After the fact? When are they SUPPOSED to be "punished"?
I think you're deliberately misreading my posts.
Of course when punishment is appropriate, it should be meted out after the fact.
My point was that particular punishment (after the officer contact) is inappropriate.
And how else do you compell someone to comply except with the fear of punishment?
Well ... that's kind of the point, isn't it? I don't think that level of compulsion is appropriate at such a low level of suspicion. It seems perfectly appropriate to you. I have the feeling that this disconnect is preventing any sort of real discussion.
You don't have to break a separate law to be subject to "punishment".
Isn't that what I just said?
There are plenty of times when police legally seize someone who has done nothing illegal.
Sure. But when it is determined that they've done nothing illegal, they're usually released. The problem is that keeping your mouth shut is illegal.
Could you be a little less vague, and give me a more specific example? Stopping someone just to "intimidate" them doesn't sound like reasonable suspicion to me. I asked for examples of reasonable suspicion stops where it would be unreasonable to expect someone to ID themselves.
*sigh*
I should draw pictures.
There were two possibilities I listed in that example. One where the officer abuses his authority and the stopped individual understandably refuses to deliver the information.
The other was where the officer practices the stuff he learned in the academy about using a commanding voice and presence but goes a little overboard and the individual he's stopped becomes genuinely fearful that this is a case of the former. Of course, there are steps the individual should take such as requesting the officer call his supervisor, but not everyone knows that. I can absolutely see someone clamming up when the spittle starts flying.
You watch too much TV. In 20 years, I've never dealt with a crime or crash victim who was conscious who was too frightened to identify themselves in a timely fashion, unless they were wanted for something.
I've never witnessed a plane crash.
How about an injury then?
About five years ago, I fell out of a tree and suffered from a concussion and contusion. According to witnesses, I was walking, talking and apparently concious and had no visible sign of injury, but was unsteady on my feet and unable to respond to questions. I kept asking where I was and who close family were.
This is all stuff I've learned after the fact, as I don't recall much of anything from that day or the subsequent day, much less immediately after the accident. Had the circumstances been just slightly different and an officer approached me walking unsteadily because he suspected me of public intoxication, I'd have been unable to procure any sort of identification or even tell him who exactly I was.
There's no reasonable suspicion of a crime there.
Depends on the totality of the circumstances.
Frank, for a most part this decision probably won't change things much. It leaves the option to allow stop and identifies up to the individual state. In the majority of situations, it'll probably work out fine. I'll tell the cop who I am. No problem. The thing is, I can entirely understand people wanting either to keep their mouth shut around police or make a stand against increasing police authority on principal. I tend to get a little short-winded when approached by an officer in the course of his duties myself.
(To clarify for you jumpy folks, "make a stand" is not used to imply any sort of force or violence against anyone.)
