Police can demand ID, high court rules

"LawDog"?!? Dang, Rich, we've only known each other for 5 years+!
Click to expand...
Matt-
I get all you TX style, libertarian LEO's confused! (Besides, I caught it before you posted! Sorry.)

Y'all continue to provide anecdotal reasons for the erosion of a principle. I could see this exact style debate over the Assault Weapons Ban. Only change would be you'd each be arguing the "Enough is Enough" side of the debate!

I'm not really worried that you don't catch all the bad guys.....you never will. I'm not really worried that present gun laws will never stop all crime and tragedy; none will. What I'm worried about is the continued trade of personal privacy and the right to resist abusive authority for the sake of "What if" scenarios designed to make me feel safer. I already feel safe enough, thanks.

It's a sad state of affairs that most law abiding citizens are more afraid of an adverse encounter with the Law than with a BG when traveling cross country. None of the afore mentioned laws or rulings help to close that gap.
Rich
 
I hate to be obtuse, but crime prevention is the source of the problem here and it has gone on so long it will never return to the way it once was. Meaning that you were punished for crimes you committed, but not crimes you were capable of, or in the right place to commit, or had the hardware that would aid the committment, or were in the company of people that had committed a crime, or exhibited a behavior pattern that indicated that you were likely to commit, etc.

Who in their right mind would object to giving their name to a law enforcement officer? But to make it a law? Now I have a BIG problem.

My father taught me that it is better for ten guilty men to walk free than one innocent man to serve time for a crime he didn't commit. I still believe that. What's your opinion of that, Frank?
 
FrankDrebin

I thought it was written to balance the rights of the few against the rights of the many.
Click to expand...
Then you just got caught thinking again.

It was written to limit the powers of government and their agents -- that would be you, Sir. It was also written to enumerate the powers granted to government by the governed. The problem is that the government has taken liberties and assigned themselves powers that the governed never granted.

The government governs at the consent of the governed, not the other way around.

The government exists for the general welfare of the citizenry, not the other way around.
 
jimpeel I am disappointed in you. First a very short response "It was just a hypothetical situation". That doesn't change a thing as it's still indicative of a thought process.
Next, you shift focus and minimize your responsibility by bringing up another separate LEO beating incident as if to say "See! There"! (ie: Cops are bad, I told you so!). It reminds me of the defense developed in people as kids. When ever a kid gets called on his conduct/actions, instead of stepping up, they point their finger at someone/something else and say "See".
I think you could benefit from an objective self-inventory.

All the best
 
TheeBadOne

You can be as disappointed as you like. The response was objective and subjective.

You scolded me for being an LEO basher but when I point to someone who is literally bashing someone with a deadly instrument, deserving of my enmity, I am accused of some sort of drunken moral relativism.

I apologize for the "short response" but I try to reply with brevity where possible. When I get long winded, you'll know it.

Of course it was a "thought process"! These keystrokes are a thought process. Are we going to go down the road of the thought being as bad as the deed? It was a hypothetical; a typical "what if" situation. People use them all of the time; especially politicians and those who live in the land of What If.
 
jimpeel my point exactly. If someone were to write about "hanging all (insert racial slur) and how to go about it", they could do as you have and then say they were just "speaking hypothetically". It's still indicative of the thought process/values/etc behind it.


You scolded me for being an LEO basher
Click to expand...
I don't think I said anything like that, but perhaps you have started your personal inventory and feel a bit of "if the shoe fits...".
 
tyme-
See what you you started. Go to your room! :p

Seriously divisive thread. Seriously impressive restraint on the part of all. Passionate disagreement and disapproval without personal attack is a very fine line. Please continue in that mode.
Rich
 
So I assume, then, that if firearms were banned, cops were going house-to-house, free speech was outlawed, and the government took over the presses, your suggestion would be "complain to your legislators?"
Click to expand...

Either that, or put your money where your mouth is, pick up a rifle and give us less talk and more shootin'.
 
Disingenuous copout, Frank.

He never spoke of arming or violence. He spoke of citizens standing up to be counted when things go wrong. So far, you've stated that you'll remain seated (or become a paid bouncer). I certainly hope there's lots more to you than that.

Rich
 
TheeBadOne

I don't think I said anything like that, but perhaps you have started your personal inventory and feel a bit of "if the shoe fits...".
Click to expand...
No. What you said in YOUR POST was:
A perfect example of what really breeds the "US vs THEM" mentality. Keep up the good statesmanship. You are doing wonders for civilian/cop relations. I'm sure that you look at it one sided though and think, "Boy, was that Cop short with me!" and scurry to your Internet Boards to say what a JBT this/that Cop was.
Click to expand...
In case you have forgotten, JBT means "Jack-Booted Thug".

But perhaps it was just a "thought process", an "implication", a "suggestion"; or maybe it was an outright accusation. Call it what you will if it satisfies your need for obfuscation.

Perhaps some introspection is in order for you as well.
 
Last edited:
Perhaps some introspection is in order for you as well.
Click to expand...
"I know you are but what am I" is not going to advance, heal, or start the process of two groups finding common ground. (if one is interested in that).
 
To whom it may concern:

Notwithstanding what has been said before and or since, I think that the following, from Rich, is worth considerable thought.

I'm not really worried that you don't catch all the bad guys.....you never will. I'm not really worried that present gun laws will never stop all crime and tragedy; none will. What I'm worried about is the continued trade of personal privacy and the right to resist abusive authority for the sake of "What if" scenarios designed to make me feel safer. I already feel safe enough, thanks.

