sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
imported post
Well put NavyLt....and good job handling your encounter.
Well put NavyLt....and good job handling your encounter.
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
What ID/info must be provided to LEO during a stop?
- Thread starter ShooterMcGavin
- Start date
bugly
Regular Member
imported post
So, I'm to hold my ground, get either beaten or arrested and have to go through the legal process to prove a point?
Sorry, I think it better to NOT be confrontational, and if my rights are violated, I do follow up with the department and make sure it sticks.
The issue at hand is whether or not to show ID, not to show your "papers", et-al...
There are far better reasons to be confrontational with others, this is not, IMHO, one of those. Perhaps my parents raised me to be respectful of authority figures (including police officers), and some of yours didn't, that doesn't change the fact you should at least be courteous to someone who could very easily lock you up and make up a story about you that you can not refute. (It could happen, and I'm not saying it does very often).
Good for all of you that stand up for your rights, it makes things soooo much easier for the rest of us, now that we're labeled as "radicals", or "wackos"
So, I'm to hold my ground, get either beaten or arrested and have to go through the legal process to prove a point?
Sorry, I think it better to NOT be confrontational, and if my rights are violated, I do follow up with the department and make sure it sticks.
The issue at hand is whether or not to show ID, not to show your "papers", et-al...
There are far better reasons to be confrontational with others, this is not, IMHO, one of those. Perhaps my parents raised me to be respectful of authority figures (including police officers), and some of yours didn't, that doesn't change the fact you should at least be courteous to someone who could very easily lock you up and make up a story about you that you can not refute. (It could happen, and I'm not saying it does very often).
Good for all of you that stand up for your rights, it makes things soooo much easier for the rest of us, now that we're labeled as "radicals", or "wackos"
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
imported post
The idea is not to be confrontational, don't get me wrong. It is to calmly assert your 'Authority' remember respect is a two way street, and these "authorities" work for us. If they make it confrontational, that is their problem. But if you initially refuse unlawful requests, and are demanded to show your I.D. (wich is your papers) then you have a case in court for the violation of the 4th. But if you immediately acquies to requests of officers than you don't, you gave up your rights.
I am not trying to berate or demean your stance, you do what you feel is best for you. But your compromising, does enable the polices feelings they have the right to do what they are doing.
The idea is not to be confrontational, don't get me wrong. It is to calmly assert your 'Authority' remember respect is a two way street, and these "authorities" work for us. If they make it confrontational, that is their problem. But if you initially refuse unlawful requests, and are demanded to show your I.D. (wich is your papers) then you have a case in court for the violation of the 4th. But if you immediately acquies to requests of officers than you don't, you gave up your rights.
I am not trying to berate or demean your stance, you do what you feel is best for you. But your compromising, does enable the polices feelings they have the right to do what they are doing.
compmanio365
Regular Member
imported post
bugly wrote:
bugly wrote:
Yup, cause damn it all, freedom is a "radical" and "wacko" idea. Better just hand over those papers, Comrade.
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
imported post
Look Bugly don't get discouraged because others don't feel the same as you do. I hope you are open carrying because in just doing that you are standing up for a right you are making a statement. That encourages me, but personally my feelings are if we don't stand up to unlawful orders, who will.
Get your toes wet slowly, don't just jump in if not comfortable. I think you will find once you assert yourself once it gets easier and you feel better and liberated. Similar to open carrying, the first few times might be a little nerve wracking, but after awhile its natural and liberating.
Look Bugly don't get discouraged because others don't feel the same as you do. I hope you are open carrying because in just doing that you are standing up for a right you are making a statement. That encourages me, but personally my feelings are if we don't stand up to unlawful orders, who will.
Get your toes wet slowly, don't just jump in if not comfortable. I think you will find once you assert yourself once it gets easier and you feel better and liberated. Similar to open carrying, the first few times might be a little nerve wracking, but after awhile its natural and liberating.
imported post
ShooterMcGavin wrote:
Look at it this way.
