- 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 8:28 pm to EA6B
Posted on 3/5/14 at 8:28 pm to EA6B
quote:
You left off this part!
quote:
"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.
By "simply stating his name" the Court means stating his true name and if the police reasonably suspect that a false name is given they can detain the person until the person states their true name or produces some type of valid ID that states their true name.
2
Posted on 3/5/14 at 8:31 pm to goatmilker
quote:
Make sure you have your ID at the gates otherwise...
I always carry a valid ID with me just in case I get stopped by the legal authorities and they ask me to identify myself.
Posted on 3/5/14 at 8:43 pm to DawgfaninCa
quote:
the Court means
Here we see the minecart flying off the rails.
Posted on 3/5/14 at 8:46 pm to VictoryShipSailor
quote:
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.
All total speculation on your part with no finding in fact.
quote:
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.
You are talking about government with a little "g". I was talking about Government with a big "G".
There is a difference.
quote:
The use of ad hominem attacks loses big points, and name-calling forfeits the debate.
Then the person who started the name-calling forfeits the debate and that wasn't me.
I just fight fire with fire.
quote:
As a senior citizen in line to die off, let me suggest our society is losing more than fascists.
My mother is 100 years old and going strong so it's in my genes to live a long time.
Let me suggest that when you youngsters die off before me then our society is losing more than fascists.
BTW, I thought you were above name-calling.
Can you spell, "hypocrite"?
Posted on 3/5/14 at 8:48 pm to goatmilker
quote:
Here we see the minecart flying off the rails.
Do you think the Court meant the person can just state a false name?
Posted on 3/5/14 at 8:52 pm to DawgfaninCa
I think I disagree with your interpretation of what the law says.
Posted on 3/5/14 at 9:01 pm to goatmilker
quote:
I think I disagree with your interpretation of what the law says.
Why?
What do you think the Court meant?
Posted on 3/5/14 at 9:09 pm to DawgfaninCa
quote:
and if the police reasonably suspect that a false name is given they can detain the person
This is too broad is all.
Posted on 3/5/14 at 11:47 pm to goatmilker
Glad that not all states have this ID law.
License to Kill.
License to Kill.
Posted on 3/6/14 at 9:47 am to goatmilker
quote:
and if the police reasonably suspect that a false name is given they can detain the person
quote:
This is too broad is all.
I understand your belief that some bad cops will abuse their authority to detain someone by claiming they reasonably suspect that a false name was given when they really don't but if they aren't given that authority when the police ask someone to identify themselves all that person would have to do is say they are "Mickey Mouse" or some other false name and the police couldn't detain them.
Can you suggest a better way of ensuring someone will give their true identity when asked by the police?
If not, then the only way I can think of is the threat of being detained until their true identity is determined.
This post was edited on 3/6/14 at 9:54 am
Posted on 3/6/14 at 9:51 am to matthew25
quote:
Glad that not all states have this ID law.
License to Kill.
I wish all states required people to show some form of valid ID when asked by the police to identify themselves.
However, the next best thing is giving the police the authority to detain someone until their true identity is determined.
Otherwise, wanted murderers can just give a phony name then go off and kill again.
This post was edited on 3/6/14 at 9:52 am
Posted on 3/6/14 at 10:02 am to DawgfaninCa
I lean to personel freedom over personal safety when issues are so closely linked.
The NSA/Govt listening/info gathering for our safety from terrorism vs our freedoms granted by the constitution is a similar one that I lean towards personal freedom.
Would it make the cops job easier?
Would it make us safer?
Perhaps but at a cost I do not want to incur.
Below are some U.S. Supreme Court decisions which affirm your right to NOT show an ID (or otherwise identify yourself) or answer any questions.
”Texas may not criminalize by statute or practice conduct that is Constitutionally protected. — Coates v. Cincinnati, 402 U.S. 611, 616 (1971)
21. Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville, 405 U.S. 156 (1972) “a statute which serves as “merely the cloak” for arrests which would not otherwise be lawful is a pernicious affront to the Fourth Amendment and cannot be upheld”
“Where rights as secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which will abrogate them.” Miranda v. Ariz., 384 U.S. 436 at 491 (1966).
Thus: All State, county, city or town STATUTES (regulations, ordinances, procedure/practice, etc), that “criminalize” a Constitutionally-protected right, are VOID and of NO LEGAL FORCE !!!!!!
Lefkowitz v. Turley, 414 U.S. 70, 77 (1973) the Fifth Amendment “not only protects the individual against being involuntarily called as a witness against himself in a criminal prosecution, but also privileges him not to answer official questions put to him in any other proceeding, civil or criminal, formal or informal, where the answers might incriminate him in future criminal proceedings
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Some Constitutional protections and U.S. Supreme Court rulings on the matter.
Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47 (1979)
In 1979, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Brown v. Texas, a case where a man in Texas refused to show police ID because there was no probable cause. The court noted “he was arrested for violation of Tex.Penal Code Ann., Tit. 8, § 38.02(a) (1974), which makes it a criminal act for a person to refuse to give his name and address to an officer “who has lawfully stopped him and requested the information.” However, the court reversed his conviction:
[Even if there is a STATE statute, Police need “reasonable suspicion” BEFORE they can demand you show ID or identify yourself.]
