OT: Cops can demand ID, high court rules

[Shadowboxer]

At that point I say you get to go to jail until you prove otherwise, because your dumb ass refused to show ID.--R5A

-----------------------------------------------------

no, what I'm trying to point out is that we tend to view things through our own colored glasses--R5A

----------------------------------------------------

Red is generalizing that most cops are OK and don't abuse power.

He actually believes it is OK to be thrown in jail for refusing to show ID, for whatever reason. Another generalization is that you are stupid or have something to hide, if you don't show ID (So now the State decides stupidity gets you locked up?). What about innocent until proven guilty? Where do you think the framers of the Constitution would stand on the issue of being required to show ID to the state or being locked up for refusing?

MLK said that peaceful/non-violent protest shows the highest repsect for law. So, if I protest having to show my ID to an LEO who is abusing the fact that they have a badge and gun, I should go to jail according to Red. I could be minding my own business, you know in the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness, and Johnny Law decides to mess with me because he can. This doesn't sound like the America I remember. Like Rayfield said, your rights to privacy disappear one by one...

[wdl]

Becca, I agree completely with your statements on profiling. The stats don't lie. As I've stated before, I've fallen victim to it, I don't care. Somebody else that fit the profile got caught that day. It's a small community area where I live, if that idiot had been drunk and driving when I was returning home that evening and caused an accident with my involved and I lived.. well I'd be in jail for murder 1 right now.

Shen's problem is he is in disbelieve of mathmatical evidence. He doesn't want to face the facts.

-Will

[cerebus]

Heh, heh. This is funny. I don't have a car and I don't look too young to buy alcohol so I don't carry ID. Therefore (by some of the reasoning presented here) if I'm stopped while riding my bike (I was actually pulled over recently with lights and siren for running a stop sign at 11:00 at night with no cars in sight on the streets) and am unable to produce ID.......then I DESERVE to go to jail!

Man, that's hilarious! That some people would actually think it's a GOOD thing to live in a "Gestapo-like" situation just blows me away! What really is scary is that many of those people will vote for "Dubya" next election!

EDIT: Asking for ID or detaining a person until it's verified that the person isn't who they are looking for (or arresting him if he is) is entirely understandable but being thrown in jail just for not producing ID (if you're not guilty of any crimes) is NOT.

[SanSoo Student]

They won't throw you in jail usually (they can though, if there is an accident or you're drunk), my friend rear ended a car on his way out of a parking lot. He was doing a quick food-stop, had no wallet, just cash. Cops came and impounded his car for 30 days, he paid a fine and thats it. Usually if you are pulled over and have no ID, if you memorize your Driver's License number, you can get by.

[cerebus]

Don't own a car, so I don't have a driver's license. Also, whether or not they arrest you depends on who they are and how they're feeling at the time. I was a cop (Army cop) for 4 years and worked with many partners who were just LOOKING for a reason to **** with people (one of the reasons I didn't re-enlist). Many of these guys went on to become civilian cops after they left the Army.

[Merryprankster]

MLK said that peaceful/non-violent protest shows the highest repsect for law. So, if I protest having to show my ID to an LEO who is abusing the fact that they have a badge and gun, I should go to jail according to Red. I could be minding my own business, you know in the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness, and Johnny Law decides to mess with me because he can. This doesn't sound like the America I remember. Like Rayfield said, your rights to privacy disappear one by one...

Shadow, you know I love you, right? So don't take the below personally

I would say it sounds EXACTLY like the America you remember. MLK and his fellow peaceful/non-violent protesters DID go to jail, precisely because they were breaking the law. And if you refuse to give ID, and that's the law, you should too. If you believe the law is unjust, you can fight it in the court system or lobby for a change in the legistlature.

My point is that things are no worse than they ever were...and generally are far far better. This idea that our civil rights are being eroded is a fallacy perpetrated strictly by people who disagree with a specific decision.

For instance - take gun control. Most - but not all - of the true gun nuts are also die hard right wingers in the U.S. political spectrum. At least the ones that aren't militia members!

It's an erosion of their civil rights if they can't carry a fully automatic weapon around.

You'll almost never hear these fellows complain about, say, what's going on in Guantanamo right now, with people being detained without trial indefinitely, no representation, military tribunals as the set up for administering justice, etc.

Flip it and you've got the die-hard left wing perspective in the U.S. political spectrum. They've few problems with gun control, but are screaming mad about Guantanamo!

The truth is that our institutions do a pretty **** fine job of keeping things in balance regarding our rights and liberties.

BTW, for those of you using the ID check thing as an opportunity to have a foaming at the mouth fit about the steady erosion of our rights, while engaging in sweat-drenched, hand wringing drama about how you fear for the future of our soon to be fascist state, I might point you to the recent news. The Supreme Court - you know, the body of slavering demons that took your civil liberties away by saying that 4th and 5th amendment rights don't apply to an ID request - recently reaffirmed that our constitution applies to persons in U.S. custody by ruling that the current structure of things in Guantanamo re: the detainees is unconstitutional and must be brought in line with our normal justice guidelines.

Don't worry, somebody will be there with a defibrilator soon.