It's a sad state of affairs that most law abiding citizens are more afraid of an adverse encounter with the Law than with a BG when traveling cross country. None of the afore mentioned laws or rulings help to close that gap.
Rich

Let readers judge.
 
Either that, or put your money where your mouth is, pick up a rifle and give us less talk and more shootin'.
Click to expand...
I know you don't want me to start shooting. What a nice impossible-to-rebut challenge, though. If I were to start shooting, who would I start with -- you or one of your LEO brothers, one of puppeteers in D.C., or one of the judges and justices who are destroying the Bill of Rights? You're all responsible for this mess.

If you're the least bit dissatisfied with legal standard for detention and are only following them because you can get away with it and because it's your job, what would you do if the shooting started? Would you die honorably by committing seppuku? Would you defect and brain a coworker?
 
Disingenuous copout, Frank.
He never spoke of arming or violence. He spoke of citizens standing up to be counted when things go wrong. So far, you've stated that you'll remain seated (or become a paid bouncer). I certainly hope there's lots more to you than that.
Click to expand...

I know he didn't, but there are always plenty of implications in these arguments that the police should be the ones to refuse to do their jobs with the tools society gives us, or the police should let criminals go if the only way to make a case is to use approved methods that SOME citizens believe the founding fathers didn't have in mind a couple hundred years ago, or that the police should refuse lawful orders and be fired or sent to prison. Or that the police should willingly take a bullet in the face rather than conduct a search and detention that the courts have determined to be reasonable. Whereas the most that most citizens are willing to do is criticize the police, who have very little to do with making the rules, or write letters to the editor.

As far as what I'm willing to do to "correct" things; nothing at this point, because I think the laws are pretty reasonable. And I don't think that anyone who picks up a rifle would get very far either because I believe the vast majority of people think that search and seizure laws are still reasonable. But it IS a good metaphor for doing something "extreme" if things are as bad as some of you are saying. Have any of you put up your life savings to run for office, for instance? I doubt it, but me taking life and death risks because you don't like Terry is reasonable to preserve the 4th. Amendment? It's not reasonable.

If you're the least bit dissatisfied with legal standard for detention and are only following them because you can get away with it and because it's your job, what would you do if the shooting started? Would you die honorably by committing seppuku? Would you defect and brain a coworker?
Click to expand...

But I'm NOT the least bit dissatisfied that search and seizure laws have gone too far. What I AM dissatisified with is the exclusionary rule. I would like to find a better way to reasonably sanction cops for violating the 4th amendment that doesn't involve excluding evidence.
 
I know he didn't, but there are always plenty of implications in these arguments that the police should be the ones to refuse to do their jobs with the tools society gives us, or the police should let criminals go if the only way to make a case is to use approved methods that SOME citizens believe the founding fathers didn't have in mind a couple hundred years ago
Click to expand...
I saw no such implication at all, just as I previously stated that I saw no implication, based on your earlier comments, that you would condone murder of a guy for running from the law. Let's stick to what we each say, rather than what you or I read in, OK?

No one has asked you to refuse to do your job in the here and now. For my part, I was only hoping to hear you say that Hiibel sets a dangerous precedent. It's not a life or death issue for me. But I do find it strange that you'd choose to hang out on a Board that's dedicated to preserving the Second Amendment while maintaining such a casual attitude about erosion of the Fourth. I understand that's because it makes your job easier.....but then, that's a mainstay argument for the Ruling Class when it comes to the Second. At least, in your case, I can attribute to job myopia. They have no excuse. ;)
Rich
 
No one has asked you to refuse to do your job in the here and now. For my part, I was only hoping to hear you say that Hiibel sets a dangerous precedent.
Click to expand...

I really don't think the precedent is dangerous. And it doesn't make my job "easier". It's actually easier to just let the guy go than to detain him, identify him and arrest him. What HAS set a dangerous precedent is the way domestic violence cases are handled nowadays. Much more dangerous than this case.
 
Before Hiibel and without stop-and-identify laws, cops could Terry stop suspicious individuals and briefly investigate them for crimes relevant to their current suspicious activity or appearance.

Now, cops can Terry stop and not only investigate potential current crimes, but can see if, for instance, five years ago the suspect failed to appear in court for a traffic ticket.

Because the bar for reasonable suspicion is so low, and because a lot of people have records and/or outstanding warrants, investigating past crimes whenever someone's stopped on mere suspicion of an unknown, current crime is unacceptable.

But what am I saying? I love Big Brother.

What does it matter if some suspicious character has to ID himself and gets arrested on an outstanding warrant, or has prior convictions that allow the cop to turn reasonable suspicion into PC? If stop-and-ID laws get a few criminals off the streets, that's all that matters, right?
 
I would like to find a better way to reasonably sanction cops for violating the 4th amendment that doesn't involve excluding evidence.
Click to expand...
Hmmm ... what would you think of 5 to 10 years and a felony record? After all, it's not like violating the constitution is a little thing.

Actually, I'd like that a lot better. All of the guilty parties get put away instead of all of them getting out of any sort of punishment.
 
Now, cops can Terry stop and not only investigate potential current crimes, but can see if, for instance, five years ago the suspect failed to appear in court for a traffic ticket.
Click to expand...

It's unreasonable to hold people accountable for their traffic tickets?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top