Produce ID for the police?

[QilvinLEO]

I think Stalin must have had the same idea.

Do you read anything in context? I'm not saying ignore the right. I'm saying pick a time that is not a heated moment for the officer and yourself.

 

[Fallschirjmäger]

In this case, I agree with QuilvinLEO. Don't argue on the side of the road; Officers are trained in the 8-step traffic stop, they'll follow their training.

1. Greeting
2. ID Self/Department
3. Reason for the stop
4. Justification (service tone)
5. Request for Cooperation
6. Clarification
7. Decision
8. Close

Your input doesn't even come into play until step 5., and that's not asking you to explain your behavior, it's to get you to do what the officer wants you to do to make his job easier.

The only thing that will get an officer's or department's attention is official notice, and that is going to come from State or Federal Court. It's only fair, those are the avenues they are going to use after all.

If it's not a traffic stop, the training is even easier, only 5-steps.
1. Ask
2. Set context
3. Present Options
4. Confirm (listen)
5. Act

 

[F350]

I'm an Indiana resident. IN code says the officer can ask to my permit (LTCH in Indiana) and that I must show it to him upon request. However, after I have shown him a valid LTCH, he should not ask for further ID, and I am not required to show it per IN code.

That may be true, Indiana law also requires you to show a DL when stopped while driving a car as well BUT there still has to be RAS to make the stop! A cop can no more go around stopping cars just to check DLs than he can stop people carrying a firearm to check for permits.

 

[JoeSparky]

I think that is quite the jump in logic. You are not unexercising your right to carry a firearm. You are picking the correct time to invoke it. By activily resisting while in possesion of a firearm, there is a chance somebody could end up dead. Wait until your day in court to invoke your rights because the dead have no rights.

Please refer to my first sentence. Who said anything about a firearm. I am talking about putting an OPINION ENFORCEMENT OFFICER on notice the the OEO is violating my rights. And does this effectively put me in the category of one who is going to get the ticket or the ride? BTW. the Supreme Court has ruled that the exercise of a right cannot be converted to a crime.

 

[QilvinLEO]

Please refer to my first sentence. Who said anything about a firearm. I am talking about putting an OPINION ENFORCEMENT OFFICER on notice the the OEO is violating my rights. And does this effectively put me in the category of one who is going to get the ticket or the ride? BTW. the Supreme Court has ruled that the exercise of a right cannot be converted to a crime.

I apologize. I was going along with the context of the the OP, whereas producing identificaiton for a LEO who asks for it. But here is what I'm getting at. As an LEO, if I have decided you are going to be arrested, ticketed or anything, NOTHING is going to come of it by arguing with the officer on the side of the road about the legality of the stop. That is for court. Here is a blurp from Missouri Law (I'm not sure how the law reads where you are from)

Resisting or interfering with arrest--penalty.
575.150. 1. A person commits the crime of resisting or interfering with arrest, detention, or stop if, knowing that a law enforcement officer is making an arrest, or attempting to lawfully detain or stop an individual or vehicle, or the person reasonably should know that a law enforcement officer is making an arrest or attempting to lawfully detain or lawfully stop an individual or vehicle, for the purpose of preventing the officer from effecting the arrest, stop or detention, the person:
(1) Resists the arrest, stop or detention of such person by using or threatening the use of violence or physical force or by fleeing from such officer; or
(2) Interferes with the arrest, stop or detention of another person by using or threatening the use of violence, physical force or physical interference.
2. This section applies to:
(1) Arrests, stops, or detentions, with or without warrants;
(2) Arrests, stops, or detentions, for any crime, infraction, or ordinance violation; and
(3) Arrests for warrants issued by a court or a probation and parole officer.
3. A person is presumed to be fleeing a vehicle stop if that person continues to operate a motor vehicle after that person has seen or should have seen clearly visible emergency lights or has heard or should have heard an audible signal emanating from the law enforcement vehicle pursuing that person. 4. It is no defense to a prosecution pursuant to subsection 1 of this section that the law enforcement officer was acting unlawfully in making the arrest. However, nothing in this section shall be construed to bar civil suits for unlawful arrest.