[Shadowboxer]

>>So don't take the below personally

No sweat, I don't...

Tell me about the LEO's back in MLK's day. Do you think he and his followers should have been jailed? Would you have jailed them?

>>And if you refuse to give ID, and that's the law, you should too

We'll just agree to disagree. What if I lost it/changed clothes without grabbing it/etc...should I still get locked up? Can I just tell you my ID number instead?

It just sounds to 1984ish these days (all we need is one more war, oh wait , drugs, Iraq and terrorism, there we go) especially with the Patriot Act and Homeland Security,etc. Refusing to ID yourself gets you locked up just doesn't seem right. And I'll ask you a question nobody has answered: Where do you think the framers of the Constitution would stand on this issue of the "right" to not ID yourself or going to jail. And another question since you are a knowledgeable guy: The framers didn't spell out all of our rights believeing the"rest" to be understood, correct? Am I making sense? and is that correct?

FWIW, I don't really have a problem presenting ID when it's requested, unless there is attitude to go with it. I've done so many times- the price of living in a college town. I just don't think it should be a law that can get you locked up.

[Merryprankster]

Tell me about the LEO's back in MLK's day. Do you think he and his followers should have been jailed? Would you have jailed them?

Well, the LEO's jailed them. They also turned firehoses on protestors.

Do I think they should have been jailed. From a purely legal perspective, yes. From a moral perspective, no.

Would *I* personally have jailed them? I would like to think that I would not. Unfortunately, I also have very real experience with how a call to carry out your duty can conflict sometimes with your personal beliefs. Knowing me, something of this magnitude, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't. But there are many people who WOULD have, not because they agreed, but because they find their sense of duty the higher moral calling. Who is correct, in general? I don't think that's a question with an answer.

I also have a set of sensibilities that were developed from 1976 onwards. I might have felt quite differently if they were from another time.

Refusing to ID yourself gets you locked up just doesn't seem right.

I would tend to agree. A fine and a misdemeanor charge without jail time seems more appropriate. The punishment DOES need to fit the crime, another of our judicial traditions. You could appeal on those grounds - which are 8th amendment issues that haven't been decided yet.

Where do you think the framers of the Constitution would stand on this issue of the "right" to not ID yourself or going to jail.

Honestly, this would depend entirely on which framer you asked. I personally expect that many of them would likely have had you thrown in the stockade. The Constitution outlines principles. Judicial interpretation of those principles clarifies what exactly that means for LEO's, and that's how the rubber meets the road...A law or concept must not be void for vagueness.

The framers didn't spell out all of our rights believeing the"rest" to be understood, correct? Am I making sense? and is that correct?

Wow. Big question. The 9th amendment specifically states that enumeration of rights to the people doesn't mean that THOSE are the only rights you have. The 10th states that powers not delegated to the U.S. are reserved to the states or people.

So in a sense, they did exactly what you suggested they didn't do, if I'm reading you correctly. But I think that it would be more proper to suggest that they realized they didn't have all the answers. They knew what they didn't know. So instead of making a hard and fast judgment, they left the principles in place and let the people, through the processes of government, sort all the details out.

There's plenty of judicial wiggle room. The 10th doesn't say powers not SPECIFICALLY delegated... I suspect that would seriously change the meaning.

Words mean things. Semantics, therefore, matter...

Ok, I'm rambling now.

[cerebus]

I'm still wondering where this leaves someone who doesn't have ID. I'm not legally required to obtain a license (no car) or a state ID (I don't get carded anymore, look too old). I'm not travelling abroad anytime soon, so I don't need a passport. I do most of my banking over the internet or through ATMs. I don't show ID when I'm ordered to do so (no ID to show), I guess I'm just focked, eh?

[red5angel]

Can I just tell you my ID number instead?

I think that should be acceptable. No system is perfect and most policemen understand this as well.

[diego]

Originally posted by red5angel
I odn't see what the problem is here, if a policeman asks you for your id, give it to him. I've found that when someone resists giving that info out, it's because they have a reason for it

true but also false

i was at a bus terminal and a pig and his cool jr partner came up to me all like let me see your id

i was already in a ****ed off mood and i was all startled just like "why"


"LET ME SEE YOUR ID"

"why?"

"LET ME SEE"

so i cut him off by talking to his jr partner

"eh what's happenning what you guys upto"

jr speaks- "oh we got a call uno, and you kinda fit the description"

me to the fat sr pig "see that's all you had to say" then i handed my id to the jr cop and completely treated the sr like a piece of **** by not paying attention to him and everytime he would say something i just replied to the jr and left sr there looking like the fat geeky pig who used to get they f'n asskicked in highschool acting all tough now with a badge and a gun that he is

so yeah you prolly got something to hide if you refuse but some peeps are *******s that shouldn't be anywhere near a position of authority and if the jr wasn't there the situation could have gotten worse coming up to me all rude and **** like i'm a common criminal and you just some f'n chump-type i used to beat on when i was sorta crimy

i was sick and just had an argument and it was laundry day so i had my cheap clothes on and the guy thought i was a crook or atleast fit a description so they say...prolly just wanted to feel me up orsomething!!?