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/2010/11/29/rabbi-angry-at-nypd-over-jaywalking-ticket/

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

And the comments are pretty disgusting.

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.

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.

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.

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.

eye95 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

skidmark said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

END_THE_FED said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

eye95 said:

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.

Click to expand...

KBCraig said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

skidmark said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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...

eye95, are you here to discuss the specifics of this case, or make up hypotheticals that you believe prove some point?

KBCraig said:

eye95, are you here to discuss the specifics of this case, or make up hypotheticals that you believe prove some point?

Click to expand...

eye95 said:

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

Click to expand...

.

I'm not going to guess at what you "actually said". Rather than reading through your obtuse hints, I'll move along.

KBCraig said:

I'm not going to guess at what you "actually said". Rather than reading through your obtuse hints, I'll move along.

Click to expand...

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.

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?

skidmark said:

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?

Click to expand...

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.

skidmark said:

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]

Click to expand...

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