• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

F is for Fascism (Ferguson MO)

ImTheCaptain said:
this is an honest question, not a #bluelives defense thing. so the law clearly gives the officer the ability to make a judgement call to bring someone who fails to ID themselves. the video seems like an obvious abuse of power, but what should a police officer do in this situation with no way to verify whether the person in his/her hands is a wanted criminal or just some kid?
Click to expand...

The police officer should issue the driver the citation, if they want to, and move on. The refusal to provide ID does not give the officer the right to take any action against that person. In the video the officer was clearly annoyed because they were recording him - and decided to teach them a lesson. That officer should not be a cop - or, at the very minimum, should be required to take some courses on the Constitution.
 
that the police should have the judgement/ability to arrest people when they refuse or are unable to provide identification
 
scooter84 said:
The police officer should issue the driver the citation, if they want to, and move on. The refusal to provide ID does not give the officer the right to take any action against that person. In the video the officer was clearly annoyed because they were recording him - and decided to teach them a lesson. That officer should not be a cop - or, at the very minimum, should be required to take some courses on the Constitution.
Click to expand...

ok, i just disagree that a practical police force should be barred from asking for identification and using judgement to arrest those who refuse.

Not sure the constitution really protects against a police officer asking you for ID and even if it does fall under "unreasonable search", that's for the court to decide, not the police officer.
 
SCDeac13 said:
Bingo. If people just used common sense like this there would be less needless arrests and deaths. To steal from Jim Jefferies, a good life goal is to just "don't be a c**t".
Click to expand...

So you think people should just allow cops to walk all over them, ignoring and abusing their Constitutional rights, just to avoid a hassle? You should never resist an arrest or be aggressive or nasty with a policeman, of course., but calling them out when they are overstepping their authority is always called for.
 
ImTheCaptain said:
ok, i just disagree that a practical police force should be barred from asking for identification and using judgement to arrest those who refuse.

Not sure the constitution really prevents it and even if it does, that's for the court to decide, not the police officer.
Click to expand...

That might be the most un-American thing I have ever read. Are you sure you REALLY believe that? You think a police officer should be able to demand your identification, when you are not suspected of committing any crime, and arrest you if you refuse to provide it? Wow... just, wow.
 
I don't see how it has anything to do with being American. If you divorce the issue from the discussion of abuse of power and evaluate it as a practical policing matter, I really don't see how it's that strange. The police exist to police, not judge. The failure of leadership and failure of the justice system to enforce it's own rules doesn't change that.

The only logical alternative is to remove judgement and only let police address things that are obvious and in front of them and/or give them a checklist of actions. I think that's fine if you believe that, but that's really no better than a mall cop in practice.
 
Last edited:
scooter84 said:
That might be the most un-American thing I have ever read. Are you sure you REALLY believe that? You think a police officer should be able to demand your identification, when you are not suspected of committing any crime, and arrest you if you refuse to provide it? Wow... just, wow.
Click to expand...
I agree. We shouldn't be giving police officers leeway and encouragement to hassle people. We already have innumerable bullshit laws in which we can catch people in the act, we don't also need to hassle people on pure suspicion.
 
myDeaconmyhand said:
I agree. We shouldn't be giving police officers leeway and encouragement to hassle people. We already have innumerable bullshit laws in which we can catch people in the act, we don't also need to hassle people on pure suspicion.
Click to expand...

I guess I don't understand.

What do you think the Law Enforcement's role is in society. Practically, what do you think police should be doing day-day to support/execute that role? What does policing look like in your minds?
 
ImTheCaptain said:
I don't see how it has anything to do with being American. If you divorce the issue from the discussion of abuse of power and evaluate it as a practical policing matter, I really don't see how it's that strange.
Click to expand...

It goes against the very basic, very American concepts of personal privacy and freedom. As an American, I am free to go about my business without interference from the government. I can move about the country at will - without the fear of being detained or questioned about my motives, purpose or identity. Until I break the law, or create the reasonable suspicion that I am breaking the law, neither the police nor the government can interfere with me, detain me or require my ID.

There are many parts of the world where this is not true - that is why this is such a basic AMERICAN thing.

It is a little scary to me that people don't understand or appreciate the significance of this fact. As law abiding citizens, we don't worry about this kind of stuff and naively trust the police and the government to treat us fairly. Some people, such as yourself, it sounds like, would gladly give these types of rights and freedoms away in exchange for a little more safety or security. If people think the police abuse their power now, just expand their rights in the ways you are suggesting and see what a shitshow really looks like...
 
ImTheCaptain said:
I don't see how it has anything to do with being American. If you divorce the issue from the discussion of abuse of power and evaluate it as a practical policing matter, I really don't see how it's that strange. The police exist to police, not judge. The failure of leadership and failure of the justice system to enforce it's own rules doesn't change that.

The only logical alternative is to remove judgement and only let police address things that are obvious and in front of them and/or give them a checklist of actions. I think that's fine if you believe that, but that's really no better than a mall cop in practice.
Click to expand...

It cannot be divorced from abuse of power. Plus, your "only logical alternative" is a canard. The actual law in the United States right now is the officer has to have a reasonable suspicion that you are engaging in criminal activity, or have a warrant out, before detaining you. Stopping a person and demanding ID is detaining a person. "Reasonable suspicion" is an extremely low bar already. You want to eliminate even that very low bar and give police permission to detain any person, at any time, without any cause at all, to demand their ID? Why? What is this "practical policing" need that is not being met under actual current law of reasonable suspicion?
 
Deacon923 said:
It cannot be divorced from abuse of power. Plus, your "only logical alternative" is a canard. The actual law in the United States right now is the officer has to have a reasonable suspicion that you are engaging in criminal activity, or have a warrant out, before detaining you. Stopping a person and demanding ID is detaining a person. "Reasonable suspicion" is an extremely low bar already. You want to eliminate even that very low bar and give police permission to detain any person, at any time, without any cause at all, to demand their ID? Why? What is this "practical policing" need that is not being met under actual current law of reasonable suspicion?
Click to expand...

No, I never said eliminate it. Weird comment. I'm actually arguing that the current law of reasonable suspicion is totally fine and it was called "the most unamerican thing" scooter's ever heard.
 
There is obviously a break down in communications, then. Reread scooters posts because it seems you agree.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
 
possibly. I guess I'm looking at this as the police interacting in a capacity to enforce a law or defuse a situation and not imaging a world where the police are out to arrest everyone for no reason. The ability to arrest for a low bar of "reasonable suspicion" is, unfortunately, going to allow that to happen. I don't see a way around that beyond better training, leadership and oversight.
 
ImTheCaptain said:
No, I never said eliminate it. Weird comment. I'm actually arguing that the current law of reasonable suspicion is totally fine and it was called "the most unamerican thing" scooter's ever heard.
Click to expand...

What you said was that police should be able to ask for ID and use their judgment to arrest people who refuse. Maybe you meant to include the concept of reasonable suspicion of a crime before asking for ID but that is not what you said.
 
The right to refusal if it's against the law is what makes America America.

Police cannot go around demanding things that are not laws....that's why we have them to begin with.

If a police officer randomly stops me on the street and demands to see my ID then I have a right to say no, or at least ask why he needs to do it, or ask if I'm free to go or am being detained.
 
you can refuse and then go before a judge with representation; that's what makes america america
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top