Papers Please!

BlkbrryTheGreat · Post by **BlkbrryTheGreat** » 2004-02-23 07:49pm

The fact that he's a cowboy makes this espically poignant, in my humble opinion.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-02-23 07:54pm

The cop was obviously an asshole and should be charged with police brutality. However, that does not explain why the guy had such a problem with producing his ID, particularly when it was obvious that his refusal to do so was creating tension.

While the cops went over the line in this case, the fact remains that if the same cop had approached me, I would have produced my ID. I would have then invited the officer to ask my daughter what happened, and the situation would probably have concluded without incident.

What is it with some people who, when faced with a police officer, immediately put on their "I will not co-operate" face? The correct way to deal with a police officer is to be polite and helpful.

BlkbrryTheGreat · Post by **BlkbrryTheGreat** » 2004-02-23 08:02pm

Darth Wong wrote:The cop was obviously an asshole and should be charged with police brutality. However, that does not explain why the guy had such a problem with producing his ID, particularly when it was obvious that his refusal to do so was creating tension.

One could say the same thing in regards to the Gestapo.

While the cops went over the line in this case, the fact remains that if the same cop had approached me, I would have produced my ID. I would have then invited the officer to ask my daughter what happened, and the situation would probably have concluded without incident.

Most people probably would do the same, however, the fact remains that all he did was ask WHY he needed to show his ID.

What is it with some people who, when faced with a police officer, immediately put on their "I will not co-operate" face? The correct way to deal with a police officer is to be polite and helpful.

True, but the arguement cuts both ways. It would have been simplisticly easy for the cop to reply "We're investigating a domestic violence report" when the man asked why he needed to see an ID.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-02-23 08:11pm

BlkbrryTheGreat wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:The cop was obviously an asshole and should be charged with police brutality. However, that does not explain why the guy had such a problem with producing his ID, particularly when it was obvious that his refusal to do so was creating tension.
One could say the same thing in regards to the Gestapo.

Could you explain this connection? How the fuck is "show me your ID" the same as "I'll beat your fucking face in for speaking against the government or being a Jew?"

While the cops went over the line in this case, the fact remains that if the same cop had approached me, I would have produced my ID. I would have then invited the officer to ask my daughter what happened, and the situation would probably have concluded without incident.
Most people probably would do the same, however, the fact remains that all he did was ask WHY he needed to show his ID.

Wrong. He asked why, and then when he wasn't satisfied with the answer, he refused to show his ID.

True, but the arguement cuts both ways. It would have been simplisticly easy for the cop to reply "We're investigating a domestic violence report" when the man asked why he needed to see an ID.

Gee, maybe that's why I said that the cop was an asshole and crossed the line and should be charged.

Why must people always assume that one must condemn one side or the other, but not both?

BlkbrryTheGreat · Post by **BlkbrryTheGreat** » 2004-02-23 08:25pm

Could you explain this connection? How the fuck is "show me your ID" the same as "I'll beat your fucking face in for speaking against the government or being a Jew?"

Your constructing a strawman. I'm not arguing that the police are the same as the Gestapo, I'm stating that refusing to show your "papers" to the Gestapo also created "tension" that could have easily been avoided by producing the said papers.

Wrong. He asked why, and then when he wasn't satisfied with the answer, he refused to show his ID.

So? The Constitution says that your person and assets are protected unless there is probable cause, specifically:

The Fourth Amendment
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Gee, maybe that's why I said that the cop was an asshole and crossed the line and should be charged.

Why must people always assume that one must condemn one side or the other, but not both?

Well "people" must not read very throughly then; I realized that you were condemning both sides. The idea behind my comment was that the cowboy was hardly being unreasonable/uncooporative in comparison to the cop.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-02-23 08:37pm

BlkbrryTheGreat wrote:Your constructing a strawman. I'm not arguing that the police are the same as the Gestapo, I'm stating that refusing to show your "papers" to the Gestapo also created "tension" that could have easily been avoided by producing the said papers.

No, you're constructing an obvious "guilt through association" fallacy.

So? The Constitution says that your person and assets are protected unless there is probable cause, specifically:

The Fourth Amendment
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Somebody called in a police report of possible violence. That is probable cause to at least demand ID.

