Identification

[LEO 229]

imported post

Mike wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

I think everyone should have a photo ID in case you do get charged with something. Having ID can get you released on a summons. Even better.... if your injured and taken to the hospital... your family can be contacted if your unconscious.

It is not required to have ID to be released upon summons - VA law requires LEOs to issue summons for most misdemeanor offenses - custodially arresting a person merely b/c the person does not have ID, in lieu of summons, is unlawful. A person being issued a summons in VA is only required to give their name and address.

Wrong! Permit meto educate you once again.... Your talking about Class 3 and 4 only!

Class 1 and Class 2 can get get you jail time. Therefore... you better have a valid ID card. I am not going tolet you give me your brother's identify or some other name you made up.

http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+19.2-74

2. Whenever any person is detained by or is in the custody of an arresting officer for a violation of any county, city, or town ordinance or of any provision of this Code, punishable as a Class 3 or Class 4 misdemeanor or any other misdemeanor for which he cannot receive a jail sentence, except as otherwise provided in Title 46.2, or to the offense of public drunkenness as defined in § 18.2-388, the arresting officer shall take the name and address of such person and issue a summons or otherwise notify him in writing to appear at a time and place to be specified in such summons or notice. Upon the giving of such person of his written promise to appear at such time and place, the officer shall forthwith release him from custody. However, if any such person shall fail or refuse to discontinue the unlawful act, the officer may proceed according to the provisions of § 19.2-82.



"shall take the name and address" = means to accept no matter what. It sucks but you can lie to me and say your Mike Rowe and you like on 150 DirtyjobStreet. No jail time anyway and the charge is rather petty.

But if you disregard the summons and I find you again.. I get to arrest you for fail to appear. Even WITH an ID card.... if you have been charged with FTA in the past.... I get to LOCK YOU UP!

In closing......

If you have NO ID card.... and charged with a class 1 or 2 misdemeanor

YOUR GOING TO BE ARRESTED!

DO NOT BELIEVE WHAT MIKE STATED ABOVE!!!

Mike may have good intentions but he is NOT a LEO and is passing along information thatcould get you in more trouble down the road.

 

[Cue-Ball]

imported post

I can understand you.. and think some laws are stupid. But as a LEO.. it is my job to enforce ALL the laws... People do not get to pick and choose the ones they want to follow and I do not get to pick and choose the laws I want to enforce.

Enforcing all the laws is a choice you make. If a law was passed tomorrow that all firearms had to be turned into the authorities, would you enforce it? If a law were passed that Jewish people needed to wear a Star of David on their clothing, would you enforce it?

As far as people getting to pick and choose...we most certainly do. Unless you catch us and have enough evidence to convict us, we get to break whatever laws we want. It was said earlier in this thread, nobody obeys all the laws. Nobody.

If I do not believe in physical assaults and view them as fair fights.... I cannot tell the victim.. "I do not like that law so I will not be arresting him. Go home and clean up. Learn to fight next time"

There is a difference between a physical assault and, say, breaking the speed limit or taking a drug. If I assault someone, I've violated their right to life. If I go 60 in a 55, I've violated nobody of life or liberty. If I smoke a joint, I've deprived nobody of any liberty at all.

Laws only work when one of two things is true: 1) The punishment is so great, and the chances of getting caught are so high, that it is not worth the risk, or 2) people feel that the law is in their best interests.

People pay their income tax for the first reason. Nobody wants to do it, but they don't want to go to prison over it either. People don't murder each other for the second reason. They wouldn't want to be murdered themselves. People do drugs because doing something to themselves, which has no effect on others, and which has very little chance of resulting in jail time, doesn't meet either of the criteria I mentioned.

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

Cue-Ball wrote:

I can understand you.. and think some laws are stupid. But as a LEO.. it is my job to enforce ALL the laws... People do not get to pick and choose the ones they want to follow and I do not get to pick and choose the laws I want to enforce.

Enforcing all the laws is a choice you make. If a law was passed tomorrow that all firearms had to be turned into the authorities, would you enforce it? If a law were passed that Jewish people needed to wear a Star of David on their clothing, would you enforce it?

