Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The police have every right to ask for your ID. You should have given it to him right away. Did you know if you and a friend were sitting at an outside cafe and a cop just walks up and says "give me your ID" you have to by law. Not trying to put you down but you are making a bigger issue than the Police Officer did.
Police should randomly check more ID's i think people with wants ans warrants would be found more often.
P.S. If you did not give him your ID you could have been arrested. In most states it is against the law to not carry ID. In fact if your pulled over for speeding and your the driver they can check all occupants ID"s
Sorry for the rant two mochas this late and i'am wired
Actually for them to question you they have to demonstrate that you were behaving suspiciously, otherwise the COP can get in trouble for harassment. At least that is how it is in my state.
. . The fact that the hassler has a gun and a badge makes no difference to me. Whether it's a cop or a thug or one in the same is all the same to me.
.
Curiously, your post alludes to the old adage that "the more things change, the more they stay the same". In a roundabout way, our society "licenses" the "cops" to be bullies, to some extent, in order to prevent the BIGGER bullies from taking over....just as chemotherapy is a 'controlled" sickness, used to confront a greater, uncontrolled sickness (cancer)....or Affirmative action is a CONTROLLED system of racial preferences, to combat BIGGER racism.....or an army is a group of CONTROLLED killers, sent out to prevent uncontrolled killers.
In the same way, the 'cops' sometimes get 'proactive' to prevent even WORSE proactive behavior from the 'bad guys'. When the 'cops' get out of hand, we can go to their bosses and SOMETIMES get them to back off. When the "bad guys" get out of hand, we're out of luck. The 'bad guys' don't have a complaint department...."Cops" don't always respond to public pressure, but "bad guys" NEVER do....
In addition, there are certain 'rules' which, if heeded, will keep one out of trouble with the 'cops'. Not so with the 'bad guys'---they aren't required to follow rules, NOR do they extend us any 'rights'.
I don't think we have the option of being free from ALL of them. "Pick your oppressor", is about the best we can do...
Forget the consititution for a moment. I should have the God given right to walk on a public sidewalk or street without being hassled by anyone unless I am breaking a law.
Let's say a bank was held up and the perp who ran away matched your description. Still think the cop has no right to stop and question you while you're walking on a nearby public sidewalk? A simple yes or no will suffice.
The police have every right to ask for your ID. You should have given it to him right away.
Yes, law enforcement officers have the authority, not the right, to ask, but in many situations you do not have to comply.
Quote:
Originally Posted by proud to be American
Did you know if you and a friend were sitting at an outside cafe and a cop just walks up and says "give me your ID" you have to by law.
There is no law in the land that say an officer can randomly stop someone and ask for ID and the person has to comply. An officer must have at least reasonable suspicion. If you are not lawfully detained, you can go and not comply. Failure to show ID is not a crime either if there was no reason for the officer to request it.
Per the HIIBEL v. SIXTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF NEVADA, HUMBOLDT COUNTY, ET AL. , opinion by the US Supreme Court:
“They are met by the requirement that a Terry stop be justified at its inception and be “reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified†the initial stop. Terry, 392 U. S., at 20. Under those principles, an officer may not arrest a suspect for failure to identify himself if the identification request is not reasonably related to the circumstances justifying the stop. “
Did you read that last line? “Justifying the stopâ€.
Quote:
Originally Posted by proud to be American
Police should randomly check more ID's i think people with wants ans warrants would be found more often.
So you like a police state?
Quote:
Originally Posted by proud to be American
P.S. If you did not give him your ID you could have been arrested.
If the person asked “am I being detained?†and the officer replied “noâ€, then there was no justification for the stop and the person could have walked away from the officer without showing ID at all. And guess what, if you’re not detained, you don’t have to comply. Simple as that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by proud to be American
In most states it is against the law to not carry ID.
It is only against the law if the law requires that you have the ID on your person based on the type of activity. If I’m out for a jog, I don’t have to have ID. If I’m driving my car, I am supposed to have identification. You should learn the laws and rights a little more.
It is NOT against the law to wander around parks handing out candy to children and taking their picture.