Gee, maybe that's why I said that the cop was an asshole and crossed the line and should be charged.

Why must people always assume that one must condemn one side or the other, but not both?
Well "people" must not read very throughly then; I realized that you were condemning both sides. The idea behind my comment was that the cowboy was hardly being unreasonable/uncooporative in comparison to the cop.

Yes he was. What is the big deal about producing ID? And how does "show me your ID" amount to unreasonable search and seizure?

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2004-02-23 08:59pm

Jesus, can Blkbrry ever avoid treating the slight asshole or injustice in the U.S. as comparable to Stalinism, Nazism, or various other totalitarianisms?

You're the walking incarnation of the fullfillment of Godwin's Law.

BlkbrryTheGreat · Post by **BlkbrryTheGreat** » 2004-02-23 09:31pm

No, you're constructing an obvious "guilt through association" fallacy.

Bullshit, I'm not trying to "smear" the police, I'm stating that in this particular respect the situation is identical. In fact, the situation is identical regardless of what empowered government bureacracy you look at; all you have to do is "knuckle under" and do as your told, regardless of the facts involved, and you'll avoid "creating tension".

As it relates to this particular case, the guy had absolutly no obligation to do what the police officer told him.

Somebody called in a police report of possible violence. That is probable cause to at least demand ID.

No, at the very most, its reasonable suspicion to investigate a a case of assalt. However, even that is suspect as the relation of an ID to a "violent" case is negligable. Its not as if t he cop in question was investigating a case of identity theft.

What is the big deal about producing ID?

Nothing really, but on the same token one should not be arrested on the sole account of choosing to refuse to produce one.

This of course, produces a corresponding question: Whats wrong with refusing to produce your ID if you've done nothing wrong?

And how does "show me your ID" amount to unreasonable search and seizure?

I cited the fourth Amendment in reference to the fact the a citizen is under no obligation to produce any of his private property to agents of the state without a warrent; added to this is the fact that his "person" was seized unreasonably, ie without probable cause.

Post by **Gandalf** » 2004-02-23 09:33pm

Illuminatus Primus wrote:Jesus, can Blkbrry ever avoid treating the slight asshole or injustice in the U.S. as comparable to Stalinism, Nazism, or various other totalitarianisms?

You're the walking incarnation of the fullfillment of Godwin's Law.

Forgive my n00biness, but what is Godwin's Law?

BlkbrryTheGreat · Post by **BlkbrryTheGreat** » 2004-02-23 09:36pm

Gandalf wrote:
Forgive my n00biness, but what is Godwin's Law?

Google is your friend.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-02-23 09:49pm

BlkbrryTheGreat wrote:Bullshit, I'm not trying to "smear" the police, I'm stating that in this particular respect the situation is identical.

And since you're apparently too fucking stupid to understand this unless it's spelled out for you, THAT FACT PROVES ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AND HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS DEBATE. The Gestapo and the modern police also share the characteristic of getting pissed off when you punch one of them in the face; does this mean that there would be something wrong with a modern police officer getting pissed off if you punch him in the face?

As it relates to this particular case, the guy had absolutly no obligation to do what the police officer told him.

Can you back that up with something besides your absurd claim that "show me your ID" is a form of unreasonable search and seizure?

No, at the very most, its reasonable suspicion to investigate a a case of assalt. However, even that is suspect as the relation of an ID to a "violent" case is negligable.

What the fuck drugs are you on? Since when is the ID of a person (which helps establish, among other things, whether he's the legal parent of the child in question, rather than an abductor) not pertinent to a phone tip about a possible abuse case?

I cited the fourth Amendment in reference to the fact the a citizen is under no obligation to produce any of his private property to agents of the state without a warrent; added to this is the fact that his "person" was seized unreasonably, ie without probable cause.

"Private property"? Oh, puh-lease. Your ID has no commercial value. It is perfectly reasonable to try and figure out who somebody is before conducting any other police business. Try again.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2004-02-23 10:02pm

When police officers start stopping people randomly on the street and demanding ID, then notify me. Asking for ID in the middle of an investigation is perfectly fine. The cop's an asshole, but the procedure is sound.

