Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 26

Thread: OT - Carrying ID: Rabbi on Sabbath runs afoul of NYPD

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Granite State of Mind
    Posts
    4,509

    OT - Carrying ID: Rabbi on Sabbath runs afoul of NYPD

    A Brooklyn rabbi walking home after Sabbath services is snatched up by NYPD for jaywalking and berated for not carrying ID, by a cop who understands neither orthodox Judaism, nor the laws and Constitution.

    http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2010/11/...alking-ticket/

    This made me wonder if the crosswalks there require pressing a button (which would be prohibited under orthodoxy).

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Granite State of Mind
    Posts
    4,509
    And the comments are pretty disgusting.

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    Interesting Contrast

    Elsewhere on the site, folks are complaining about women in burkas not wanting to show their faces when identification is required, saying that the few US requirements to identify outweigh the religious requirement for a Muslim woman to cover her face.

    This situation is a direct parallel. Does the legal requirement for someone being cited for a minor violation to identify himself outweigh the religious requirement not to carry ID?

    This one is a puzzler, however I incline to the requirement for ID in certain circumstances. If the law requires ID for a violation (it doesn't in AL) or to enter a military installation (for two examples), one can avoid the requirement to ID by not breaking the law or not entering a military installation.

    In any case, folks who say the Muslim woman needs to show her face should say the rabbi needs to carry ID. Likewise, those who say the rabbi shouldn't have to carry ID should say the Muslim woman need not show her face. If we are not consistent, we betray our biases.

  4. #4
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
    Posts
    3,828
    There is a HUGE difference between authorizing the officer to ASK for ID in the case of writing a ticket ect and REQUIRING a person to carry ID on their person in case they get stopped by the gestapo! Oh, sorry--- police!
    I am assuming the report of "write my name on the sabbath" in reality was "Sign here" as a promise to appear.
    That would strengthen the officer's position a little bit but it would still conflict with the Rabbi's religious position.
    Yep, an interesting case.

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    The point behind requiring ID when someone is lawfully stopped by the police for a violation is that it allows for the issuance of a citation, reasonably certain in the knowledge of the person to whom the citation is being given. The officer has another option: He can arrest the violator. The citizen is free to carry ID, thus enabling citations, not carry ID, making citations a non-option, or not violating the law, making the whole ID thing moot.

    Caveat: Not all jurisdictions require folks to carry ID. In AL, contrary to what some officers think, they may not require ID, even when they have RAS of a crime.

  6. #6
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    There is a tremendous difference between providing identifying information and presenting an identification document. We discuss it from time to time here at OCDO under the heading od "sterile carry".

    Depending on your jurisdiction cops can at various times and places, for varying reasons, demand that you identify yourself. This can usually be accomplished by stating your name and giving your residential address. If the cop has some reason to suspect that you are giving false information he can detain you and go so far as to take you to some place where your fingerprints can be taken and sent for comparison with some database of prints.

    As far as I know NY is not a state that requires residents to carry an identification document. Apparently the cop was not that convinced that the rabbi was giving false information that he needed to be taken in and have his prints sent off to verify the identity info given.

    As for violating religious beliefs by signing his name, the rabbi also needed to consider the alternative of being forced to ride in an automobile to the station house. The Torah has much to say about competing sins.

    Now, to discuss the cop and his need to lecture. Why waste breath? He's going to exert his AUTHORITAY no matter what we say.

    stay safe.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Granite State of Mind
    Posts
    4,509
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    Elsewhere on the site, folks are complaining about women in burkas not wanting to show their faces when identification is required, saying that the few US requirements to identify outweigh the religious requirement for a Muslim woman to cover her face.

    This situation is a direct parallel.
    Hardly.

    There is no law requiring anyone to carry ID while on foot, anywhere in America. There's no requirement for anyone in the general public to even have any government-issued ID at all, much less carry it at all times.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    923
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    T
    As for violating religious beliefs by signing his name, the rabbi also needed to consider the alternative of being forced to ride in an automobile to the station house. The Torah has much to say about competing sins.

    I could be wrong here, but I don't think riding in a car would be against the rules of the Jewish sabbath. I think they just can't operate a car. Public transportation and taxi's would not be an option as one would need to carry money.
    A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.- Thomas Jefferson March 4 1801

  9. #9
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Quote Originally Posted by END_THE_FED View Post
    I could be wrong here, but I don't think riding in a car would be against the rules of the Jewish sabbath. I think they just can't operate a car. Public transportation and taxi's would not be an option as one would need to carry money.
    Talk about thread drift!

