How to evade or profit from every legal arrest....

[iamani]

Hi dreadlock

i take it you liked that one?

"Did you say Sweeney Todd? Thank you Constable Sweeney Todd, i hereby acknowledge and accept your oath and, as a man, expect you to honour it accordingly. By god and under god we now have contract...."

At this point i believe i have jurisdiction, but i'm having too much fun to stop. So lets take it a step or two further, shall we?

"What that means Constable Sweety is that we have both agreed to be bound under common-law jurisdiction in our dealings today. That said, i am happy to comply with any lawful requests you may have as long as we both remain under that jurisdiction. Now, as to the details you require - am i obliged to furnish you with any personal details?"

Cheers!

[Dreadlock]

Well if nothing else comes out of this at least it has made me read police stop and search powers

"No Mr James you do not have to - unless I decide to charge you with an offence. I do however suspect you of being involved in criminal activity and being in possesion of stolen goods. I am going to search you and a record of the search will be available to you at the Barber Hill station tomorrow. Now stand still while I frisk you."

[iamani]

Hi dreadlock

"Have you forgotten your oath already - and who is Mr James? Do i really have to tell you your job? Firstly even if you do attempt to charge me with an offence you'll find i STILL don't have to share any personal details with you - or anybody else!. Secondly you only have the power to search me without consent after you have arrested me, which you are empowered to do if you have witnessed me break the Law. You also have that power if you suspect me of having broken the Law, but if you do that and your suspicion proves groundless you leave yourself open to lawful and legal action and render your property liable to seizure. Believe me, i will be quite vindictive on my vindication - we're talking dismissal, financial penalty and jail time. You have testified on record that you are acting as a constable under oath. The exercising of any 'police powers' at this time would be fraudulent representation of office, as i do not consent to even talking to a police officer let alone to be searched by one.

So, Constable - am i under arrest?"

Cheers!

[Dreadlock]

"No you are not under arrest but I have a duty and authority to search you. Now stand with your feet slightly apart and your arms out to the sides. NOW!"

[iamani]

Hi dreadlock

NOW then! Things are gettin' kinda real 'round here...

This is the kind of ignorant law-breaking that we see or experience all too often from Sir Francis Bacon's best.

Now Todd has made his decision to escalate the situation there is only one gambit left to attempt evasion of 'legal' arrest - and it's not offering to service an 'order' (at this point)! No, after that it's all about profit and gain.....

"i'm not under arrest? Well Sweety, you're about to make the biggest decision of your life. You see you're on record as having no jurisdiction, no joinder, no consent, no honour and so no authority, and you've just confirmed i'm not under arrest. i'm leaving, goodbye!"

.....and walks.

Remember at this point - just as where there's muck there's brass, where there's ignorance there's cash!

Cheers!

[Dreadlock]

"Zzzztttttcrackle" as a taser hits John James in the back.

The morale of the story is: don't argue with cops - they're too stupid/ignorant (mostly) and they're just gonna do what they've been told to do.

[iamani]

Hi dreadlock

"C-c-c-C#NT!-AAARGH!-stable i-I-I-I AAAam now-OW-OW-OW placing you-HOO-HOO un-UN-UNder AAARGH!-rest!"

Was that a cop-out? It will be when john-james is done with Sweety Todd.

What happened dreadlock, did you get bored? i was planning tactics for the lot...

i thought we were doing a role play rather than moralising, but never mind. I found the exchange stimulating and useful (no, i don't get out much...).

You don't really advocate surrender when dealing with the policy boys, do you? Assume the name and take the blame? Wouldn't that make us (coming from knowledge as we do) even more ignorant than they are?

i know it's possible to be tasered today by a know-nothing ego-ridden bullied-at-school, uniformed psycho but really - on live-streaming video? But if it did happen according to this scenario then i'd be counting my lucky stars even as i soiled myself that such a pay-day had come my way. We're talking lottery win here!



At this point it no longer matters that there is a 'prohibited' substance in my bag. The only possible slight vindication for Todd's actions would be if they found stolen property in there. We know they won't, so i'm thinking 'Sweety' is going to jail. The half ounce is not a crime under common-law and as he couldn't flip the jurisdiction into admiralty/policy business there is no offence committed under legislation. Do feel free to tell me where i'm wrong, constructive criticism is always helpful and welcomed.