Spanky The Dolphin · Post by **Spanky The Dolphin** » 2004-02-23 10:04pm

Personal Identification is private property?

Nice...

aerius · Post by **aerius** » 2004-02-23 10:22pm

If you watch the video the guy practically taunted the cop into arresting him. After interupting the cop about 10 times and saying "fine take me to jail!" and "am I illegally parked?!" about 5 times each, the cop says "we are conducting an investigation, I want to know who you are and what's going on here", only to have the guy spaz out some more. The guy was a fucking grade "A" asshole, and I don't think it would hurt to toss him in jail for a day or 2 of "attitude adjustment". Now, the cop has an obvious lack of communication skills to say the least, he could easily have explained what was going on and asked for an explanation from the guy instead of going on & on about ID. There was no need to throw the girl on the ground and cuff & restrain her, that was excessive force at best there, more like police brutality. Both sides were at fault, but I just don't have any real sympathy for the guy, he acted like a prick and got treated like one.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-02-23 10:22pm

HemlockGrey wrote:When police officers start stopping people randomly on the street and demanding ID, then notify me. Asking for ID in the middle of an investigation is perfectly fine. The cop's an asshole, but the procedure is sound.

Not on the streets, but cops routinely walk around in bars around here demanding that all the students show them their ID's.

EmperorChrostas the Cruel · Post by **EmperorChrostas the Cruel** » 2004-02-23 10:22pm

Personal property.
BUZZZZT!
WRONG!
Your drivers licence, Passport, (and even your credit cards) DO NOT BELONG TO YOU!
They belong to the agency that issued then to you. They can be confiscated, at the will of the issuer.
CA ID is an exception, as it is ID, not a permit to do something that requires a permit. Driver's LICENSE.
License to drive. Permit to operate motor vehicle ON PUBLIC ROADS. You don't need on to drive on your own property.

theski · Post by **theski** » 2004-02-23 10:26pm

Durandal wrote

Not on the streets, but cops routinely walk around in bars around here demanding that all the students show them their ID's.

Any chance that is just looking underage drinkers and not harassment???

EmperorChrostas the Cruel · Post by **EmperorChrostas the Cruel** » 2004-02-23 10:27pm

Durandal.
If a cop goes into a bar, where you have to be over 21 to BE there legaly, in the first place, an the cop thinks you look under 21, he is well within his rights to ask for ID. They routinely ask everyone for ID to cover their asses against a lawsuit, charging racism, or some other form of discrimination.
Because none of the white men with grey in their beards were asked for ID, the cops must be racist.

BlkbrryTheGreat · Post by **BlkbrryTheGreat** » 2004-02-23 10:55pm

And since you're apparently too fucking stupid to understand this unless it's spelled out for you, THAT FACT PROVES ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AND HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS DEBATE. The Gestapo and the modern police also share the characteristic of getting pissed off when you punch one of them in the face; does this mean that there would be something wrong with a modern police officer getting pissed off if you punch him in the face?

Yes, there are any number of things that the Gestapo and the modern police have in common, however, this is beside the point. You stated that failing that "refusing to produce ID was creating tension". I used the Gestapo as an example to illustrate that failing to obey authority, regardless of the reason, ALWAYS produces tension. The example used is irrelevant, as long as we understand the underlying idea. However, creating tension, which is all the gentleman really did, is not a crime in and of itself (at least in the USA).

Can you back that up with something besides your absurd claim that "show me your ID" is a form of unreasonable search and seizure?

Sure. He was arrested and fined for refusing to show his ID. It was his person that was unreasonably seized, the burdon of proof is upon the goverment (or those advocating its case) to prove that they have the legal right to do this. In otherwords, cite the law that gives them the right to do this.

What the fuck drugs are you on? Since when is the ID of a person (which helps establish, among other things, whether he's the legal parent of the child in question, rather than an abductor) not pertinent to a phone tip about a possible abuse case?

And how would they know this if they didn't even bother talking to the daughter? All they did was come in, demand ID, and arrest both the man and his daughter without bothering to find any of the facts. I don't deny that ID could be useful in many cases to determine if a crime has been commited, however the fact remains that he was arrested for refusing to provide an ID, not any additional crime.

"Private property"? Oh, puh-lease. Your ID has no commercial value.