    As I'm not Orthodox I'm not going to try to quote the rules. Friends who are Orthodox have tried to explain to me why they can only walk so far before violating the restriction on physical labor on the Sabbath, why "The Clapper" cannot be used to turn on/off lights, and why I can't give them a ride to my place, yet they can hire a non-Jew to come in and turn on/off lights, cook, etc. Best I can say is it's complicated and more power to them for keeping all that stuff sorted out in their head.

    My point was that the rabbi needed to decide which would have been the greater violation of the rules.

    And again, it is still not clear if the cop was asking him to sign a summons or write out his name because the cop did not know how to spell it (a guess as ti why),

    The other point was to try to bring it somewhat on topic re: OC via the "sterile carry" comment.

    Guess I missed on both counts. No biggie.

    stay safe.

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    Elsewhere on the site, folks are complaining about women in burkas not wanting to show their faces when identification is required, saying that the few US requirements to identify outweigh the religious requirement for a Muslim woman to cover her face.

    This situation is a direct parallel. Does the legal requirement for someone being cited for a minor violation to identify himself outweigh the religious requirement not to carry ID?

    This one is a puzzler, however I incline to the requirement for ID in certain circumstances. If the law requires ID for a violation (it doesn't in AL) or to enter a military installation (for two examples), one can avoid the requirement to ID by not breaking the law or not entering a military installation.

    In any case, folks who say the Muslim woman needs to show her face should say the rabbi needs to carry ID. Likewise, those who say the rabbi shouldn't have to carry ID should say the Muslim woman need not show her face. If we are not consistent, we betray our biases.
    Quote Originally Posted by KBCraig View Post
    Hardly.

    There is no law requiring anyone to carry ID while on foot, anywhere in America. There's no requirement for anyone in the general public to even have any government-issued ID at all, much less carry it at all times.
    I notice that you failed to quote my entire post, specifically leaving out the part that illustrates that you are not refuting what I actually said. I choose to believe that this was an honest error on your part and not a deliberate deception.

    There are circumstances where not having an ID card can have a lawful downside, such as when an officer is trying to write you a citation and cannot identify you.

    Please argue with what I say and not what is easier to refute.

    Oh, and I notice that you sidestepped the point of my post (the comparison between expectations based on group identity) in favor of implying that I said there was a law requiring ID while afoot (which I clearly did not).

    Moving on unless you choose to address what I actually said.

  11. #11
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    923
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    Talk about thread drift!

    As I'm not Orthodox I'm not going to try to quote the rules. Friends who are Orthodox have tried to explain to me why they can only walk so far before violating the restriction on physical labor on the Sabbath, why "The Clapper" cannot be used to turn on/off lights, and why I can't give them a ride to my place, yet they can hire a non-Jew to come in and turn on/off lights, cook, etc. Best I can say is it's complicated and more power to them for keeping all that stuff sorted out in their head.

    My point was that the rabbi needed to decide which would have been the greater violation of the rules.

    And again, it is still not clear if the cop was asking him to sign a summons or write out his name because the cop did not know how to spell it (a guess as ti why),

    The other point was to try to bring it somewhat on topic re: OC via the "sterile carry" comment.

    Guess I missed on both counts. No biggie.

    stay safe.
    Sorry, it was not my intention to derail the thread, or to say that you were incorrect. I was just curious as to what the rules are, and thought that maybe someone with more knowledge on the subject may be able to clarify.
    A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.- Thomas Jefferson March 4 1801

  13. #13
    Regular Member Dreamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Grennsboro NC
    Posts
    5,358
    I think the one thing that people are missing here is that this Rabbi--who is hiding behind Talmudic law to justify his actions--committed a civil violation. Last time I looked, under Jewish Law, you are supposed to follow the Laws of G*D and the laws of the government.

    If he had just crossed at a corner with the light in a lawful, orderly manner, it wouldn't have been an issue...

    This isn't really about whether or not he was carrying an ID. It's about the Rabbi attempting to excuse his unlawful actions by diverting attention away from HIS wrong by playing the "race card"...

    No sympathy here...
    Last edited by Dreamer; 12-01-2010 at 12:13 AM.
    It is our cause to dispel the foggy thinking which avoids hard decisions in the delusion that a world of conflict will somehow mysteriously resolve itself into a world of harmony, if we just don't rock the boat or irritate the forces of aggression—and this is hogwash."
    --Barry Goldwater, 1964

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Granite State of Mind
    Posts
    4,509
    eye95, are you here to discuss the specifics of this case, or make up hypotheticals that you believe prove some point?

