- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Man dead after refusing to show police ID
Posted on 3/5/14 at 6:59 pm to DawgfaninCa
Posted on 3/5/14 at 6:59 pm to DawgfaninCa
quote:
when it is the police officer's life that is being put in danger
My apologies. I now feel for sorry for those poor and endangered souls that were put at risk by that dead criminal.
0
Posted on 3/5/14 at 7:02 pm to DawgfaninCa
quote:
If Rodriguez had encountered professional quality police officers instead of murderous thugs then he'd still be alive.
Posted on 3/5/14 at 7:12 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
It all comes down to training. I imagine someone will get paid, and the department will take a close look at it's procedures.
And this tragedy should be used to teach everyone why they should fully cooperate with the police when the police reasonably suspect them of committing a crime even when they are innocent.
quote:
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.
If the police conducted themselves properly then they shouldn't be criticized even when someone is accidently killed.
It should be recognized as a tragedy but if the person who is accidently killed acted in a manner that precipitated the tragedy then they and only they should be held responsible for it occurring.
Posted on 3/5/14 at 7:31 pm to DawgfaninCa
quote:
Whatever ID they show, the police officer will go back to their police vehicle and verify whether it is a valid ID stating the true identity of the person.
LINK
There are no state or federal laws requiring a person to carry or produce a government issued ID, or any other type of identification document. In states that have a "stop to identify law" you are only required to verbally state your name. Fortunately we have not yet reached the "show me your papers" level of a police state
Posted on 3/5/14 at 7:35 pm to VictoryShipSailor
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.
quote:
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.
There may still be a constitutional question whether states can pass laws that require pedestrians to produce identification when requested to by a police officer who stops them because the police officer reasonable suspects them of committing a crime but there is no doubt that the police officer can detain that person until their identity is determined.
If you disagree then tell that to the Supreme Court of the United States because the authority to detain on reasonable suspicion was established in Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) and it "does not depend on the existence of a law that specifically authorizes such a detention, so that authority exists in all jurisdictions in the United States. The name disclosure was considered by the U.S. Supreme Court in Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, 542 U.S. 177 (2004), which held that the name disclosure did not violate the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures."
This post was edited on 3/5/14 at 7:45 pm
Posted on 3/5/14 at 7:45 pm to DawgfaninCa
quote:
Tell that to the Supreme Court of the United States because the authority to detain on reasonable suspicion was established in Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) and it "does not depend on the existence of a law that specifically authorizes such a detention, so that authority exists in all jurisdictions in the United States. The name disclosure was considered by the U.S. Supreme Court in Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, 542 U.S. 177 (2004), which held that the name disclosure did not violate the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures."
You left off this part!
"The Court accepted the Nevada supreme court's interpretation of the Nevada statute that a detained person could satisfy the Nevada law by simply stating his name. The Court did not rule on whether particular identification cards could be required, though it did mention one state's law requiring "credible and reliable" identification had been struck down for vagueness."
Once again does not in Oklahoma!
As of February 2011, there is no U.S. federal law requiring that an individual identify himself during a Terry stop, but Hiibel held that states may enact such laws, provided the law requires the officer to have reasonable and articulable suspicion of criminal involvement,[20] and 25 states have done so.[21] The opinion in Hiibel implied that persons detained by police in jurisdictions with constitutional[22] "stop and identify" laws listed are obligated to identify themselves,[23] and that persons detained in other jurisdictions are not.[
Posted on 3/5/14 at 7:53 pm to DawgfaninCa
quote:
And this tragedy should be used to teach everyone why they should fully cooperate with the police when the police reasonably suspect them of committing a crime even when they are innocent.
OK
Enough!
What this teaches is that these cops suck at doing their job.
To break down your cop code lingo:
"Don't f@ck with us. We assume you are guilty. Its YOUR responsibility to know this and know that we MIGHT over re-act if you don't do what we think you should do. It will be YOUR fault if YOU force us to use over whelming and undo force.
"KEEP EM SCARED AND IT WILL MAKE YOUR JOB EASIER AND SAFER ROOKIE".