Therefore, if your backing away from the officer, aruging, saying things like "I'm not going anywhere with you" you are resisting arrest. Even if it is an unlawful arrest. You are required to submit to the arrest. Then, when you go to court, if for some reason the prosecutor doesnt throw the charges, you completely hose the officer for money and THAT is how change comes about.

 

[RetiredOC]

4. It is no defense to a prosecution pursuant to subsection 1 of this section that the law enforcement officer was acting unlawfully in making the arrest. However, nothing in this section shall be construed to bar civil suits for unlawful arrest.


Therefore, if your backing away from the officer, aruging, saying things like "I'm not going anywhere with you" you are resisting arrest. Even if it is an unlawful arrest. You are required to submit to the arrest.

I'm sure similar laws existed during the founding of this nation while we were still an extension of England. I think the fact that this law exists should be alarming to people. A cop can literally walk up to you for no reason and tell you;
"you're under arrest for resisting arrest."

resist and you are in jail. Sure the arrest was unlawful, but since you resisted tyranny you can sit in jail for the charge of "resisting arrest."

Does no one else think this is NUTS?

 

[Vitaeus]

nope makes me glad I live in Washington state and the laws and the case law are completely different than most of the opinions nad citations from some other states, Missouri being one of them. I do hope that you Missouri open carriers succeed in getting preemption and fixing some of your laws like the one cited by QilvinLEO.

 

[F350]

I'm sure similar laws existed during the founding of this nation while we were still an extension of England. I think the fact that this law exists should be alarming to people. A cop can literally walk up to you for no reason and tell you;
"you're under arrest for resisting arrest."

resist and you are in jail. Sure the arrest was unlawful, but since you resisted tyranny you can sit in jail for the charge of "resisting arrest."

Does no one else think this is NUTS?

All part of the LEO attitude "You may beat the rap but you won't beat the ride" or "I'll do what ever the hell I want and you can't stop me"

PAPERS!!!! YOU VILL SHOW YOUR IDENTITY PAPERS (AND BOW BEFORE ME AND KISS MY JACKBOOTS)!

 

[OC for ME]

<snip> Then, when you go to court, if for some reason the prosecutor doesn't throw the charges, you completely hose the officer for money and THAT is how change comes about.

Suing a cop who acted unlawfully is not like going to the QT to buy a soda.

Do you contend that if the charges are "tossed" that the citizen has no avenue to gain redress for wrongs as a result of the unlawful arrest?

The citizen now has a arrest on his record.
The citizen must work and spend to expunge the unlawful arrest.
The citizen may have experienced a adverse consequence from his employer as a result of the unlawful arrest.
The citizen and his family must endure the financial hardship for his defense against a unlawful arrest.
The citizen's family may be burdened, socially, by the actions of a cop who makes the unlawful arrest.
The citizenry has another example of how "all cops" are "bad cops" due to a single unlawful arrest regardless of the facts to the contrary.

The cop is not required to do anything to "repair the damage" he has done to the citizen he unlawfully arrested.

The cop getting hosed? Not likely. When was the last time a cop had to sell his house to pay a citizen he unlawful arrest?

 

[Yard Sale]

Wait until your day in court to invoke your rights because the dead have no rights.

No, don't wait to invoke your rights. Courts consider a right not invoked is waived.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IG7niM9PzeE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILqc0DMh84k

 

[sudden valley gunner]

See what happens when we let government monopolize force. We get many cops displaying attitudes of cooperate or else......

 

[Fuller Malarkey]

I wonder how many cops washed out at boot camp?

It must be a low set bar. Aggression, height, weight, in. The rest is ad lib.

 

[FN-FAL]

Unacceptable

<Applaud>

There are so few people that can understand this point. I can say I bet everyone on this forum has broken the law somehow this week. It is probably something stupid, such as rolling past a stop sign, going to far into an intersection, verbally assaulted someone (Check your City Ordinances, probably falls into 3rd degree assault).

