12/6/14 - LEO tries to delete video of him confronting OC

[Charlies.Contingency]

How many of us here go anywhere without our wallet on us? I feel naked without it, because I have my Id's, money, cards, insurance information...

I do, every time I go for a walk. I'll take just my DL and CHL with me if I'm carrying, but everything else typically stays at home.

That is all great and well but there is a subset of the population who doesn't carry ID as a countermeasure to law enforcement. Doesn't make it ok for the police to make assumptions based on not having ID but I would think that after seeing so many people who specifically refuse to carry ID because they are criminals, it may be almost impossible not to get a bit, lets just say suspicious.

I agree, though there is a small few who do not always carry their identification on them, the majority of whom I have seen, either forgot, or "intentionally forgot" their ID. How easy is it to say, that you are "Joe Schmoe" with a D.O.B. of 06/09/1982, when that is your brother? How many criminals walked away because they matched the description of somebody they know, and new enough identifiers to lead an unknowing officer to falsely identify them? Sure you could carry your brothers ID if he looks similar to you, but that's getting extreme I suppose. Regardless to say, whenever somebody tells me, "I forgot my wallet at home," or "I must have left it in my other bag," goes up there on the suspicious scale. Kinda like smelling kinda like cannabis whenever somebody rolls down their window, suspicions start raising, though I have at that point, no proof of wrong doing... I might be kicking the horse, but there is no good reason in my book for not being able to get an ID and carrying it, just my opinion of course.

[Charlies.Contingency]

Here's my hope.

Those willing to O.C. won't be in put in a harassed class.

They'll be scrutinized if they deserve to be...

If the authorities care about public safety, it would make a lot more sense to randomly stop drivers to make sure they have a license, financial responsibility, properly inflated tires with sufficient tread, etc.

I think so as well, but that would also put unnecessary stops and delays on the general public. You're driving to a meeting, and you get pulled over because I want to check your License, Registration, and Insurance, as well as vehicle safety check... you would probably not be happy about my causing you to be late to an important meeting. Given a reason to be pulled over, that's a different story.

[mr1337]

I fully support anyone who refuses to show ID to an officer when they're not arrested, pulled over, or being written a citation.

You shouldn't have to "present your papers" on demand.

Just as it's your right to refuse to consent to searches, it's your right to refuse to identify yourself to an officer.

Why does an officer need to identify you if you're not arrested or cited anyways? So he can make sure you're not a felon? Does he have reason to believe you're a felon? The presence of a gun, when lawfully carried, cannot be the sole purpose of a detention. I support our police, but I support our Constitutional rights even more. Even though you may not agree with some rights, that doesn't make them any less important.

[Charlies.Contingency]

I fully support anyone who refuses to show ID to an officer when they're not arrested, pulled over, or being written a citation.

You shouldn't have to "present your papers" on demand.

Just as it's your right to refuse to consent to searches, it's your right to refuse to identify yourself to an officer.

Why does an officer need to identify you if you're not arrested or cited anyways? So he can make sure you're not a felon? Does he have reason to believe you're a felon? The presence of a gun, when lawfully carried, cannot be the sole purpose of a detention. I support our police, but I support our Constitutional rights even more. Even though you may not agree with some rights, that doesn't make them any less important.

If you would like to accuse me of not agreeing with MY rights, you are sadly mistaken. You have your rights, how you use them is the kicker. Say, we both get stopped walking down the sidewalk... here's an example.

You: Refuse to show any ID and demand to be let on your way because you have done nothing wrong. (Fine, you used your rights, good for you.)

Myself: I am overly compliant and offer my ID's, as well as strike up a conversation with the officer, ask him how he likes his department, if he plans to stay with LE or wants to get into something else... (I still retain my rights, and am kind and courteous, and possibly establish a new friendship and/or acquaintanceship.)

Just because I don't feel the NEED to use my rights to the T, does not mean I disagree with them. I'm closer to a neutral party on this topic, but believe me, if I feel a need to use my rights, I will. Unless I FEEL the need to, I won't. Just like my 2A, just because I have it doesn't mean I'm going to use it every time I get the chance. Sometimes things can be settled with a bit of courtesy.

[mr1337]

If you would like to accuse me of not agreeing with MY rights, you are sadly mistaken.

I didn't accuse you of anything, no need to get defensive. My comments were not directed at any single person, I was just addressing the popular opinion here.

