re: Man dead after refusing to show police ID

quote:

---

Since you obviously are asking those questions because you don't know the answers then how can you conclude it was the police officers fault that the man was killed?

---

Because they were wrong

The man didn't have to show his ID.

quote:

---

how can you conclude it was the police officers fault that the man was killed?

---

Those are the facts.




A gang broke into your home twice in the past month. The 2nd time, they brutally raped and disfigured your daughter. In response, you buy a couple of Glocks and keep them at the ready.
A gang member hears about this. He decides to set you up. He has a snitch tell police you've got a drug deal going down. Gives them your address. At 3am police mistakenly break into your home on a drug bust. You grab your guns. The cops blow you away in front of your wife and daughter.

Your fault?
Of course it is.
You didn't 'fully' cooperate.

A week later, just after your funeral, same scenario.
Your wife and daughter decide to "fully cooperate" and come out screaming "don't shoot! don't shoot!" with hands held high . . . . . its the gang.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Relative to this case, we have no idea what it means.
No idea. We can each speculate, as Dawgnitwit does.
We can foolishly claim our speculations as fact, as Dawgnitwit does.
But until the Popo make more info public, which they seem inclined not to do, that is all we can do.

---

bullshite.

I just stated in a previous post what it means in this case.

---

quote:

---

Can you spell hypocrite?

---

quote:

---

If you already know that they were wrong then why did NC Tiger list all those questions and say that they need to be answered in order to know what really happened?

---

We're talking separate things.

In most states without stop and identify statutes, it's not against the law to decline ID until you're under arrest. Did the police have specific and articulable facts that warranted detention?

They said they accosted him because he didn't show ID. That would be wrong.

quote:

---

It wasn't him, Nair Rodriguez tells him. "I hit my daughter," she says. She wants to know why they have pinned down her husband.
"He refused to give his ID,"

---

OK doesn't require you to show ID.

quote:

---

It sounds to me like until you get those answers that you are just speculating the police were wrong.

Can you spell hypocrite?

---

Obviously you don't understand the meaning if hypocrite.

quote:

---

That's no excuse for not fully cooperating with the police until it can be determined that you are an innocent man.

---

We are all innocent until proven otherwise!

quote:

---

We're talking separate things.

---

We sure are.

I'm talking about this specific incident and about knowing the answers to those questions before we can say that we know all of the facts and you are trying to muddy up the water by talking about anything except this specific incident and about knowing the answers to those questions before we can say that we know all of the facts.

Why are you doing that?

quote:

---

In most states without stop and identify statutes, it's not against the law to decline ID until you're under arrest. Did the police have specific and articulable facts that warranted detention?

---

And I've already posted the Supreme Court ruling that even in states where they don't have stop and identify statutes the police have the legal authority to detain someone they reasonable suspect committed a crime until their identification is determined.

So go argue your position with the Supreme Court of the United States not with me.

quote:

---

OK doesn't require you to show ID.

---

Read what I just stated above.

quote:

---

Obviously you don't understand the meaning if hypocrite.

---

Obviously I do.

quote:

---

You should make your fairy tales a little less obvious.

---

You can't handle the truth.

quote:

---

If the police officer doesn't know the person he stopped is a wanted murderer who will kill the police officer in order to escape then when the police officer lets his guard down the wanted murderer will take advantage of that moment and murder the police officer in order to escape.

---

So let me get this strait. You think a wanted murderer will actually just hand over his real ID to the police?

quote:

---

So if the police stop you and you don't want to be detained until your identity can be determined then it would behoove you to carry a valid ID at all times and present it to the police when they request to see some form of identification.

---

It all comes down to training. I imagine someone will get paid, and the department will take a close look at it's procedures.

You do have to understand unarmed innocent people dying due to actions of police will draw heavy criticism to any department, and rightly so. Police deal with emotional people during domestic investigations all the time without further issues.

"SHOW ME YOUR PAPERS!"


