Hate the government, obey the police

Flash said:
"The U.S. Supreme Court gave its seal of approval to stop-and-identify laws in 2004. The case in question involved a Nevada police officer who was dispatched to investigate a roadside domestic violence incident. When the officer arrived, he found a woman sitting in a parked pickup truck and a man standing beside the vehicle. Whatever dispute witnesses had seen was apparently over, and so when asked to hand over his ID, the male suspect refused, claiming there was no evidence he'd broken the law. The officer explained that he was conducting an investigation, and that the man would be arrested if he didn't identify himself. Arrest me, the man said. The officer obliged, and Larry Hiibel was convicted and fined for obstruction. Hiibel appealed his conviction all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that the order to identify himself had violated his Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights.

Five of SCOTUS's nine justices—Anthony Kennedy, William Rehnquist, Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia, and Clarence Thomas—disagreed on these grounds:

1.) Nevada's stop-and-identify statute granted police reasonable authority that, when exercised appropriately (like during a domestic violence call) outweighs the privacy of a suspect.

2.) Asking for ID is consistent with the "purpose, rationale and practical demands of a Terry stop." By arguing that the Terry ruling allows for stop-and-identify (it's also what allows for stop-and-frisk in NY), the court rejected the idea that Nevada's law would allow police to demand ID without cause. There has to be a "lawful basis for the stop in the first place," and a domestic violence report falls in that category."
Click to expand...

this was a case based on nevada law. not texas law. texas law specifically states that ID is only required when being arrested. why don't you know the law?
 
SmarterthanYou said:
that's an asinine position. we have cops who don't have to know the law, can make mistakes about the law, can arrest someone even if they haven't broken the law, and can point guns at people even if they haven't broken the law.
cops are the standing army our founders warned us about.
Click to expand...

Another lunatic rant; you really need to see a professional about this.
 
Truth Detector said:
Because I'm a rational intelligent person who thinks that defying a cop based on a lunatic belief they are all out to get me is irrational and stupid.
Click to expand...

again, brainwashed moron, look up the olmos park incidents, leon valley, miami beach pier incident........or would that shatter your belief system?
 
SmarterthanYou said:
they didn't resist, out of fear that the cop would kill them, because brainwashed fucks like you demand immediate obeisance to cops.
Click to expand...


Yes, bad cop.....who went to prison for life. I'm pretty sure the women knew he was acting illegally raping them and blackmailing them which is why he faced justice.

Trying to conflate this with being pulled over by traffic cops for presumed traffic violations is moronic and dishonest. Trying to paint all cops with the same brush, lunacy.

Again, in loony land all cops must be acting illegally.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
again, brainwashed moron, look up the olmos park incidents, leon valley, miami beach pier incident........or would that shatter your belief system?
Click to expand...

I'm betting that when you get pulled over, you act like an obedient pussy. But I do hope that instead, you'll tell the cop to go fuck himself and drive off.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
this was a case based on nevada law. not texas law. texas law specifically states that ID is only required when being arrested. why don't you know the law?
Click to expand...

"The very latest in outrage-inducing viral video comes courtesy a Texas jogger who was recently arrested and dragged into the back of a squad car after police stopped her for jaywalking. Captured last week by a student at the University of Texas at Austin, the footage shows 24-year-old Amanda Jo Stephen handcuffed, sitting on the ground, crying, and exclaiming that she did nothing wrong.

It's unusual, to say the least, for police officers to arrest and drag around someone suspected of merely jaywalking, so on what grounds did these officers arrest Stephen? The Daily Texan posed that very question to the Austin Police Department, and the answer is something called "failure to identify.”

It's not exactly "Show me your papers, citizen," but in more than two dozen U.S. states, "identify" laws require residents to identify themselves to police officers who, well, stop them. The laws make sense so long as you imagine them being applied exclusively to actual bad guys. They make less sense when you watch the video below:"

https://www.citylab.com/equity/2014/02/yes-police-can-arrest-you-refusing-identify-yourself/8485/
 
SmarterthanYou said:
this was a case based on nevada law. not texas law. texas law specifically states that ID is only required when being arrested. why don't you know the law?
Click to expand...

Texas Penal Code (Chapter 38 “Obstructing Governmental Operation)

(a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally refuses to give his name, residence address, or date of birth to a peace officer who has lawfully arrested the person and requested the information.

(b) A person commits an offense if he intentionally gives a false or fictitious name, residence address, or date of birth to a peace officer who has:

(1) lawfully arrested the person;

(2) lawfully detained the person; or

(3) requested the information from a person that the peace officer has good cause to believe is a witness to a criminal offense.
 
Truth Detector said:
Yes, bad cop.....who went to prison for life. I'm pretty sure the women knew he was acting illegally raping them and blackmailing them which is why he faced justice.
Click to expand...
and in the spirit of 'justice' i'm sure it's all well and good. kind of sucks for the rape victim though, doesn't it? but i'm betting you don't care about that as much as you do about officer safety, do you?

Truth Detector said:
Trying to conflate this with being pulled over by traffic cops for presumed traffic violations is moronic and dishonest.
Click to expand...
unlawful traffic stops are still unlawful, right? or should we practice degrees of unlawfulness in our response?

Truth Detector said:
Again, in loony land all cops must be acting illegally.
Click to expand...
it's because they are government, they can't help themselves. it's that, or they back their brothers in blue who do act unlawfully, making them the same.
 
Flash said:
"The very latest in outrage-inducing viral video comes courtesy a Texas jogger who was recently arrested and dragged into the back of a squad car after police stopped her for jaywalking. Captured last week by a student at the University of Texas at Austin, the footage shows 24-year-old Amanda Jo Stephen handcuffed, sitting on the ground, crying, and exclaiming that she did nothing wrong.

It's unusual, to say the least, for police officers to arrest and drag around someone suspected of merely jaywalking, so on what grounds did these officers arrest Stephen? The Daily Texan posed that very question to the Austin Police Department, and the answer is something called "failure to identify.”

It's not exactly "Show me your papers, citizen," but in more than two dozen U.S. states, "identify" laws require residents to identify themselves to police officers who, well, stop them. The laws make sense so long as you imagine them being applied exclusively to actual bad guys. They make less sense when you watch the video below:"

https://www.citylab.com/equity/2014/02/yes-police-can-arrest-you-refusing-identify-yourself/8485/
Click to expand...

a case completely taken out of context. she was arrested for jaywalking, which compelled her to identify herself. the news story is making it out that even if stopped, you have to provide identification. that is simply not the law and i've refused NUMEROUS times when stopped for legally carrying, NEVER BEEN ARRESTED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
 
Flash said:
Texas Penal Code (Chapter 38 “Obstructing Governmental Operation)

(a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally refuses to give his name, residence address, or date of birth to a peace officer who has lawfully arrested the person and requested the information.

(b) A person commits an offense if he intentionally gives a false or fictitious name, residence address, or date of birth to a peace officer who has:

(1) lawfully arrested the person;

(2) lawfully detained the person; or

(3) requested the information from a person that the peace officer has good cause to believe is a witness to a criminal offense.
Click to expand...

read the bolded part. thanks for proving me right.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top