If the officer is investigating a set of circumstances regarding a particular situation (say..a Qwikee-mart holdup), and you match the description, but cannot provide an alibi, then your specific identity should not be a factor in the investigation. It wouldn't matter. The officer could detain you (he WOULD have valid RAS at this point) for the purposes of returning you to the scene of the crime for visual ID by the victim. Again, your name, age, and address have no bearing on this situation at this point.
Note also, that the fifth protects you from being compelled to provide evidence against yourself, so if you ARE the one who help up the Qwikee-mart, you wouldn't have an (honest) alibi, but you also could not be arrested for 'obstruction' simply because you kept your yap shut! They can detain you for further investigation, but they cannot force you to provide any information yourself.
Same goes for your ID; if it is a direct factor in the investigation (you were NAMED as the robber) then being forced to provide ID would violate the fifth as it would incriminate you. SCOTUS said as much in Hiible.
ShooterMcGavin wrote:
Look at it this way.
If the officer is investigating a set of circumstances regarding a particular situation (say..a Qwikee-mart holdup), and you match the description, but cannot provide an alibi, then your specific identity should not be a factor in the investigation. It wouldn't matter. The officer could detain you (he WOULD have valid RAS at this point) for the purposes of returning you to the scene of the crime for visual ID by the victim. Again, your name, age, and address have no bearing on this situation at this point.
Note also, that the fifth protects you from being compelled to provide evidence against yourself, so if you ARE the one who help up the Qwikee-mart, you wouldn't have an (honest) alibi, but you also could not be arrested for 'obstruction' simply because you kept your yap shut! They can detain you for further investigation, but they cannot force you to provide any information yourself.
Same goes for your ID; if it is a direct factor in the investigation (you were NAMED as the robber) then being forced to provide ID would violate the fifth as it would incriminate you. SCOTUS said as much in Hiible.
Washintonian_For_Liberty
Regular Member
imported post
bugly wrote:
Don't be so quick to give up your rights... because they'll just keep encroaching further and further until you have no rights left.
bugly wrote:
Bugly, have you even read my thread on my detainment? It is a problem in more places than people think. Just because you've had zero problems does not mean others have not. It is because we stand up for our rights that people like you never encounter what WE fight to stop. If we never stood up for our rights, you would have problems. It is in all likelihood that someone came before you as the trailblazer and dealt with the problem so all those to follow would not have the same issue.
Don't be so quick to give up your rights... because they'll just keep encroaching further and further until you have no rights left.
bugly
Regular Member
imported post
I'm just failing to see where answering a simple question (should that occasion arise) is a violation of my rights. I do have the right to refuse, but also the right to comply if I so wish. I don't think identifying myself is a problem, nor do I think it's a violation of my rights. The officer has a badge, clearly stating who he is......
If, however, an officer were to be a jerk toward me when asking, or decides I am somewhere I am not supposed to be, screw 'em, I wouldn't give him time of day in that case. Most of the times I've been asked it's been polite and calmly asked, so I don't have issues with that. Seems I'm the only one here that's been treated with civility or something, since the rest of you guys want to act medieval when confronted.
I'm just failing to see where answering a simple question (should that occasion arise) is a violation of my rights. I do have the right to refuse, but also the right to comply if I so wish. I don't think identifying myself is a problem, nor do I think it's a violation of my rights. The officer has a badge, clearly stating who he is......
If, however, an officer were to be a jerk toward me when asking, or decides I am somewhere I am not supposed to be, screw 'em, I wouldn't give him time of day in that case. Most of the times I've been asked it's been polite and calmly asked, so I don't have issues with that. Seems I'm the only one here that's been treated with civility or something, since the rest of you guys want to act medieval when confronted.
bugly
Regular Member
imported post
Understood, but if you look at a lot of the posts on this thread, the responses have been advocating opposition to the police. They are NOT the bad guys. Some are just doing what they think is best for society, I know not all of them are like that, but I figure I have nothing to hide and will continue to be courteous toward them as long as they are the same toward me. Asking for my ID is not, IMHO unreasonable, since I am carrying a deadly weapon on my side. I figure that if we were all more friendly toward the police, they will eventually understand that we are not bad guys either. It's a give and take situation.
Yes, it seems to be a PITA to show ID, but its no different that showing it to a cashier when you purchase with a credit card or you're buying an age-restricted item.