"No, actually, I'm perfect and never have done anything wrong officer". Yeah ********, stop lying to yourself.
We all do it.

However, Officers realize all this stuff is complete bullcrap and dont mess with citizens for it.

But if your going to be an ******* while exercising your right, I'm going to use every bit of the power you have given me to enforce the law. Even if I have to wait a week to enforce a stupid law on you.

You are acting within your right to carry that firearm and being an ass while you do it. I'm acting within my DUTY to write you for every ******** law I can because your being as ass. Chances are you will never talk yourself "out" out of a ticket/arrest. But you can EASILY talk yourself INTO one. Attitude is everything.


To the one percent that exercise their right while being polite and professional, Thank you. You are an EXTREME rarity. To the rest of you ******** that cant check your ego at the door, your "showing the man" attitude will cost you. Eventually.

Clearly you have some very deep rooted issues, were you breast fed? I am thinking not!
It is an attitude like yours that is completely out of touch with the world, just because you have a badge and a gun gives you no special status above anyone else, you sir are no better than any other human and I hope somewhere sometime soon you get a dose of reality!
I expect we will all see you on a youtube video being a complete asshat to a law abiding citizen and will be stripped of your precious gun and badge and sent packing, there are plenty of openings for cab drivers.
Just because someone decides to give a flatfoot an attitude gives you absolutley no right to do the things you have stated, plus all the cursing you use tells me you are of a lower education status and of poor moral and social status, shame on you!
Your rant should be sent to all police and sheriff depts in your state and used as an example of how not to behave toward the people who pay your salary of which you clearly do not deserve!

 

[Freedom1Man]

Here is the interesting stuff. My source is Jefferson 1942 (abridged) by Saul K. Padover. The Federalist political party was composed primarily of propertied and monied interests, and hated and despised democracy. The incumbent in the election of 1800 was Federalist John Adams. The challenger was his vice-president Thos. Jefferson, a solid supporter of democracy and the common man.

Adams was very bitter about Jefferson winning the election of 1800. Adams made many midnight appointments to federal office after he knew he lost the election. He also appointed John Marshall to the Supreme Court, although I forget whether it was a midnight appointment. For sure, though, Marshall was a definitely a Federalist and strongly disliked Jefferson. (Oh, it must have been a midnight appointment because Marshall was Secretary of State to Adams.)

So why did they create a REPUBLIC if they loved Democracy so much?

 

[Vitaeus]

The best way to preserve rights is a republic, the system is theoretically designed to prevent the removal of a minority opinion from the national discourse. The constitutions (Federal and State) are generally designed to work with the legislature to make laws that preserve rights and the Judiciary is there to prevent the legislature and the executive from damaging the rights of the minority.

 

[Citizen]

So why did they create a REPUBLIC if they loved Democracy so much?

I don't know that we can ever really get past their rhetoric and public-relations spin to find out what they were actually thinking.

We know from his writings that Hamilton was a monarchist. He advocated Geo. Washington becoming executive-for-life, and I think the same for the Senate.

Some of these people loved the idea of freedom for themselves, but not so much for the common man. They loved the idea of getting rid of their master--George III--so they could set themselves up as the masters or close to the master.

I'm betting they knew full well the public outcry if they tried to set up a monarchy. They already had two armed rebellions after the Revolution was won. George Washington is the only president to personally lead troops to put down a rebellion while also holding office as president. And, I think that was just a bunch of western PA farmers really, really annoyed at a fedgov tax on whiskey. Imagine the uproar over setting up a monarchy.

I think one reason they went for a democratic republic was because it was an easier pill to swallow for the sovereign countries (states), the governments of which were already organized around republican principles for the most part. The Federalists just barely got the constitution ratified as it was. Imagine trying to get the individual sovereign states to give up their sovereignty and convert from the Articles of Confederation to one monarch for all. Oh, I doubt that would have gone over without a fight. Too many powerful bigwigs in each state would have been opposed to ceding their power to a king.