How many indictable crimes and legal offences were committed here - and by whom? john-james not only stayed within the Law at all times he also stayed within legislation, and if he really has rendered unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar's (as i propose in 'De-registering car nonsense' thread) then you could be talking (theoretically) millions in compensation.

....and that's how to evade or profit from any 'legal' arrest, thank you for playing and thanks to the viewers at home. Please don't try this at home unless you prefer to think of yourself as a man rather than a human male/'person'.

...not legal advice blah blah 'fun' blah blah...

Cheers!

[Dreadlock]

John James walked away from a cop who thought he had the right to stop and search and in most circumstances WOULD have had that right - as explained below.
In court he'd say "I thought John was reaching for a weapon as he turned so I tasered him - I was in immediate fear for my life...". Justification for tasering.

It was a role play but that doesn't mean it can't contain a morale. Do you think it's worth risking concussion, possible brain damage from head injury and possible heart failure and even death from being tasered? Well I certainly don't - not just to win a dispute with a stupid copper.

You don't really advocate surrender when dealing with the policy boys, do you?

Absolutely not. I advocate choosing your battle ground carefully and living to fight another day... The middle of the street with a pissed off gorilla wielding a taser isn't what I would deem an advantageous position to be in.

I thought John was doing well until he became awkward about the stop and search. In that situation I would allow the search and in scenario 1 I would probably walk away aferwards and in scenario 2 I would be arrested. That's fine, I'd fight it in court with my health intact!

Instead of using the taser I was going to go with an attempted arrest for, "obstructing a police officer in the execution of his duty" , but I wanted to illustrate the worst possible outcome of being a smart-ass with a uniformed useful idiot.

john-james not only stayed within the Law at all times he also stayed within legislation,...

No he broke legislation when he attempted to thwart the stop and search. (Obstructing a Police Officer - section 89(2) Police Act 1996)

Do feel free to tell me where i'm wrong, constructive criticism is always helpful and welcomed.

This is where you are potentially wrong and we can't say either way because the issue was not addressed before hand. The issue is: has John James resigned his postion with the UK/Crown corporation prior to the incident?
If the answer is no, which would probably be the case in 99.999999% of the cases (that's an educated guess) then John James IS Mr John James whether he knows it or not or admits it or not. In this case John is screwed and was tasered with no hope of winning in a crown court.

If John had already resigned then he is in a much stronger position - assuming the taser didn't kill him!

[iamani]

Hi dreadlock

Thanks for the constructive criticism i certainly learned something from it. i in turn hope you get something from my re-buttall... you do seem to have missed some important subtleties, and if YOU missed them then i'm sure others have - so thank you for presenting me with an opportunity to clarify.

You are quite right - in MOST circumstances people roll over and offer ready joinder/consent with the ('agent') name, and on such occasion he WOULD have that right - but not in THESE circumstances in THIS scenario.

No joinder = no authority (outside of common-law).

If he should say that he thought i was reaching for a weapon, what he might as well be saying is "i thought he grew an extra arm so i tasered him" because the video evidence will show throughout that i had the latest Samsung equaliser in one hand and a bag in the other, and at no point so much as raised my voice to or even swore at him.

Hey, if you want to include a moral, feel free i've no objection. i just pointed out it wasn't an agreed goal. To be fair, if i'd known the end result of the scenario was going to be a moral stating (pretty much) 'don't argue with the police' - an ethos completely opposite to my stated ends in this thread - i would have politely declined to play. i am glad i did play though. It was fun.

Isn't our whole thing about losing the 'fear' through knowledge? Should we gather the knowledge and STILL live in fear? Of tasering or anything else? Not me. Would i risk being tasered to keep what's mine (my rights)? You're darn tootin' i would! Especially in the scenario presented.

Picking battles is all very well, but you have to admit it's a bit like saying 'well, i'll choose to be free another day - but not today'

As to not being in an 'advantageous position' i disagree. He's on a street with traffic, possible witnesses and P.O.V. video of the whole encounter - not alone in a dark place with no electronic protection. Given that i am 'carrying' what i am, i'm gonna try my luck.

john-james did EVERYTHING right. That's the advantage of a play-scenario, you can consider responses for as long as you like, and i was very particular. The original stated aim was to establish jurisdiction, but the extension for me was to demonstrate an example of evading or gaining from legal arrest and i think that was achieved. Am i wrong?