Turns out the there is a festival in the park and the person handing out candy is advertising a local store.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LM1
It is NOT against the law to stroll a neighborhood at 3:30 AM wearing a ski mask.
Neighborhood is in Montana and it is mid January and the person is out walking their dogs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LM1
It is NOT against the law stand on the sidewalk in front of a house at 2:00 AM staring into the windows- for hours....
There is a film crew inside the house filming an episode of America’s most wanted and the actor’s stand-in is outside waiting as the camera’s are being set-up for the scene.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LM1
It is NOT against the law for a group of baseball-bat wielding 18 year olds to silently jog down the street.
The 18 year olds are in their baseball uniforms running towards the central park for a ball game.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LM1
Ya see, even though some things may NOT be against the law, they may warrant further investigation and upon determining what is going on, acting accordingly- either letting the person go, or detaining them for further questioning based on a reasonable suspicion (heavy emphasis on REASONABLE SUSPICION)
In making reasonable-suspicion determinations, you must look at the “totality of the circumstances†of each situation to see whether the there is a “particularized and objective basis†for suspecting legal wrongdoing. Everything is looked at in its entirety and not doing some divide and conquer analysis to “rate†every little observation.
just at what point WILL you object to your freedom being curtailed...a strip search every time you fly?....tazered for a traffic offense?....asked for ID as you sit on your patio after dark ???...mandatory iris scan?...tattoos???
That's OK ....seems many can't.
Because each little invasion is always explained.."reasoned out" to make it palatable...each little invasion is little for a reason.
just at what point WILL you object to your freedom being curtailed...a strip search every time you fly?....tazered for a traffic offense?....asked for ID as you sit on your patio after dark ???...mandatory iris scan?...tattoos???
Answer: at the point at which it becomes unreasonable.
You act like the police's right to question you and ask for ID in mitigating circumstances is some kind of recent innovation. It's not.
Now I'll ask you a question. Your home was just robbed, and a neighbor described the perp as wearing jeans and a green T shirt. The police do a drive around and see a guy running through a field with jeans and green T shirt and a full pillow case over his shoulder. Should they stop and check the guy out, or just let him run off and disappear because he's currently not breaking any laws? (After all, he could just be in a rush to get to the laundrymat.)
I think after hearing everyones negative opinion on the officers discernment in this matter. I will be sure to call the police on ANY suspicious activity I see from now on. You people are ridiculous, you essentially spit in the face of the people that protect you... risk their lives for you...
You people just want to do whatever the hell you want... the world doesn't revolve around you. You may be a good person and no it really isn't a big deal that your walking around taking pictures or what not. But to for you to think that everybody is this innocent is absolutely mind boggling to me... how do you not see that there are dangerous people out there walking around doing the same thing that innocent people do, only with ill-intentions. That is what a an officers job is... to find these people. In this case he looked and he found innocent people and left you alone.... why can't you people get that through your thick skulls?!?!?! This is all aimed for a safer community and if anything, police have become more civil and less corrupt over time. Yet you all continue to whine and show utter disrespect to officers of the law.
Answer: at the point at which it becomes unreasonable.
You act like the police's right to question you and ask for ID in mitigating circumstances is some kind of recent innovation. It's not.
Now I'll ask you a question. Your home was just robbed, and a neighbor described the perp as wearing jeans and a green T shirt. The police do a drive around and see a guy running through a field with jeans and green T shirt and a full pillow case over his shoulder. Should they stop and check the guy out, or just let him run off and disappear because he's currently not breaking any laws? (After all, he could just be in a rush to get to the laundrymat.)
Per the HIIBEL v. SIXTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF NEVADA, HUMBOLDT COUNTY, ET AL. , opinion by the US Supreme Court:
“They are met by the requirement that a Terry stop be justified at its inception and be “reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified” the initial stop. Terry, 392 U. S., at 20. Under those principles, an officer may not arrest a suspect for failure to identify himself if the identification request is not reasonably related to the circumstances justifying the stop. “
Please also note. Accoring to HIBIBEL you do NOT need to provide ID. Simply verbally telling them who you are is sufficient.
Once more there is no law that the USSC has ruled on that requires person to present or carry ID when walking or riding (Drivig motor vehicle is another story).
Random
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
