Because knowledge is power
I had to refresh myself on the law... when I first watched the video, I thought he was in violation of the law for not providing his name (I knew you didn't have to provide a physical ID, but I thought name was required). After reading up on Arizona's "stop and identify" statute, however (
ARS 13-2412), I found that I was incorrect and he was well within the law by refusing to ID himself.
mzbk2l, that's what LEOs want.The ignorant citizen will cave to what sounds like law when it comes from someone we've been brainwashed into accepting as an authority figure. Ignorant sheep are obedient sheep...
I remember being detained (unlawfully, mind you) on the highway heading to Phoenix from Tucson. Long story short, I was a passenger, but the patrolman and his backup told us (myself and the other passenger) we had to produce our licenses as well. I asked if I was required to, seeing as I had a vague recollection of needing only to provide my name (if that), and he said that once he had asked, I was required to. We produced them, then they got the consent of the driver to search the vehicle (I knew they couldn't search without consent, but in retrospect, I remember they never did say we were detained) despite me trying to explain to the driver that we had no obligation to.:banghead:
Search conducted, nothing found (obviously, since we're LACs), but left me with a bit of doubt as to the law (which prompted me to read other sections of ARS, since I hadn't yet done that).
Before I get chewed out, I want to say that this happened just under a year and a half ago, and I was still quite ignorant about stop and ID, stops, and dealing with police in general. I think I can now handle myself a lot better. As a matter of fact, I believe I did, when I was stopped in the University of Arizona library because UA PD thought I might be carrying a concealed weapon in a belt pocket (those "tactical" pouches that are little more than miniature fanny packs). But that my friends, is another story...