It was bad judgement by those cops. Period.
Posted on 3/5/14 at 7:54 pm to Alahunter
The officer says police received a call about domestic violence before confronting her husband.
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," the officer said.
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," the officer said.
Posted on 3/5/14 at 7:54 pm to EA6B
quote:
There are no state or federal laws requiring a person to carry or produce a government issued ID, or any other type of identification document. In states that have a "stop to identify law" you are only required to verbally state your name. Fortunately we have not yet reached the "show me your papers" level of a police state
There may still be a constitutional question whether states can pass laws that require pedestrians to produce identification when requested to by a police officer who stops them because the police officer reasonable suspects them of committing a crime but there is no doubt that the police officer can detain that person until their identity is determined.
If you disagree then tell that to the Supreme Court of the United States because the authority to detain on reasonable suspicion was established in Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) and it "does not depend on the existence of a law that specifically authorizes such a detention, so that authority exists in all jurisdictions in the United States. The name disclosure was considered by the U.S. Supreme Court in Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, 542 U.S. 177 (2004), which held that the name disclosure did not violate the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures."
To allow someone just to state their name would destroy the whole system of law enforcement because every time a wanted criminal was stopped by the police they would just give a false name and there would be no way for the police to determine who they really are.
However, that's what all y'all Einsteins who are arguing with me want because all y'all probably have an outstanding warrant for doing something illegal.
Posted on 3/5/14 at 7:55 pm to DawgfaninCa
Thanks Goebels
Posted on 3/5/14 at 7:58 pm to matthew25
quote:
The officer says police received a call about domestic violence before confronting her husband.
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," the officer said.
And then the father started to walk away from the police officers so they had no choice but to physically restrain him.
You guys love to tell half of the story.
Posted on 3/5/14 at 7:59 pm to goatmilker
quote:
Thanks Goebels
I'm not as dumb as you look.
Posted on 3/5/14 at 7:59 pm to DawgfaninCa
quote:
so they had no choice but to physically restrain him.
or
quote:
so they had no choice but to physically kill him.
Here's the rub.
Posted on 3/5/14 at 8:01 pm to DawgfaninCa
quote:
that's what all y'all Einsteins who are arguing with me want because all y'all probably have an outstanding warrant for doing something illegal.
This statement makes you sound desperate and not very smart.
Posted on 3/5/14 at 8:08 pm to goatmilker
quote:
OK
Enough!
What this teaches is that these cops suck at doing their job.
To break down your cop code lingo:
"Don't f@ck with us. We assume you are guilty. Its YOUR responsibility to know this and know that we MIGHT over re-act if you don't do what we think you should do. It will be YOUR fault if YOU force us to use over whelming and undo force.
"KEEP EM SCARED AND IT WILL MAKE YOUR JOB EASIER AND SAFER ROOKIE".
It was bad judgement by those cops. Period.
The police did what they had to do.
Go ahead, dude. keep your bullshite attitude towards the police.
One day you will be stopped by the police for something you did or didn't do and you will show them that you are the boss and in charge by refusing to show them a valid ID.
I will get great pleasure knowing you will be detained until your identity is determined. I hope it happens on a Friday night and it takes the whole weekend for the police to determine your identity.
Posted on 3/5/14 at 8:09 pm to DawgfaninCa
I hope they shoot you dead for doing nothing but being free.
This post was edited on 3/5/14 at 8:10 pm
Posted on 3/5/14 at 8:10 pm to goatmilker
quote:
This statement makes you sound desperate and not very smart.
Said the fool to the wise man.
Just consider it a wild guess on my part.
Posted on 3/5/14 at 8:12 pm to DawgfaninCa
I can joke and take that back. Those 5 cops can't.
Posted on 3/5/14 at 8:13 pm to goatmilker
quote:
I hope they shoot you dead for doing nothing but being free.
If they do my last words will be, "Free at last. Free at last. Thank God almighty, I'm free at last of idiots like you."
Posted on 3/5/14 at 8:13 pm to DawgfaninCa
Make sure you have your ID at the gates otherwise...
Page 55 of 58
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News