My input on this thread/issue:

https://www.policechiefmagazine.org/ addresses the various "Terry" iterations that regulate police behavior relevant to this discussion. While it is complicated and often unresolved, these excerpts seem clear enough to provide the insight into the Moore, OK case.

quote:

---

The Terry rule has developed quite a bit since 1968, but some aspects remain murky. In particular, if the suspect refuses to give his name or any identifiers, may an officer arrest the suspect? According to the Supreme Court, the police may arrest for failure to identify if state law criminalizes such behavior.

---

We know Oklahoma has not criminalized such behavior and so the deceased broke no laws that could have eventuated in an arrest--had he survived the detention.

But what if Oklahoma had such a law?

quote:

---

Still, the Supreme Court has never dealt squarely with the constitutionality of a state statute that requires production of documentary identification in an investigative detention or the legality of an arrest of a pedestrian for refusal to produce documentary identification. Obviously, if someone is operating a motor vehicle in a public area they can be required to produce the associated privilege license, which of course has the effect of identifying that person.

---

This says to me that any claim that the Supreme Court has ruled the police have the right to demand a pedestrian's ID even in a state with a statute allowing it in an investigative detention is false.

quote:

---

But what of suspects who are stopped but are not operating vehicles? Current law generally does not require that ordinary pedestrians even carry documentary identification and it remains to be seen what courts will do with the issues surrounding a requirement of documentary identification. Naturally, if someone is arrested, any documentary identification on that person can be located in the search incident to arrest.

---

It follows, it seems to me, a demand to produce what the law does not require one to have is patently tyrannical--especially as a pretext to inflict violence/harassment when it is not produced.

quote:

---

An interesting question arises when state law does not make it a crime to refuse to identify oneself but does clearly allow the police to temporarily detain the suspect and determine his identity. The decision in Hiibel suggests that Terry allows officers to ask for identification as long as the request for identification is reasonably related in scope to the circumstances that justified the initial stop.

---

The police arrived there in need of determining if any crime had in fact occurred and if the perpetrator or victim was still on the scene. They did not know the name of the perpetrator, so the ID of anyone there was outside the scope of the circumstances that justified any initial stop. Knowing anyone's name would not advance anything.

My intuition tells me the culprit in this matter is the Department of Wildlife (FED, State?) officer, Strang, who was working as a security guard for the theater -- not for the mall's parking lot. What is his jurisdiction? When the local police are on the scene, what authority permits him to leave his post, to interject himself into any investigation, to interrogate standers-by, presume anyone is a threat, esp when there was no evidence that any crime had even occurred. From the above quote it seems like he (and even the actual police) had no right to demand ID from anyone. One cannot have reasonable suspicion of anyone until they have established a crime had been committed. What could they be suspecting him of? The domestic violence charge is suspicious: It's a parking lot, not a home. The 911 caller could not have known the 2-3 people who were screaming at each other (disturbing the peace) were related. If the caller saw the slap, then the caller knew it was a female-female incident and would more likely have stated that than the speculation that the screamers were blood related. Something smelly about that.

Back to Strang. So here's this cop wannabe, abandoning his post to play investigator and interrogating people at random while the actual cops in their jusrisdiction are right there. The deceased makes his fatal act, he tells this little man (in character) to mind his own business. So profoundly bruised is this post-abandoner's ego, that he resolves then and there to give this father grief. He needs to assuage his hurt feelings by extracting a pound of flesh. He persists in his questioning and hears from his intended victim that the wife is the perp and so he needs another reason, any reason, to extract his vengeance. He unlawfully (from the quotes above) demands the deceased to produce a document the deceased is not required to have or produce if he did. The deceased then attempts to go around his aggressor--not away from the police--likely to rejoin his wife and the actual police. The physicality begins at that point and Strang has his way, supported by the then mob mentality that overcomes the 5.

That's what my intuition tells me.

Finally, a word about debates from an amateur: A master does not begin his argument by making absurd, demonstrably false statements like the police are not a part of government. He substanciates his points--especially in matters of law. The use of ad hominem attacks loses big points, and name-calling forfeits the debate.

Points are more easily accepted in a civil exchange. Rudeness does not enhance a position.

As a senior citizen in line to die off, let me suggest our society is losing more than fascists.