Just a few things that jumped out at me.....
"...Mr. Belt was advised that by Ofc. Scott hat(sic) we were invesitgating the reported weaons incident and that he..... should ..... show ID when requested by law enforcement officers..."
An officer is certainly allowed to request ID; he's also entitled to request that you tell him the time of day, who won the ballgame last night, or if his uniform makes his ass look fat. Requesting is not requiring. You are required to obey laws and ordinances, not requested to obey them.
"...I also asked Mr, Belt to show his ID..."
Same as above, he could have asked Mr Belt to tighten his belt a notch just as easily.
"...I informed Mr Belt that he was required by law to produce his ID when asked by law enforcement ...."
Ahhh, now it's a Requirement. I had always thought there were certain conditions where an Officer could demand identification and that even then the Supreme Court had ruled that one was properly identifed by stating one's true name. Georgia not requires one to carry State Issued Identification 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year should the circumstance arise that law enforcement requests to see it?
Could a brotha get a cite please?
"... since he refused to produce his ID or he was under arrest...."
I'm not quite sure how to read this but I guess it was stated as '...since you have refused to show me your state issued identification as required under Ga Code xx-xx-xxx, I'm placing you under arrest for violating that GA Code section."
Hmmmm... he was being detained for suspicion of having recently committing, or presently committing, or being about to commit a 'weapons incident' but because no crime was being committed he is arrested for refusing to produce ID in violation of GA Code .......
16-9-4 False or forged identification
16-9-121 Identify fraud or theft
16-9-122 Identify theft - Conspiracy/Attempt
16-9-126 Identity theft, Penalties
...or, none of the above?
"... up until that time we had no idea who we were dealing with and we had tried to explain to Mr Belt that we had to be sure he was not a convicted felon carrying a gun..."
"... we stopped Mr Belt as he was walking down the sidewalk with evidence of an MP3 player in his pocket because we had no idea who we were dealing with and we felt we had to be sure he was not a burglar with a stolen MP3 player in his pocket"
"... we stopped Mr Belt, who was driving down the road and comitting no traffic infractions, because we had no idea who he was and we had to be sure he was not under a court ordered suspension of his driving privleges."
"... we stopped Mr Belt who was walking with an obviously underage female accompanying him because we had no idea who we were dealing with and we had to be sure he was not schtupping an underage girl. Obviously, we were surprised to find out the girl was his daughter, our bad."
More evidence that performing a perfectly legal act is somehow indicative of performing an illegal one, I guess.