As far as people getting to pick and choose...we most certainly do. Unless you catch us and have enough evidence to convict us, we get to break whatever laws we want. It was said earlier in this thread, nobody obeys all the laws. Nobody.

If I do not believe in physical assaults and view them as fair fights.... I cannot tell the victim.. "I do not like that law so I will not be arresting him. Go home and clean up. Learn to fight next time"

There is a difference between a physical assault and, say, breaking the speed limit or taking a drug. If I assault someone, I've violated their right to life. If I go 60 in a 55, I've violated nobody of life or liberty. If I smoke a joint, I've deprived nobody of any liberty at all.

Laws only work when one of two things is true: 1) The punishment is so great, and the chances of getting caught are so high, that it is not worth the risk, or 2) people feel that the law is in their best interests.

People pay their income tax for the first reason. Nobody wants to do it, but they don't want to go to prison over it either. People don't murder each other for the second reason. They wouldn't want to be murdered themselves. People do drugs because doing something to themselves, which has no effect on others, and which has very little chance of resulting in jail time, doesn't meet either of the criteria I mentioned.

Can I let you go? Sure... but I am talking more about when your committing a crime against someone else.... I must act. I cannot tell the victim... "Sure.. he stole your car. ButI do not believe in grand larceny laws."

It is clear you want to break laws and not be caught. All criminals think this way.

Your the classic case why people refuse to show ID. You KNOW you did something wrong or will do something wrong in the futureand do not want to get caught. The idea of remaining anonymous works in your favor so you can continue to commit crimes.

If a law does notviolate thequality of life of others... It is OK?

Your drinking/smoking potand driving.. itdoes no botheranyone else if you make it home. But when you hit another car head on filled with a family and kill them all.... because you could not control the vehicle. Now you have.

 

[Cue-Ball]

imported post

Can I let you go? Sure... but I am talking more about when your committing a crime against someone else.... I must act. I cannot tell the victim... "Sure.. he stole your car. But I do not believe in grand larceny laws."

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Laws which hurt another are very different from consensual crimes or victimless crimes. If Joe Schmoe smokes a joint, what crime has he committed against someone else? If Jane and Jim have sex, and Jim pays Jane for it, what third party has been deprived of life or liberty?

Is it possible that perhaps you actually see a little light at the end of the tunnel?

It is clear you want to break laws and not be caught. All criminals think this way.

You should be careful to presume too much. Just because I think something should not be illegal (because it harms nobody) does not mean I take part in that act myself. If you've ever gone even 1mph over the speed limit, then been relieved that nobody ticketed you, I guess you think like a criminal too.

Your the classic case why people refuse to show ID. You KNOW you did something wrong or will do something wrong in the future and do not want to get caught. The idea of remaining anonymous works in your favor so you can continue to commit crimes.

Again, you presume too much. People refuse to show ID, not because they've done something wrong, but because it is wrong of you to ask for it! The "what do you have to hide" argument is a very poor one. Remaining anonymous has nothing to do with it. If an officer comes up to question me about why I'm carrying a gun on my hip, I'll be more than happy to give him my name and address, but no way in hell I'm giving him my ID.

I find it quite sad that you assume anyone who doesn't bow to your demands is guilty of a crime.

If a law does not violate the quality of life of others... It is OK? Your drinking/smoking pot and driving.. it does no bother anyone else if you make it home. But when you hit another car head on filled with a family and kill them all.... because you could not control the vehicle. Now you have.

Your eating a taco and driving.. it does no bother anyone else if you make it home. But when you hit another car head on filled with a family and kill them all.... because you could not control the vehicle. Now you have.

We must outlaw the eating of tacos!!! That argument can work for anything. If I can eat a taco and control my car, what have I done wrong? If I can talk on a cell phone and control my car, what have I done wrong?

If someone has three beers and cannot control their car, they are a danger. Why are they a danger? Not because they've had three beers, but because they cannot control their car. You need to separate the acts of being drunk and driving dangerously because they are not interdependent. I can get drunk and choose not to drive. I can drive dangerously without being drunk. Only one of these two actions presents an imminent threat to the lives of others.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

imported post

LEO 229

wrote:

Talking so bravely here is easy to do.

Leo,
I don't see that bravery has anything to do with it. Are you suggesting that the mere presence of a law officer shoud be so intimidating to the average citizen that he would need to be "brave" to refuse a request for ID, even if the request were out of line? As True Brit said, there is a reason why there is no law requiring citizens to even carry ID, let alone display it on request. More practically, this all hinges on the reason or reasonableness of the request. Two (armed) game wardens stopped me in the woods last winter and asked to see my permission card to hunt the private land I was on. I didn't have any written permission, so they explained very politely they had no way of knowing if I were poaching or not. I fully understood their position and felt foolish for not having the document. They then asked for my ID as they wrote up the summons. I provided it. Oh, and I had to let them hold my rifle while they did all this. I had no objection to this either. The officer even gave me his home phone number and told me to get the proper form to him soon, so he could have the court appearance cancelled. I was impressed by his professionalism. On the other hand, if some officer came up to me out of the blue and demanded ID just because I was OC'ing, I'd first ask why he wanted it. If he had no articulable reason and I had the distinct impression he was demanding it to harrass me I would politely decline and ask if I were free to leave. I would NOT consider this "brave", but simply the right thing to do.

Dan, Chet and Brian refused the unreasonable demands/requests of the Norfolk police recently. I don't know if they felt "brave" in doing so, but they all did the right thing even at some risk to themselves. I think they have set an example to the rest of us not to compromise our principles. The notion that people on this board are a bunch of anonymous "tough talkers" who fold when confronted is simply not true!

 

[HankT]

imported post

Dutch Uncle wrote:

The notion that people on this board are a bunch of anonymous "tough talkers" who fold when confronted is simply not true!

Oh, I don't know.....:uhoh:


"...you have insisted on continuing to use degrading terminology in regards to my friend. what, exactly , is your problem. you seem to be either a cop, a cop ass-kisser, or a cop wannabe, none of which matters to me, as each of those is fully capable of getting their ass kicked just like anybody else.... and ifYou continue to do so, then i guess it is a good thing that you are hidden behind your computer."

marine dad 8/28/07

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

Cue-Ball wrote:

Can I let you go? Sure... but I am talking more about when your committing a crime against someone else.... I must act. I cannot tell the victim... "Sure.. he stole your car. But I do not believe in grand larceny laws."

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Laws which hurt another are very different from consensual crimes or victimless crimes. If Joe Schmoe smokes a joint, what crime has he committed against someone else? If Jane and Jim have sex, and Jim pays Jane for it, what third party has been deprived of life or liberty?

Is it possible that perhaps you actually see a little light at the end of the tunnel?

It is clear you want to break laws and not be caught. All criminals think this way.

You should be careful to presume too much. Just because I think something should not be illegal (because it harms nobody) does not mean I take part in that act myself. If you've ever gone even 1mph over the speed limit, then been relieved that nobody ticketed you, I guess you think like a criminal too.

Your the classic case why people refuse to show ID. You KNOW you did something wrong or will do something wrong in the future and do not want to get caught. The idea of remaining anonymous works in your favor so you can continue to commit crimes.

Again, you presume too much. People refuse to show ID, not because they've done something wrong, but because it is wrong of you to ask for it! The "what do you have to hide" argument is a very poor one. Remaining anonymous has nothing to do with it. If an officer comes up to question me about why I'm carrying a gun on my hip, I'll be more than happy to give him my name and address, but no way in hell I'm giving him my ID.

I find it quite sad that you assume anyone who doesn't bow to your demands is guilty of a crime.

If a law does not violate the quality of life of others... It is OK? Your drinking/smoking pot and driving.. it does no bother anyone else if you make it home. But when you hit another car head on filled with a family and kill them all.... because you could not control the vehicle. Now you have.

Your eating a taco and driving.. it does no bother anyone else if you make it home. But when you hit another car head on filled with a family and kill them all.... because you could not control the vehicle. Now you have.

We must outlaw the eating of tacos!!! That argument can work for anything. If I can eat a taco and control my car, what have I done wrong? If I can talk on a cell phone and control my car, what have I done wrong?

If someone has three beers and cannot control their car, they are a danger. Why are they a danger? Not because they've had three beers, but because they cannot control their car. You need to separate the acts of being drunk and driving dangerously because they are not interdependent. I can get drunk and choose not to drive. I can drive dangerously without being drunk. Only one of these two actions presents an imminent threat to the lives of others.

As I recall.... I have NEVER worked a fatal accident involving someone eating a taco. I have for people intoxicated or on drugs. Eating a taco does not cause people to lose control of motor skills. This must be why. I guess we will not need to outlaw eating tacos today.

People drink at the bar all the time. I know from my training that people know they should not drive up to a certain level of intoxication. Then the hit the upper level and think "I'm fine to drive! Offis~ker!"

But this is too far off topic now....

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

Dutch Uncle wrote:

Leo,
I don't see that bravery has anything to do with it. Are you suggesting that the mere presence of a law officer shoud be so intimidating to the average citizen that he would need to be "brave" to refuse a request for ID, even if the request were out of line? As True Brit said, there is a reason why there is no law requiring citizens to even carry ID, let alone display it on request. More practically, this all hinges on the reason or reasonableness of the request. Two (armed) game wardens stopped me in the woods last winter and asked to see my permission card to hunt the private land I was on. I didn't have any written permission, so they explained very politely they had no way of knowing if I were poaching or not. I fully understood their position and felt foolish for not having the document. They then asked for my ID as they wrote up the summons. I provided it. Oh, and I had to let them hold my rifle while they did all this. I had no objection to this either. The officer even gave me his home phone number and told me to get the proper form to him soon, so he could have the court appearance cancelled. I was impressed by his professionalism. On the other hand, if some officer came up to me out of the blue and demanded ID just because I was OC'ing, I'd first ask why he wanted it. If he had no articulable reason and I had the distinct impression he was demanding it to harrass me I would politely decline and ask if I were free to leave. I would NOT consider this "brave", but simply the right thing to do.

Dan, Chet and Brian refused the unreasonable demands/requests of the Norfolk police recently. I don't know if they felt "brave" in doing so, but they all did the right thing even at some risk to themselves. I think they have set an example to the rest of us not to compromise our principles. The notion that people on this board are a bunch of anonymous "tough talkers" who fold when confronted is simply not true!

It is my experience that some people online can talk the talk... but never intend on walking the walk.

Not that the LEO is intimidating in person.. but that the person knows there is a time to produce that ID to avoid any problems. They may act tough here... but I submit they will likely show it whenrequested.

Keeping in mind.... I am not talking about while OCing... this is legal and they have been educated here so well that they know they do not have to. I am talking more about.. them beingstopped for some other valid reason and told why they were stopped.

When you were stopped... you were being investigated for a hunting violation. You knew you were required to cough up your identity. Because a criminal investigation was being done... you understood that you would be disarmed until the transaction was done.

Your cooperation was rewarded with the officer providing you a way to prove it to him that you were legal so you did not need to go to court. I have talked about this in the past. Had you been an ass... he would just make you bring your proof to court and you can waste the morning there.

What concerns me is that some members here have boasted that they would REFUSE to surrender their weapon during ANY investigation. That they have the right to be armed and fight off the police if necessary.

This is just crazy! The bad part is that some other guy not knowing any better reads it and believes in it. So a few people just talking the talk convince him to walk the walk someday wherehe gets in over his head.

 

[bayboy42]

imported post

LEO229 - i see NOTHING in your response to Mike's post that contradicts what he says. In fact, the code you cited says the same thing for Class 1 and 2 misdemeanors in Part 1:

1. Whenever any person is detained by or is in the custody of an arresting officer for any violation committed in such officer's presence which offense is a violation of any county, city or town ordinance or of any provision of this Code punishable as a Class 1 or Class 2 misdemeanor or any other misdemeanor for which he may receive a jail sentence, except as otherwise provided in Title 46.2, or § 18.2-266, or an arrest on a warrant charging an offense for which a summons may be issued, and when specifically authorized by the judicial officer issuing the warrant, the arresting officer shall take the name and address of such person and issue a summons or otherwise notify him in writing to appear at a time and place to be specified in such summons or notice. Upon the giving by such person of his written promise to appear at such time and place, the officer shall forthwith release him from custody. However, if any such person shall fail or refuse to discontinue the unlawful act, the officer may proceed according to the provisions of § 19.2-82.



Please clarify!

 

[Mike]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

Wrong! Permit meto educate you once again.... Your talking about Class 3 and 4 only!

Class 1 and Class 2 can get get you jail time. Therefore... you better have a valid ID card. I am not going tolet you give me your brother's identify or some other name you made up.

http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+19.2-74

2. Whenever any person is detained by or is in the custody of an arresting officer for a violation of any county, city, or town ordinance or of any provision of this Code, punishable as a Class 3 or Class 4 misdemeanor or any other misdemeanor for which he cannot receive a jail sentence, except as otherwise provided in Title 46.2, or to the offense of public drunkenness as defined in § 18.2-388, the arresting officer shall take the name and address of such person and issue a summons or otherwise notify him in writing to appear at a time and place to be specified in such summons or notice. Upon the giving of such person of his written promise to appear at such time and place, the officer shall forthwith release him from custody. However, if any such person shall fail or refuse to discontinue the unlawful act, the officer may proceed according to the provisions of § 19.2-82. DO NOT BELIEVE WHAT MIKE STATED ABOVE!!!

Mike may have good intentions but he is NOT a LEO and is passing along information thatcould get you in more trouble down the road.

LEO229 - read the whole statute - cl 1/2 charges require summons as well -

"§ 19.2-74. Issuance and service of summons in place of warrant in misdemeanor case; issuance of summons by special policemen and conservators of the peace.

A. 1. Whenever any person is detained by or is in the custody of an arresting officer for any violation committed in such officer's presence which offense is a violation of any county, city or town ordinance or of any provision of this Code punishable as a Class 1 or Class 2 misdemeanor or any other misdemeanor for which he may receive a jail sentence, except as otherwise provided in Title 46.2, or § 18.2-266, or an arrest on a warrant charging an offense for which a summons may be issued, and when specifically authorized by the judicial officer issuing the warrant, the arresting officer shall take the name and address of such person and issue a summons or otherwise notify him in writing to appear at a time and place to be specified in such summons or notice. Upon the giving by such person of his written promise to appear at such time and place, the officer shall forthwith release him from custody. However, if any such person shall fail or refuse to discontinue the unlawful act, the officer may proceed according to the provisions of § 19.2-82. . . ."

If YOU break this law, LEO 229, inter alia, the VA Supreme Court requires that evidence seized as a result of the unlawful arrest shall be suppressed. Moore v. Commonwealth (Va. 2006), reprinted at http://www.bobbattlelaw.com/library/Moore%20v%20CW.pdf.

 

[bayboy42]

imported post

Mike may have good intentions but he is NOT a LEO and is passing along information thatcould get you in more trouble down the road.

Yet another great example of why you consult lawyers (or soon to be lawyers) and not LEOs for legal information:banghead::banghead:

 

[Cue-Ball]

imported post

As I recall.... I have NEVER worked a fatal accident involving someone eating a taco. I have for people intoxicated or on drugs. Eating a taco does not cause people to lose control of motor skills. This must be why. I guess we will not need to outlaw eating tacos today.

Have you EVER worked a fatal accident where drugs or alcohol were not involved? For instance, someone was adjusting their radio, reaching into the back seat, or fell asleep at the wheel. If there has EVER been an accident caused by these activities, does that then mean that they need to be specifically made illegal? No! Driving a car, while not being able to control it (thus, being a danger to the public) is already illegal (and should be!). We don't need to write a law to cover every possible case of why or how a person can't control their vehicle. One law, which covers the actual dangerous act (unable to control your vehicle) is all that's required. It does not matter why you can't control it. It only matters that you can't.

Until and unless you take/damage someone's property, endanger someone's life, or infringe on someone's liberty, you have done nothing wrong!

People drink at the bar all the time. I know from my training that people know they should not drive up to a certain level of intoxication. Then the hit the upper level and think "I'm fine to drive! Offis~ker!

Your point being?

 

[para_org]

imported post

No we are not off topic here. "We" are very much on topic here;


Item one; The fact that a LEO has never seen someone having an accident while/because of eating does not mean that it does not happen. In fact it happens A LOT.

So do accidents because someone looked down and fiddled with the radio.

And so on.....

The point you (LEO 229) are skirting is that attention taken away from driving either because of being momentarily distracted, or because of (an) inability to remain focused , have exactly the same result. SO..... being drunk and driving is a crime because of the result of not being able to remain attentive to the task at hand. Now whether we SHOULD make driving drunk illegal or not DOES remain an exercise in where you place emphasis as to responsibility; i.e. before or after an accident takes place.

Sadly "we" have allowed driving to become a priviledge granted by the state. So it was relatively easy to make drunk driving illegal WITHOUT having to distingish such things.


Item two; Local police DO call in the feds, and the feds (FBI) are also police. "We" have granted them unusual powers and I am confident we will suffer because of it sooner rather than later. Giving ANY group of people the ability to snoop on others without oversight WILL cause problems. It is simply a matter of time. And yes information whether granted in secret or in the open, is something I grant to you and it is NOT something you (as a LEO) have a right to see because you are fighting crime.


Item three; Many of us here have refused to give ID to the police. Many also have been detained illegally by the police for spurous reasons after handing over written ID. It has been documented over and over here. It would be nice if we could ALL just acknowledge that. It is sad to see people 'still' trying to make a case for seeing everyone to be a potential criminal until proven otherwise. Demanding someone's "papers" is just a logical extension of that viewpoint. History tells us that. Are we listeing to our history ?


Item four; It has been my experience, some of which was recently outlined here, that cops are being asked to do too much in our society. I am sure we can all come up with examples of our own, but cops should NOT be used as society's nannys as a result of some 'oath' made up by someone and taken during the police training process.

When folks talk about cops overstepping their boundries, it is usually because the cop feels an expectation to protect because of some such oath he or she has taken. AS HAS BEEN MENTIONED HERE, this "protection" business is wrong headed as it leads to conflicts with the Bill of RIghts and thereby *IS* a poor reason to get involved in police work.

It would ALSO be nice if we ALL could just get past this important point during these discussions. It comes up over and over and has been debated ad nauseum. It would be nice if we could all just agree that cops are NOT there to protect ANYONE as there is no legal basis for it. In fact the courts have, time and time again, ruled that the police have no legal obligations to ANY individual to protect and serve them. And this is notwithstanding any particular "oath". Or out more precisely; your legal requirements are in direct conflict with said oath.


Conclusion; Being a cop is a case of a walking conundrum. <- It therefore should take no great mental leap to see why people fear what the cop standing in front of them can do once they are in possession of someone's ID.

This is why it is ALWAYS a bad idea to consent to a search of yourself, or your property; and why the founders of our American society held such views as to personal liberty. If people knew about the dangers of a police-state over 200 years ago, why does it seem to be such a problem for us to see it too ?

 

[Xeni]

imported post

As an aside to this topic:

I recently purchased a Glock 23 and Blackhawk Serpa2 holster and I've begun to OC in PWC. Now, some background. I am an American of latino decent. Recently I got married and my wife (white) took my last name. We are planning on having kids. Since I live in PWC we fall under the new immigration policies passed by the PWC Board. As the resolution currently stands, a person has to prove that they're legal citizens if a PWC PO has probable cause to believe that the person is not a US Citizen. Keep in mind, I have a latin last name.

Now, I asked my county supervisor how do we as a family unit prove we're US citizens. The answer came back, that's easy, just show your DLs as is required by anyone when stopped by a PO.

My issue with this is:

1. My wife generally doesn't take her ID with her if we're out and about as she doesn't drive if I'm driving. Obviously she's white so it wouldn't be too much of an issue.

2. Our child(ren) will have no DL until they reach 16. Unless I carry birth certificates with me (or on them) at all times, they could theoretically be detained until proven to be US citizens.

3. When outside of my vehicle I'm not required to show my DL as I'm not driving (duh!). But, now I'm being asked to prove that I'm a US citizen. So, I have to show 'something'... Worse yet, remember, I'm a latin american now that open carries.

I've raised these issues with my Supervisor and explained that I am not obligated to show a DL to an officer when I'm not operating a vehicle (I ommitted the part about carrying a firearm because I didn't want her to think that I was a gun nut). As of yet, I haven't recieved a response in a week since her first email.

So, I wanted to share this little anticdote with everyone here to show how ID can effect people in real life.

My jist here is.. I have no issue with the government (pef the feds because thats who I pay my taxes to DO immigration work) passing immigration laws that make sense or enforcing the laws currently on the books. However, I *do* have an issue with those laws when they impact legal citizens and thier rights.

This is an extract from the original response.

The recent policy adopted by the BOCS only affects those people in this country illegally. I am assuming that since both you and your wife are legal residents that you both carry a valid drivers license as I do. If you are ever stopped in PWC for violating the law whether traffic or other, you would need to show the police officer your identification as I would. This policy will have no effect on you.

What's scary about the last statement is that since most people just offhandly provide thier IDs they don't understand that its an intrusion upon a person's civil liberties. Give up 1 right and the rest are soon to follow.

-X

 

[ralphb72]

imported post

p

 

[glock9emem]

imported post

 

[bayboy42]

imported post

PWC = Prince William County

 

[acrimsontide]

imported post

Xeni wrote:

As an aside to this topic:

I recently purchased a Glock 23 and Blackhawk Serpa2 holster and I've begun to OC in PWC. Now, some background. I am an American of latino decent. Recently I got married and my wife (white) took my last name. We are planning on having kids. Since I live in PWC we fall under the new immigration policies passed by the PWC Board. As the resolution currently stands, a person has to prove that they're legal citizens if a PWC PO has probable cause to believe that the person is not a US Citizen. Keep in mind, I have a latin last name.

Now, I asked my county supervisor how do we as a family unit prove we're US citizens. The answer came back, that's easy, just show your DLs as is required by anyone when stopped by a PO.

My issue with this is:

1. My wife generally doesn't take her ID with her if we're out and about as she doesn't drive if I'm driving. Obviously she's white so it wouldn't be too much of an issue.

2. Our child(ren) will have no DL until they reach 16. Unless I carry birth certificates with me (or on them) at all times, they could theoretically be detained until proven to be US citizens.

3. When outside of my vehicle I'm not required to show my DL as I'm not driving (duh!). But, now I'm being asked to prove that I'm a US citizen. So, I have to show 'something'... Worse yet, remember, I'm a latin american now that open carries.

I've raised these issues with my Supervisor and explained that I am not obligated to show a DL to an officer when I'm not operating a vehicle (I ommitted the part about carrying a firearm because I didn't want her to think that I was a gun nut). As of yet, I haven't recieved a response in a week since her first email.

So, I wanted to share this little anticdote with everyone here to show how ID can effect people in real life.

My jist here is.. I have no issue with the government (pef the feds because thats who I pay my taxes to DO immigration work) passing immigration laws that make sense or enforcing the laws currently on the books. However, I *do* have an issue with those laws when they impact legal citizens and thier rights.

This is an extract from the original response.

The recent policy adopted by the BOCS only affects those people in this country illegally. I am assuming that since both you and your wife are legal residents that you both carry a valid drivers license as I do. If you are ever stopped in PWC for violating the law whether traffic or other, you would need to show the police officer your identification as I would. This policy will have no effect on you.

What's scary about the last statement is that since most people just offhandly provide thier IDs they don't understand that its an intrusion upon a person's civil liberties. Give up 1 right and the rest are soon to follow.

-X

Sometimes I think we are all being just a little paranoid over this ID thing. Granted it may not be required that we provide ID for every occasion but some of this seems a little far out for me. Maybe I'm naive but I just don't see every police officer as a threat to me. I just don't walk around thinking "gosh that cop over there that sees hundreds of people every day is going to pick me out of the crowd, walk up to me for absolutely no reason, and ask me for my ID". He/She hasto be out to get me for some reason.