  15. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by KBCraig View Post
    eye95, are you here to discuss the specifics of this case, or make up hypotheticals that you believe prove some point?
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    Moving on unless you choose to address what I actually said.
    .

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Granite State of Mind
    Posts
    4,509
    I'm not going to guess at what you "actually said". Rather than reading through your obtuse hints, I'll move along.

  17. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by KBCraig View Post
    I'm not going to guess at what you "actually said". Rather than reading through your obtuse hints, I'll move along.
    No need to guess. It is there in my post in black and white, in plain English, for those willing to read, not just rudely excerpt in a deceptive way.

    I will correct myself on this one point: I not longer believe your error to be an honest one. You are willfully continuing your error.

    It is a shame.

  18. #18
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Oh, Jeeze Louise!

    We often snip off the parts of a post that we do not want to discuss. Long ago in the times before the Stone Age we used to insert "[snip]" or something like that, but everybody prety much figured out how to use the quoted part to go back to the original if there was a question about something else also having been said.

    It's a freaking convention to avoid posts three feet long containing every previous post and the resulting response(s).

    If you feel there was either a misuinderstanding of your thoughts or that the responder was trying to avoid your main point, just say so and explain why. This getting all huffy just makes it look like a grade-school playground argument. First one to stick out his tongue and go plbtttt wins!

    Now make nice or you don't get a cookie with your milk at snack time. That goes for both of you!

    stay safe.

    PS - Do I really have to explain I'm using hyperbole and sarcasm? Do I?

  19. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    Oh, Jeeze Louise!

    We often snip off the parts of a post that we do not want to discuss. Long ago in the times before the Stone Age we used to insert "[snip]" or something like that, but everybody prety much figured out how to use the quoted part to go back to the original if there was a question about something else also having been said.

    It's a freaking convention to avoid posts three feet long containing every previous post and the resulting response(s).

    If you feel there was either a misuinderstanding of your thoughts or that the responder was trying to avoid your main point, just say so and explain why. This getting all huffy just makes it look like a grade-school playground argument. First one to stick out his tongue and go plbtttt wins!

    Now make nice or you don't get a cookie with your milk at snack time. That goes for both of you!

    stay safe.

    PS - Do I really have to explain I'm using hyperbole and sarcasm? Do I?
    It is a useful tool that I use sometimes myself. I use "..." rather than [snip].

    However, rhetorical honesty demands that pertinent parts of posts not be removed, rendering the quoted post as seeming to mean something other than what was clearly intended, and then arguing with the strawman that remains.

    I am not bemoaning the practice of quoting relevant parts of posts. I am rebuking the practice of deceptive snipping, done so one can feel superior in what he posts. If one is posting what he believes is a correction to what another says, he ought to make dang sure he got what the other said right.

  20. #20
    Activist Member JamesCanby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Alexandria, VA at www.NoVA-MDSelfDefense.com
    Posts
    1,543
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    Oh, Jeeze Louise!

    We often snip off the parts of a post that we do not want to discuss. Long ago in the times before the Stone Age we used to insert "[snip]" or something like that, but everybody prety much figured out how to use the quoted part to go back to the original if there was a question about something else also having been said.

    It's a freaking convention to avoid posts three feet long containing every previous post and the resulting response(s).

    If you feel there was either a misuinderstanding of your thoughts or that the responder was trying to avoid your main point, just say so and explain why. This getting all huffy just makes it look like a grade-school playground argument. First one to stick out his tongue and go plbtttt wins!

    [snip]
    +1 ... lot of huffiness and posturing going on in here.

  21. #21
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by JamesCanby View Post
    +1 ... lot of huffiness and posturing going on in here.
    Such as your post here?
    Last edited by eye95; 12-01-2010 at 10:40 AM.

  22. #22
    Activist Member JamesCanby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Alexandria, VA at www.NoVA-MDSelfDefense.com
    Posts
    1,543
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    Such as your post here?
    No, it was simply a reflection of what a reasonable person has observed in this and other threads.

  23. #23
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by JamesCanby View Post
    No, it was simply a reflection of what a reasonable person has observed in this and other threads.
    No, your post was an interjection meant to stir the pot. The latest post was lipstick for the pig.

  24. #24
    Activist Member JamesCanby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Alexandria, VA at www.NoVA-MDSelfDefense.com
    Posts
    1,543
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    No, your post was an interjection meant to stir the pot. The latest post was lipstick for the pig.
    You're entitled to your opinion, as am I.

  25. #25
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by JamesCanby View Post
    You're entitled to your opinion, as am I.
    As are others--who now should be able to see the antagonism of your actions. Moving on.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •