1. Where does it say the word Terry in the bill or even Terry stop?
2. When did it become unlawful to remain silent during a stop of any kind unless charged with a crime?
3. It does not state how you must ID yourself.
4. So if you took a picture of youself and said yep thats me you have just ID yourself.
5. Does it even matter that the LEOS have saw nothing for RAS?
6. Why is it that LEOS will threaten 18.2-460 if you refuse to show ID during a OC terry stop encounter?
7. Why would LEOS want to see ID if they saw nothing that gives them RAS? (Walking down the street while OCing is not RAS?)
8. Tell that to Skidmark
While LEOS may understand this possibe bill they will lie or not tell the whole truth about what it says to try and force you to show ID. The abuse of power comes from were LEOS would not state the whole bill (not a law yet). LEOS can lie about anything in the course of there duties (SCOTUS) I am not willing to give up any more freedoms than have already been taken from me. This bill is trying to chip away the bill of rights. If this bill is forcing us to give up the right to remain silent how is this bill constitutional?
1. RAS that someone being lawfully detained because they are about to, are, are have committed a crime? The bill pretty much gave the definition of Terry. I didn't even think that was debated.
2. The 5th Amendment covers self incrimination. However, identifying yourself would not be considered incriminating statements. If that was the case, Miranda warnings would have to be used prior to asking someone for their basic information, which it obviously isn't the case. You must provide your name/information to be released on a summons, right? You must provide your identifying information to the other party during an accident? Right? You must testify in court if you get a subpeona as a witness. You must provide license if driving..you must provide CHP if CCing..etc etc. I think clearly identifying yourself is not covered under the 5th Amendment because it's not self incriminating statements.
3. Agreed. I stated that the bill needs to include the "how" part.
4. Identifying a picture of yourself? Kinda childish statement, but then again see #3.
5. LEOs saw nothing for RAS? The bill doesn't say anything about if the LEO has to witness the act. What if an officer heard gunshots, smelled gun powder, saw a man shot, then saw another man get into a car? Since the LEO didn't see the man actual shoot, that means he can't be stopped? Silly again. RAS is RAS. It has been around for a long time and I think we all pretty much understand the concept.
6. LEOs will threaten to use 18.2-460 to someone merely OCing? That is your opinion. Can you provide examples? I have never seen it. That would be illegal and the LEO would be held accountable. That isn't even close to 18.2-460 let alone a RAS detention. Anti-LEO bias.
7. What are you talking about? Did you clearly read the bill. It states after RAS was established and after a LEGAL DETENTION OCCURRED. Your number 7 response doesn't make sense.
8. Skidmark? I wasn't there, I have no idea what happened. I didn't make a judgement either way. Skidmark was never detained anyway, was he? Was he forced to provide his information? Was he charged with obstruction for not doing so? I don't understand how you can bring that situation into this thread.
You state LEOs will lie and/or not tell the whole truth. You show that your ignorant with your posts and anti-government bias prevails. I don't group all OCers as a group and label them as such.
