Steeler-gal
Regular Member
Key board freedom fighters one and all. Taking back the country one opinion at a time.
Occupy Keyboard VA
Key board freedom fighters one and all. Taking back the country one opinion at a time.
I respect you opinion that he instigated the initial contact. You also state that you felt it was fine for them to approach and demand ID. Let me ask you, what do you feel was the RAS for demanding ID? It is already established that filming the police during their duties is not illegal and that openly carrying a firearm is not illegal. The officer had already let the gentleman leave the area where the incident took place, so obviously he did not deem the man a threat at that time. What reasonable suspicion do you think the officer had that gave him the right to stop the man and demand that he identify himself?
It seems that we both agree on the outcome, but we may disagree on the circumstances.
Demand? Who said anything about demand? It is already been decided in court cases that officers are allowed to have casual contact with a "suspect" and I agree with that... there is nothing wrong with the officers approaching and asking (ASKING) to see ID. If their request is denied, and the person decides to walk away and say nothing or whatever, then that is fine too (obviously).
Officer: "Your ID, please."
Me: "Quite right, and so good of you to ask. In accordance with Federal, State, County, and Local law, however, I must decline. Good day, officer!"
Walks away.
Demand? Who said anything about demand? It is already been decided in court cases that officers are allowed to have casual contact with a "suspect" and I agree with that... there is nothing wrong with the officers approaching and asking (ASKING) to see ID. If their request is denied, and the person decides to walk away and say nothing or whatever, then that is fine too (obviously).
I never said it was ok for them to approach and demand ID, nor did my post even USE the word DEMAND. Good job at putting words in my mouth though.
You are correct sir, you never used the word "demand" , and for my implying you did I sincerely apologize. I used word, as it is my opinion that was what they were doing.
You are also correct that a LEO may "ask" anyone for their ID. I would, however, disagree with you that this was a casual contact. If an officer says you are not being detained and then stops you again after only a short time(while slowly following you) that makes it hard to justify that it is a casual contact. The officer had already stated that the gentleman was not being detained at the scene, and the gentleman left the area. The officer then stops the gentleman, gets out of his cruiser with his hand on his holster and proceeds to "ask" for ID. When the gentleman asks if he is required to present ID, the officer states that he does if he is carrying a firearm. For the majority of this interaction the officer has his hand on his holster. Does this strike you as a "casual" encounter? It does not strike me as such, and is why I don't view it as the casual contact you described. It is for that reason I asked what you thought the RAS was for the officer to stop and "ask" the gentleman for ID. If you think no RAS was required, then that is fine. I just don't understand how you view this as a casual stop.
You also state that while you don't agree with the officers lying to the gentleman, you understand why they do it. Why exactly do you think they do it and do you believe they are allowed to do it during a casual contact? Are they, in your opinion, allowed to come up to a citizen and lie about a crime having occurred and and the citizen matching the suspect's description and then ask for ID? This is not what happened in the video, I realize. I am just trying to get a handle on your opinion of not only why officers may lie, but when you deem it understandable.