the cops and asked for help, only to be told they can do nothing because there hasn't been a crime committed ?

A simple polit question or two would've sufficed. I hope he wins a huge judgement and wipes out their discretionary doughnut budget.

Your humble servant.....Professor Gravity !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Not to mention this guy was put at risk with loaded guns being pointed at him.



which kinda ties into my comments and thoughts about gun problems - and the problems with society that it is OK to shoot him if he 'threatened' them.

All he probably had to do was to perhaps not speak good english - then misunderstand what they were tellling him to do, wave the knife a couple times trying to explain what HE is trying to do (in his native tongue) and get his ass shot off.

Absolutely no reason to have guns drawn in this incident. And good example of how paranoid i think America is about things like that.

We blame the cops, but could easily see some of my local neighbors doing exactly the same thing with someone in a field next to their homes.

TK

TK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

We blame the cops, but could easily see some of my local neighbors doing exactly the same thing with someone in a field next to their homes.



And they would have been just as wrong. Please provide some statistical evidence of the problem of people being mistaken for criminals and being shot by accident?

Was what the cops did wrong? Yes. Is that a justification for changing gun laws? No. Once again, you're resorting to anecdotal evidence to support your claims of "gun problems".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So you're taking an example of inappropriate police action (one could call it abuse), adding a hypothetical complication, defining "threat" in an overly broad sense, replacing the officer with a citizen, and telling us your example should influence the gun rights/gun control debate?

Dude, who are you kidding?
witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

We blame the cops, but could easily see some of my local neighbors doing exactly the same thing with someone in a field next to their homes.



And they would have been just as wrong. Please provide some statistical evidence of the problem of people being mistaken for criminals and being shot by accident?

Was what the cops did wrong? Yes. Is that a justification for changing gun laws? No. Once again, you're resorting to anecdotal evidence to support your claims of "gun problems".



Why does it have to be statistical? One case is one too many, just like executing an innocent person.

Google on Amadou Diallo for a good example.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Why does it have to be statistical? One case is one too many, just like executing an innocent person.



So does that mean on cop shooting the wrong person is reason to take guns away from all cops?

After all, one case is too many :S

Kids drown in bathtubs all the time. And since one case it too many, maybe we should require timers on bath drains. Or maybe we should pass a law requiring someone else always be in the room, until age 18, and require built in video surveillance to ensure compliance. We can't forget: one case is too many.

Is that a fair illustration of how ridiculous you sound, or should I go on?
witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

So does that mean on cop shooting the wrong person is reason to take guns away from all cops?



you seem to continuing to take what people say and twist it into something else - but at least you asked it as a question.

No one in this thread suggested that guns be taken away from cops because they make a mistake.

but 'one is too many' is a worthwhile ideology when dealing with unnecessary death.

As far as technology goes for bathtub drownings, what you suggest we implement would cost a fortune. But someday, and maybe soon, some bright kid comes up with a $0.25 technology solution. And then it would not be 'ridiculous' as you put it.

So when you say someone sounds ridiculous, you pretty much try to discredit the entire arguement, when I can easily see simple solutions in the near future to help prevent bathtub drownings.

We put microprocessors in toasters so they do not catch fire. 30 years ago that same solution was cost prohibitive and would have been ridiculous. But in fact the idea itself was not ridiculous.

Maybe some people are just being narrow minded - how about that?
TK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Why does it have to be statistical? One case is one too many, just like executing an innocent person.



So does that mean on cop shooting the wrong person is reason to take guns away from all cops?

After all, one case is too many :S

Kids drown in bathtubs all the time. And since one case it too many, maybe we should require timers on bath drains. Or maybe we should pass a law requiring someone else always be in the room, until age 18, and require built in video surveillance to ensure compliance. We can't forget: one case is too many.

Is that a fair illustration of how ridiculous you sound, or should I go on?



Are you saying that executing innocent people doesn't bother you? That your right to have fun with a gun outweighs someone else's right to live?
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Are you saying that executing innocent people doesn't bother you? That your right to have fun with a gun outweighs someone else's right to live?



Are you saying that innocent people drowing doesn't bother you? That your right to have fun with a backyard pool outweighs someone else's right to live?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think anyone on here has argued against guns being safer. Provided that their functionality in a life and death situation is not compromised. If you come up with a 25 cent solution that elliminates the possibility for accidental deaths without reducing the functionality of a gun, I'll be the first to lobby for it being required on all guns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0