Just in reading the post from Xeni, I wonder how we could possible expect the LEOs or INS to do their jobs and identify illegal aliens if they do not ask for ID? I bring this up seriously as I would like an answer to that question. Ifwe are of hispanic decent, (or any other for that matter) how does LEO determine thatwe are legal but another person fromthe same ethnic background is not UNLESS they can ask for proof of citizenship? I would be totally impossible!!! We not only have to show ID if we are driving but we have to show ID to get the driver's license to begin with. Try getting a passport without proof of citizenship. My point is that we show our IDs for everything. We give our credit cards to servers in restaurants and they take it who knows where to process it. That strip on the credit card has tons of personal info and we don't mind giving it to someone we have never seen yet we are feel threatened to just show a DL to a police officer? I guess I'm still struggling with the rationale behind all of this.

Now I wouldagree that there are bad LEOs outthere, just as there aregood and bad in every profession.If the LEO is one of the "bad" ones and is planning onmaking up some reason to arrest me, then showing myID isn't going to make it worse. If this "bad cop" actually has it on his mind to charge me with something, he/she would probably find or make up some reason. Then I would have to provide ID anyway. On the otherhand, if itjust a LEO doing his job with no ill intentions,how can it be harmful to show him/her the ID. (I know, it is a right in some places that you don't have to show ID)

 

[ralphb72]

imported post

Thank you

 

[para_org]

imported post

acrimsontide wrote:

Sometimes I think we are all being just a little paranoid over this ID thing. Granted it may not be required that we provide ID for every occasion but some of this seems a little far out for me. Maybe I'm naive but I just don't see every police officer as a threat to me. I just don't walk around thinking "gosh that cop over there that sees hundreds of people every day is going to pick me out of the crowd, walk up to me for absolutely no reason, and ask me for my ID". He/She hasbe out to get me for some reason.

Just in reading the post from Xeni, I wonder how we could possible expect the LEOs or INS to do their jobs and identify illegal aliens if they do not ask for ID? I bring this up seriously as I would like an answer to that question. Ifwe are of hispanic decent, (or any other for that matter) how does LEO determine thatwe are legal but another person fromthe same ethnic background is not UNLESS they can ask for proof of citizenship? I would be totally impossible!!! We not only have to show ID if we are driving but we have to show ID to get the driver's license to begin with. Try getting a passport without proof of citizenship. My point is that we show our IDs for everything. We give our credit cards to servers in restaurants and they take it who knows where to process it. That strip on the credit card has tons of personal info and we don't mind giving it to someone we have never seen yet we are feel threatened to just show a DL to a police officer? I guess I'm still struggling with the rationale behind all of this.

Now I wouldagree that there are bad LEOs outthere, just as there aregood and bad in every profession.If the LEO is one of the "bad" ones and is planning onmaking up some reason to arrest me, then showing myID isn't going to make it worse. If this "bad cop" actually has it on his mind to charge me with something, he/she would probably find or make up some reason. Then I would have to provide ID anyway. On the otherhand, if itjust a LEO doing his job with no ill intentions,how can it be harmful to show him/her the ID. (I know, it is a right in some places that you don't have to show ID)

Yes you are being naive.

And I hope you never have the opportunity to have a LEO upset your day, week, or entire life because he/she was given too much authority by "we the people". it doesn't merely have to be a bad LEO, just one that cannot resolve the conundrum of your rights vs. his 'need' to fight crime.

Xeni's issue/problem points to what we are stupidly trying to do in this country. IF we did not depend on the cops for our protection, then having aliens walking around would not be such an issue, as everyone would be capable and expected to protect themselves.

But since the small number of cops cannot prevent aliens walking around from committing crimes, and we all are not taking the responsibility for our own protection, we all now are subject to search to make sure we are all citizens. Stupid and counter-productive if you spend a monent or two thinking it through.

Or perhaps we should all just get use to hearing and obeying "papers please" at random check points. Oh wait, that is already happening.