I'm not going to argue this point.

It is perfectly reasonable to try and figure out who somebody is before conducting any other police business. Try again.

The underlying question is whether they have the right to arrest you on only this account.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-02-23 11:05pm

BlkbrryTheGreat wrote:Yes, there are any number of things that the Gestapo and the modern police have in common, however, this is beside the point. You stated that failing that "refusing to produce ID was creating tension". I used the Gestapo as an example to illustrate that failing to obey authority, regardless of the reason, ALWAYS produces tension.

Which proves WHAT, exactly?

The example used is irrelevant, as long as we understand the underlying idea. However, creating tension, which is all the gentleman really did, is not a crime in and of itself (at least in the USA).

Who said that elevated tensions themselves were a crime, dumb-ass? I was just pointing out what a jack-ass the guy was.

Sure. He was arrested and fined for refusing to show his ID. It was his person that was unreasonably seized, the burdon of proof is upon the goverment (or those advocating its case) to prove that they have the legal right to do this. In otherwords, cite the law that gives them the right to do this.

I don't know the details of American law, nor do I care to learn them. However, they managed to get one charge to stick, and I would imagine that they didn't just make up a law. What I do know is that policing becomes extremely difficult if anybody can refuse to identify themselves to police during an investigation without any kind of penalty.

What the fuck drugs are you on? Since when is the ID of a person (which helps establish, among other things, whether he's the legal parent of the child in question, rather than an abductor) not pertinent to a phone tip about a possible abuse case?
And how would they know this if they didn't even bother talking to the daughter?

Who the fuck cares? The point remains that he was defiant and uncooperative. That, in conjunction with a telephone tip, is certainly reasonable grounds for suspicion.

All they did was come in, demand ID, and arrest both the man and his daughter without bothering to find any of the facts. I don't deny that ID could be useful in many cases to determine if a crime has been commited, however the fact remains that he was arrested for refusing to provide an ID, not any additional crime.

He was arrested on suspicion of committing a crime: something which he could have easily dispelled by being more forthright, but he instead chose ot be uncooperative and hostile. He was apparently also charged with hindering an investigation, which he most certainly did. News flash, genius: believe it or not, you can be arrested because you are suspected of something, and a phone tip plus hostile uncooperative behaviour in response to an innocuous question from the police is reasonable grounds for suspicion in my book. Do not confuse "arrest" with "convict".

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2004-02-23 11:31pm

Durandal wrote:
HemlockGrey wrote:When police officers start stopping people randomly on the street and demanding ID, then notify me. Asking for ID in the middle of an investigation is perfectly fine. The cop's an asshole, but the procedure is sound.
Not on the streets, but cops routinely walk around in bars around here demanding that all the students show them their ID's.

That is illegal... No probable cause.

StimNeuro · Post by **StimNeuro** » 2004-02-23 11:36pm

Alyrium Denryle wrote:
Durandal wrote:
HemlockGrey wrote:When police officers start stopping people randomly on the street and demanding ID, then notify me. Asking for ID in the middle of an investigation is perfectly fine. The cop's an asshole, but the procedure is sound.
Not on the streets, but cops routinely walk around in bars around here demanding that all the students show them their ID's.
That is illegal... No probable cause.

I believe it would qualify for probable cause if the suspect appears/seems to be under the age of 21. The logic probably goes:
Most students are under 21.
There are students in the bar.
Therefore most of those students are violating the law.

Spanky The Dolphin · Post by **Spanky The Dolphin** » 2004-02-23 11:38pm

I don't see a problem there.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2004-02-23 11:41pm

A police officer conucting an investigtion does not warrant a random search. The police officer should have told the man what he was investigating. Granted the man could have been more compliant, but he was not legally obligated to be so without probable cause.(providing of course that there was no description of the vehicle)

Throughout this so called "taunting" this guy is basically saying "I havent done anything wrong, I dont have ID on me(he does say this) so take me to jail"

He was arrested for failure to submit to an illegal seach. SCOTUS will laugh this out of court.

Spanky The Dolphin · Post by **Spanky The Dolphin** » 2004-02-23 11:43pm

Really, because last time I checked, that's not what it actually says happened.

The man was refusing to comply and resisting, hence arrest.