The name-calling is a bit over the top, but understand that many people out there refuse to see that there is a problem with refusing to cooperate with LEOs when they are just doing their job. I have seen people who are not carrying anything asked for their ID many times and what's the difference in those cases?
Understood, but if you look at a lot of the posts on this thread, the responses have been advocating opposition to the police. They are NOT the bad guys. Some are just doing what they think is best for society, I know not all of them are like that, but I figure I have nothing to hide and will continue to be courteous toward them as long as they are the same toward me. Asking for my ID is not, IMHO unreasonable, since I am carrying a deadly weapon on my side. I figure that if we were all more friendly toward the police, they will eventually understand that we are not bad guys either. It's a give and take situation.
Yes, it seems to be a PITA to show ID, but its no different that showing it to a cashier when you purchase with a credit card or you're buying an age-restricted item.
The name-calling is a bit over the top, but understand that many people out there refuse to see that there is a problem with refusing to cooperate with LEOs when they are just doing their job. I have seen people who are not carrying anything asked for their ID many times and what's the difference in those cases?
compmanio365
Regular Member
imported post
Sorry bugly, but they ARE the "bad guy" IMHO. Police are the standing army the founding fathers warned us about, and now we are forced to deal with them and fight them to exercise our rights at every turn. Them "just doing their job" conflicts with MY rights. They swore an oath to uphold the Constitution, and they violate that oath every time they harass a law abiding OCer just because they are "doing their job". I don't buy it, and it's sad that you have so willingly played along with their statist game to circumvent your rights without a fight.
Sorry bugly, but they ARE the "bad guy" IMHO. Police are the standing army the founding fathers warned us about, and now we are forced to deal with them and fight them to exercise our rights at every turn. Them "just doing their job" conflicts with MY rights. They swore an oath to uphold the Constitution, and they violate that oath every time they harass a law abiding OCer just because they are "doing their job". I don't buy it, and it's sad that you have so willingly played along with their statist game to circumvent your rights without a fight.
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
imported post
And I don't think any of us here opose the police when they are carrying out their duties we hire them to do within the scope of the law and our rights. If they step outside that scope, yes oppose, that is our civil duty. In my opinion.
And I don't think any of us here opose the police when they are carrying out their duties we hire them to do within the scope of the law and our rights. If they step outside that scope, yes oppose, that is our civil duty. In my opinion.
bugly
Regular Member
imported post
Now we're coming closer to the point. Absolutely oppose when the scope of authority is breached. A simple ID request is not that breach. When it becomes more, such as; "I need to run your info", even though you've done nothing, force them to comply with the law by asking them what you're being charged with. If they refuse, you have them by the 'nads. But until there is a REAL breach in confidence with them, thee is no reason to be confrontational, it just makes it harder for the rest of us to continue open carrying without harassment. If all the police see when they talk to open carryers is; confrontation and refusal to even be civil, they WILL step up the harassment and they WILL make it difficult to even own guns, since this is becoming a more liberal, tree-hugging state. Note I said difficult, not impossible, they do have the means to shut down manufacture of guns and place restrictions on ammunition supply.
All I'm saying is; don't screw it up for the rest of us by trying to be a tough guy when the cops want to talk to you. after a stop or two (if that even happens) they'll get to know who you are by sight and leave you alone for good. If you confront them or decide to be a hard case, they WILL harass you and like I said before, they'll recognise your face.
Now we're coming closer to the point. Absolutely oppose when the scope of authority is breached. A simple ID request is not that breach. When it becomes more, such as; "I need to run your info", even though you've done nothing, force them to comply with the law by asking them what you're being charged with. If they refuse, you have them by the 'nads. But until there is a REAL breach in confidence with them, thee is no reason to be confrontational, it just makes it harder for the rest of us to continue open carrying without harassment. If all the police see when they talk to open carryers is; confrontation and refusal to even be civil, they WILL step up the harassment and they WILL make it difficult to even own guns, since this is becoming a more liberal, tree-hugging state. Note I said difficult, not impossible, they do have the means to shut down manufacture of guns and place restrictions on ammunition supply.