“Held: The application of the Texas statute to detain appellant and require him to identify himself violated the Fourth Amendment because the officers lacked any reasonable suspicion to believe that appellant was engaged or had engaged in criminal conduct. Detaining appellant to require him to identify himself constituted a seizure of his person subject to the requirement of the Fourth Amendment that the seizure be “reasonable.” Cf. Terry v. Ohio, 392
The NSA/Govt listening/info gathering for our safety from terrorism vs our freedoms granted by the constitution is a similar one that I lean towards personal freedom.
Would it make the cops job easier?
Would it make us safer?
Perhaps but at a cost I do not want to incur.
Below are some U.S. Supreme Court decisions which affirm your right to NOT show an ID (or otherwise identify yourself) or answer any questions.
”Texas may not criminalize by statute or practice conduct that is Constitutionally protected. — Coates v. Cincinnati, 402 U.S. 611, 616 (1971)
21. Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville, 405 U.S. 156 (1972) “a statute which serves as “merely the cloak” for arrests which would not otherwise be lawful is a pernicious affront to the Fourth Amendment and cannot be upheld”
“Where rights as secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which will abrogate them.” Miranda v. Ariz., 384 U.S. 436 at 491 (1966).
Thus: All State, county, city or town STATUTES (regulations, ordinances, procedure/practice, etc), that “criminalize” a Constitutionally-protected right, are VOID and of NO LEGAL FORCE !!!!!!
Lefkowitz v. Turley, 414 U.S. 70, 77 (1973) the Fifth Amendment “not only protects the individual against being involuntarily called as a witness against himself in a criminal prosecution, but also privileges him not to answer official questions put to him in any other proceeding, civil or criminal, formal or informal, where the answers might incriminate him in future criminal proceedings
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Some Constitutional protections and U.S. Supreme Court rulings on the matter.
Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47 (1979)
In 1979, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Brown v. Texas, a case where a man in Texas refused to show police ID because there was no probable cause. The court noted “he was arrested for violation of Tex.Penal Code Ann., Tit. 8, § 38.02(a) (1974), which makes it a criminal act for a person to refuse to give his name and address to an officer “who has lawfully stopped him and requested the information.” However, the court reversed his conviction:
[Even if there is a STATE statute, Police need “reasonable suspicion” BEFORE they can demand you show ID or identify yourself.]
“Held: The application of the Texas statute to detain appellant and require him to identify himself violated the Fourth Amendment because the officers lacked any reasonable suspicion to believe that appellant was engaged or had engaged in criminal conduct. Detaining appellant to require him to identify himself constituted a seizure of his person subject to the requirement of the Fourth Amendment that the seizure be “reasonable.” Cf. Terry v. Ohio, 392
Posted on 3/6/14 at 10:21 am to goatmilker
quote:
Below are some U.S. Supreme Court decisions which affirm your right to NOT show an ID (or otherwise identify yourself) or answer any questions.
I will consider taking you seriously when you learn NOT to split infinitives!
Posted on 3/6/14 at 10:23 am to DawgfaninCa
Your choice.
Posted on 3/6/14 at 10:37 am to goatmilker
The SCOTUS in 2004 in Hiibel v. Sixth Judicak District Court of Nevada 542 U.S. 177 (2004) "held that statutes requiring suspects to disclose their names during police investigations did not violate the Fourth Amendment if the statute first required reasonable and articulable suspicion of criminal involvement. Under the rubric of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), the minimal intrusion on a suspect's privacy, and the legitimate need of law enforcement officers to quickly dispel suspicion that an individual is engaged in criminal activity, justified requiring a suspect to disclose his or her name.
The Court also held that the identification requirement did not violate Hiibel's Fifth Amendment rights because he had no reasonable belief that his name would be used to incriminate him; however, the Court left open the possibility that Fifth Amendment privilege might apply in a situation where there was a reasonable belief that giving a name could be incriminating."
That is a more recent ruling by the SCOTUS and supersedes all of their previous rulings on the issue.
The Court also held that the identification requirement did not violate Hiibel's Fifth Amendment rights because he had no reasonable belief that his name would be used to incriminate him; however, the Court left open the possibility that Fifth Amendment privilege might apply in a situation where there was a reasonable belief that giving a name could be incriminating."
That is a more recent ruling by the SCOTUS and supersedes all of their previous rulings on the issue.
Posted on 3/6/14 at 10:45 am to goatmilker
quote:
Your choice.
Everyone occasionally accidently splits an infinitive but you should make an effort not to do it.
However, it's your choice to look ignorant by continuing to split infinitives after you have been informed not to do it.
Posted on 3/6/14 at 11:15 am to DawgfaninCa
I'm to old to be worried about what others think about my poor english grammar as long as I can get my idea or thoughts across.
This is not a forum for perfect english usage as I'm sure you have noticed.
This is not a forum for perfect english usage as I'm sure you have noticed.
Posted on 3/6/14 at 11:23 am to DawgfaninCa
quote:Hell. I'm trying to figure out why in a supposedly free nation, if you aren't accused of a crime otherwise, why you fricking have to identify yourself at all!
Can you suggest a better way of ensuring someone will give their true identity when asked by the police?
Posted on 3/6/14 at 11:26 am to EA6B
This thread is still going strong. Is there any new information?
Posted on 3/6/14 at 11:31 am to DawgfaninCa
quote:
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.
this pretty much explains everything...
Page 56 of 58
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News