[cb1000rider]

Why does an officer need to identify you if you're not arrested or cited anyways? So he can make sure you're not a felon? Does he have reason to believe you're a felon? The presence of a gun, when lawfully carried, cannot be the sole purpose of a detention. I support our police, but I support our Constitutional rights even more. Even though you may not agree with some rights, that doesn't make them any less important.

Because they manage to arrest a lot of people with outstanding warrants, etc just by "contact" as part of an investigation. I don't know how many reports I've read that start with "contact" and end in an arrest due to an outstanding warrant.

In my experience, if an officer is talking to you about an incident, they ask for ID, even if you're just a "witness". It's likely department policy... Without the tin-foil hat, it's a good way to make sure they get your name right in case they need your account in the future. I don't see any reason to stir something up in these circumstances, do you?

I haven't tried saying "no" - but I'm sure it will be looked at suspiciously.

[mr1337]

Because they manage to arrest a lot of people with outstanding warrants, etc just by "contact" as part of an investigation. I don't know how many reports I've read that start with "contact" and end in an arrest due to an outstanding warrant.

And if those people with warrants don't know their rights or wish to waive those rights, more power to them, but it doesn't work in their benefit. I'm not advocating running from the law, I'm advocating flexing your rights. If an officer asks to search my vehicle, I'm going to tell him no. Not because I have anything illegal in my car, but because I'm not required to help him find things to arrest me for. Same premise applies to identification.

In my experience, if an officer is talking to you about an incident, they ask for ID, even if you're just a "witness". It's likely department policy... Without the tin-foil hat, it's a good way to make sure they get your name right in case they need your account in the future. I don't see any reason to stir something up in these circumstances, do you?

I haven't tried saying "no" - but I'm sure it will be looked at suspiciously.

There's no tin foil hat involved here, and the mere mention of such to degrade the opposing argument shows an inherent lack of respect for human rights.

I don't understand how people can be selective of which rights they support, and which ones they don't. We're all here because we obviously support the 2nd Amendment, but every other part of the Constitution is just as important. If I'm not doing anything wrong, there should be no need for the government to identify me. If I am doing something wrong, they have the right to arrest me and identify me in the process.

[grim-bob]

I think there were bad players on both ends here just because of the way they both entered into the confrontation. They were both looking to make it an issue to one degree or another...

But I don't think the OCer ever said he wouldn't identify himself; he just didn't offer a name without being asked for it. Likewise the Officer never asked him who he was. He only threw a fit because the guy didn't have ID. They were both obviously trying to work against each other but I didn't see anywhere in the recording that the officer asked him to provide him name or anything else. Only asked for his ID. Maybe I missed it but I don't feel like wasting more time watching again.

I think we can all agree the OCers aren't helping here but the reality is that he wasn't doing anything wrong at the time and the officers were looking to make a confrontation. There is a little bit of overreach of the rights and responsibilities on both parts in how they approached this.

[treadlightly]

Nobody carries rifles any more, not even in the back windows of pickup trucks. I don't have a clue the nature of the protest, but I hope the rifles were carried safely and in a friendly spirit. Since rifles are questionable things - whether or not that's right - I'd say we have at least temporarily lost the effective right to carry rifles. Like most folks, that doesn't affect my life, but it does raise some personal questions.

Did Houston PD have anything to say about badge 4771's attempt to destroy evidence in an arrest attempt?

And, to clarify, the loss of any right very much affects my life, even if it's a right I never exercise. I don't carry a rifle to the grocery store. The right, exercised or not, to carry a rifle to the grocery store, should I purchase a rifle and want to carry it to the grocery store - that's important to me. But I don't actually carry rifles to grocery stores. Not yet, anyway.

[screaminz2002]

Not sure what an ID is.. I have a license to operate a motor vehicle (drivers license) that is issued by the state and defined in the transportation code. It is not personal identification, passport, visa, green card, or anything else. I can obtain a separate card which says identification but I am certainly not required to register for this. I understand that certain organizations, business, and law enforcement recognize it as a valid means of proving identity but this doesnt mean I have to produce it on a whim. I simply am only required to carry or produce it in an instance of operating a motor vehicle or when I choose to use it for a good or service. My concealed carry permit looks very much like my drivers license, contains much of the same information, and lacks the portions directly related to driving. I am not sure why I have to show my permit to operate a motor vehicle, when not operating a motor vehicle, in conjunction with my CHL, if stopped on the street. Its a silly requirement that has nothing to do with each other. It proves a point that if you call something the wrong name for long enough, it will eventually become known as the slang term and be treated as the slang term.
Sec. 521.001. DEFINITIONS. (a) In this chapter:
"Driver's license" means an authorization issued by the department for the operation of a motor vehicle. The term includes:
(A) a temporary license or instruction permit; and
(B) an occupational license.