All I'm saying is; don't screw it up for the rest of us by trying to be a tough guy when the cops want to talk to you. after a stop or two (if that even happens) they'll get to know who you are by sight and leave you alone for good. If you confront them or decide to be a hard case, they WILL harass you and like I said before, they'll recognise your face.
antispam540
Regular Member
imported post
NavyLT wrote:
NavyLT wrote:
+1
ShooterMcGavin
Regular Member
imported post
bugly wrote:
When you provide your ID, you are consenting to them running your info. After they have your ID, how do you "force them to comply"? You won't prevent them from running your info with physical force and you won't be able to convince them to stop.
bugly wrote:
bugly wrote:
When you provide your ID, you are consenting to them running your info. After they have your ID, how do you "force them to comply"? You won't prevent them from running your info with physical force and you won't be able to convince them to stop.
bugly wrote:
You are saying that, if we step up and let them know that we know our rights, AND that we know when they (the police) are not acting within the law, they will increase harassment frequency? I must disagree. I think the opposite would be the result. The police would start to think before stopping someone who is clearly abiding by the law, just to harass them and waste their time.
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
imported post
NavyLT wrote:
The request isn't the breach, but when you politely decline to share personal information and they insist it is the breach. (I try to do it politely, but even if I wasn"t, I haven't done anything wrong.) They can't willy nilly stop people and ask for Papers. When they are asking for I.D. that is what they are asking for. Believe me they have all kinds of personal information on you once they have that.
NavyLT wrote:
The request isn't the breach, but when you politely decline to share personal information and they insist it is the breach. (I try to do it politely, but even if I wasn"t, I haven't done anything wrong.) They can't willy nilly stop people and ask for Papers. When they are asking for I.D. that is what they are asking for. Believe me they have all kinds of personal information on you once they have that.
Ajetpilot
Regular Member
imported post
bugly wrote:
Who said you have to refuse to be civil? You merely have to calmly, and unemotionally assert your rights. That's all. What is so wrong with that?
bugly wrote:
Who said you have to refuse to be civil? You merely have to calmly, and unemotionally assert your rights. That's all. What is so wrong with that?
bugly
Regular Member
imported post
Ajetpilot wrote:
The responses have been such that if asked by LEO to show ID, the response would be "kiss my @$$". Or so they have been interpreted.
There is a fine line between assertiveness and militancy, where one draws that line may determine where he sleeps that evening...or ever again.
Ajetpilot wrote:
Based solely on how responses have been written, civility is not part of the equation.
The responses have been such that if asked by LEO to show ID, the response would be "kiss my @$$". Or so they have been interpreted.
There is a fine line between assertiveness and militancy, where one draws that line may determine where he sleeps that evening...or ever again.
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
imported post
I am not advocating not being civil either, hope you didn't infer that from my posts. I am telling you from personal experience they make you feel like you are being an ass for civilly standing up for your civil rights.
I am not advocating not being civil either, hope you didn't infer that from my posts. I am telling you from personal experience they make you feel like you are being an ass for civilly standing up for your civil rights.
Tawnos
Regular Member
imported post
bugly wrote:
bugly wrote:
See, now you're just making stuff up.
bugly
Regular Member
imported post
Not really, check through the posts and look at how the responses have been. It's been "I wouldn't give them any information" "they don't have the right to ask".... yada yada. Tough guys that usually pee themselves when the first shot is fired.
I personally wouldn't go into battle with any of those guys, they obviously could use some real "old fashioned" military discipline. Try copping that attitude in a foxhole.
I'm finished battling wits with unarmed opponents in this thread. Good day to you all, hope you have some good luck with your attitudes, some day you might grow up.
Not really, check through the posts and look at how the responses have been. It's been "I wouldn't give them any information" "they don't have the right to ask".... yada yada. Tough guys that usually pee themselves when the first shot is fired.
I personally wouldn't go into battle with any of those guys, they obviously could use some real "old fashioned" military discipline. Try copping that attitude in a foxhole.
I'm finished battling wits with unarmed opponents in this thread. Good day to you all, hope you have some good luck with your attitudes, some day you might grow up.