Why on earth would one submit to the humiliation of being searched, knowing what we do and armed with an i-(see you!)phone?How can you lose in this scenario?

Please tell me how john-james broke legislation re: obstructing a POLICE OFFICER when said officer has (verifiably) gained neither joinder nor commercial jurisdiction? He can't exercise any supposed 'police' (as opposed to 'constable') powers until he has consent via an admitted 'name' (joinder). He certainly can't do it under oath.

"...this is where you're potentially wrong..."

Where, exactly? This wasn't a part of the scenario, i was referring to an earlier post i have made (De-registering car nonsense...) and i offered it as an example of what's possible IF he had already returned all of his 'matrix' effects. Whether he had or not in this scenario is immaterial, irrelevant because he never gave his 'agency' name. When you (as pc todd) kept referring to him as Mr James i thought you were playing along - but when i read "...then John James IS Mr John James whether he knows it or not..." i realised:
a) you really thought that was his full 'agency' name, and
b)you don't really pay attention when reading my posts,
you see because of the easily-missed nuances of the 'name game' i use the same name in all my scenario's. This is for ease of memory and to demonstrate, in visual print, the different ways the same name can be presented (derivatives) to different effect. (Btw his full 'agency' name is Mr John James Doe).

We're not competing here, are we? i'm here to learn and share....

Cheers!

[Dreadlock]

I was going to answer all your points in detail but some really aren't relevant such as how many hands John had full and were there any witnesses. In short we don't know because those points never arose in the play and therefore neither of us can rely on them as facts one way or the other. Whether or not you think it worth while to risk your life trying to educate a policeman or simply getting one up on him - well that's your business. I'll agree to differ with you on that point.

Now the important part.

john-james did EVERYTHING right. That's the advantage of a play-scenario, you can consider responses for as long as you like, and i was very particular. The original stated aim was to establish jurisdiction, but the extension for me was to demonstrate an example of evading or gaining from legal arrest and i think that was achieved. Am i wrong?

Yes, totally wrong. John was arrested and all he gained was a blow to his health possibly resulting in death or serious injury.
John never had jurisdiction. Jurisdiction means control and the control was in the hands of Sweeney from start to finish. Why? He's a policeman with a truncheon, a taser, probably wearing body armour and with a radio to call for backup.
John had the options of escalating the encounter or attempting to de-fuse it and that's as far as his control of the situation went. He chose the former and was tazed for his trouble.

Please tell me how john-james broke legislation re: obstructing a POLICE OFFICER when said officer has (verifiably) gained neither joinder nor commercial jurisdiction? He can't exercise any supposed 'police' (as opposed to 'constable') powers until he has consent via an admitted 'name' (joinder). He certainly can't do it under oath.

You seem to think that what is right or wrong can stop a man from acting how he will. News flash - right and wrong don't make the slightest bit of difference. It is what Sweeney THOUGHT was right or wrong that is important. You think he was going to listen to a suspicious looking man who was being a smart-arse and whom he suspected of being involved in a crime? Not likely! Sweeney THOUGHT John was obstructing him, which of course he was, he THOUGHT he had the authority to do something about it - so he did! John wants to argue his point? He should take it to court. That's the right place for it.

a) you really thought that was his full 'agency' name, and
b)you don't really pay attention when reading my posts,
you see because of the easily-missed nuances of the 'name game' i use the same name in all my scenario's. This is for ease of memory...

I had no idea that you use the same name all the time in your posts. I do pay attention, I just don't have access to the intricacies of how your mind works. So yes, I (and Sweeney) made the reasonable presumption that "John James" was your character's full name - not that it makes the slightest bit of difference to the outcome of the scenario.

Whether he had or not in this scenario is immaterial, irrelevant because he never gave his 'agency' name.

Oh boy, you couldn't be more wrong. I advise you to find out how presumption works - particularly in court.

(Btw his full 'agency' name is Mr John James Doe).

Incorrect. It would be "John James DOE". "Mr" is not a name, it is a job title.

Finally, I don't think we're competing, just expressing differences of opinion. What made you ask the question?