"License" means an authorization to operate a motor vehicle that is issued under or granted by the laws of this state. The term includes:
(A) a driver's license;
(B) the privilege of a person to operate a motor vehicle regardless of whether the person holds a driver's license; and
(C) a nonresident's operating privilege.

GC §411.205. REQUIREMENT TO DISPLAY LICENSE
. If a license holder is carrying a handgun on or about the license holder’s person when a magistrate or
a peace officer demands that the license holder display identification, the license
holder shall display both the license holder’s driver’s license or identification
certificate issued by the department and the license holder’s handgun license.

The important part here is IF im carrying a handgun. I also wonder if they can simply demand it or if the same laws apply to having a reason to demand it. ie suspicion of a crime and being lawfully arrested.

Sec. 38.02. FAILURE TO IDENTIFY. (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.

(c) Except as provided by Subsections (d) and (e), an offense under this section is:

(1) a Class C misdemeanor if the offense is committed under Subsection (a); or

(2) a Class B misdemeanor if the offense is committed under Subsection (b).

(d) If it is shown on the trial of an offense under this section that the defendant was a fugitive from justice at the time of the offense, the offense is:

(1) a Class B misdemeanor if the offense is committed under Subsection (a); or

(2) a Class A misdemeanor if the offense is committed under Subsection (b).

(e) If conduct that constitutes an offense under this section also constitutes an offense under Section 106.07, Alcoholic Beverage Code, the actor may be prosecuted only under Section 106.07.

[dihappy]

God i hate cops like that!

"What am i being arrested for?"

"Failure to ID"


Wait, and you're a officer of the "law"?
So sad.

[dihappy]

Why does an officer need to identify you if you're not arrested or cited anyways? So he can make sure you're not a felon? Does he have reason to believe you're a felon? The presence of a gun, when lawfully carried, cannot be the sole purpose of a detention. I support our police, but I support our Constitutional rights even more. Even though you may not agree with some rights, that doesn't make them any less important.

Because they manage to arrest a lot of people with outstanding warrants, etc just by "contact" as part of an investigation. I don't know how many reports I've read that start with "contact" and end in an arrest due to an outstanding warrant.

In my experience, if an officer is talking to you about an incident, they ask for ID, even if you're just a "witness". It's likely department policy... Without the tin-foil hat, it's a good way to make sure they get your name right in case they need your account in the future. I don't see any reason to stir something up in these circumstances, do you?

I haven't tried saying "no" - but I'm sure it will be looked at suspiciously.

I couldnt care less how "suspicious" it looks. Folks who dont , even those who do, know their rights and allow officers to violate them by demanding they ID themselves despite not having any suspicion that they have committed a crime are the reason cops continue to get away with this kind of illegal activity. Its folks who stand up for their rights, and take these violations to court, which cause some departments to re-evaluate their policies and re-train their officers on how to handle stops like this.

[dihappy]

Because they manage to arrest a lot of people with outstanding warrants, etc just by "contact" as part of an investigation. I don't know how many reports I've read that start with "contact" and end in an arrest due to an outstanding warrant.

And if those people with warrants don't know their rights or wish to waive those rights, more power to them, but it doesn't work in their benefit. I'm not advocating running from the law, I'm advocating flexing your rights. If an officer asks to search my vehicle, I'm going to tell him no. Not because I have anything illegal in my car, but because I'm not required to help him find things to arrest me for. Same premise applies to identification.

In my experience, if an officer is talking to you about an incident, they ask for ID, even if you're just a "witness". It's likely department policy... Without the tin-foil hat, it's a good way to make sure they get your name right in case they need your account in the future. I don't see any reason to stir something up in these circumstances, do you?

I haven't tried saying "no" - but I'm sure it will be looked at suspiciously.

There's no tin foil hat involved here, and the mere mention of such to degrade the opposing argument shows an inherent lack of respect for human rights.

I don't understand how people can be selective of which rights they support, and which ones they don't. We're all here because we obviously support the 2nd Amendment, but every other part of the Constitution is just as important. If I'm not doing anything wrong, there should be no need for the government to identify me. If I am doing something wrong, they have the right to arrest me and identify me in the process.

Perfect!

[Deltaboy]

My issue is the Officers lack of Temper control. You don't have to have physical ID when you go walking. Now if your going to carry a rifle you might need to have it with you.