So, an officer MAKING AN ARREST is not identifiable? Having dealt with ABC officers when in the restaurant business, in order so much as ask someone for id, let alone arrest them, the officer MUST IDENTIFY THEMSELVES. Once the officers produces their ID, they're pretty much IDENTIFIABLE. As well as identified.
The undercover policemen, well, Little Timmy, he was undercover: not readily identifiable as a policeman, now was he, Little Timmy?
Originally Posted by I B Hankering
So, an officer MAKING AN ARREST is not identifiable? Having dealt with ABC officers when in the restaurant business, in order so much as ask someone for id, let alone arrest them, the officer MUST IDENTIFY THEMSELVES. Once the officers produces their ID, they're pretty much IDENTIFIABLE. As well as identified. Originally Posted by chefnerdFirst, what cops are supposed to do and what they actually do are often two separate things, chiefnerd. Second, Zimmerman wasn't the original party the officer involved was concerned with, chiefnerd; hence, there was no reason for the officer would identify himself TO Zimmerman. Third, cops like to throw the book at suspects hoping something sticks (and in this case the charge didn't stick). Hence and finally, the charge against Zimmerman was reduced to “resisting officer without violence” and then waived altogether when he entered an alcohol education program.
You and your ilk are the first to start throwing names. Originally Posted by texasjohn1965
First, what cops are supposed to do and what they actually do are often two separate things, chiefnerd. Second, Zimmerman wasn't the original party the officer involved was concerned with, chiefnerd; hence, there was no reason for the officer would identify himself TO Zimmerman. Third, cops like to throw the book at suspects hoping something sticks (and in this case the charge didn't stick). Hence and finally, the charge against Zimmerman was reduced to “resisting officer without violence” and then waived altogether when he entered an alcohol education program.First, ABC officers, at least in Florida, are not COPS. They are "authorized employees of the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco". Second, I agree Zimmerman was not the original party, he just illegally stuck his nose where it did not belong. Third, this has no meaning since the officer is not a cop. Fourth, he agreed to a deal in order to evade conviction which included anger management.
Originally Posted by I B Hankering
Do you really want to go down that road?
http://www.eccie.net/showthread.php?p=1053418275&hi ghlight=#post1053418275
http://www.eccie.net/showthread.php?p=1053414079&hi ghlight=#post1053414079
http://www.eccie.net/showthread.php?p=1053413885&hi ghlight=#post1053413885
http://www.eccie.net/showthread.php?p=1053409738&hi ghlight=#post1053409738
http://www.eccie.net/showthread.php?p=1053409430&hi ghlight=#post1053409430
http://www.eccie.net/showthread.php?p=1053409164&hi ghlight=#post1053409164
http://www.eccie.net/showthread.php?p=1053406738&hi ghlight=#post1053406738
http://www.eccie.net/showthread.php?...post1053404626 Originally Posted by texasjohn1965
you brought it up, not meI am far from your ilk, and YR brought it up. How about your friends?
welcome to the ilk. Originally Posted by CJ7
First, ABC officers, at least in Florida, are not COPS. They are "authorized employees of the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco". Second, I agree Zimmerman was not the original party, he just illegally stuck his nose where it did not belong. Third, this has no meaning since the officer is not a cop. Fourth, he agreed to a deal in order to evade conviction which included anger management.The original party concerned was Zimmerman's friend. So it's not "butting in" when he went to his friend's aid when he saw him being hassled by a stranger: an UTR officer that did not properly identify himself to Zimmerman before the altercation started. Regardless of your petty quibbles, the charges against Zimmerman were dropped in 2005: that's seven years removed from 2012, chiefnerd.
Since it was Zimmerman's friend, one could reasonably conclude that he was close enough to observe the officer (not cop) present his id to the under-age individual, thereby making himself IDENTIFIABLE. Originally Posted by chefnerd