It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Xcathdra
Aazadan
You can say just show your ID but that's tacit admission that we do not have our system of rights.
If you don't mind me asking, what supports the above statement?
Respectfully, I know of no where in the US Constitution or my State Constitution that states pedigree information (name / dob / address / etc) and Law Enforcement requesting that information (when appropriate / required) is protected as a right.
Not trying to argue, but I am curious what led to that conclusion.
Aazadan
Xcathdra
Aazadan
You can say just show your ID but that's tacit admission that we do not have our system of rights.
If you don't mind me asking, what supports the above statement?
Respectfully, I know of no where in the US Constitution or my State Constitution that states pedigree information (name / dob / address / etc) and Law Enforcement requesting that information (when appropriate / required) is protected as a right.
Not trying to argue, but I am curious what led to that conclusion.
The Fourth Amendment. Temporarily handing over a document is no different than having it seized in the electronic age. Because copies can be rapidly duplicated and kept forever.
Xcathdra
The 4th amendment prevents an unreasonable search and seizure.
Identifying information is pedigree information and is not protected.
The license itself is the property of the state, not the individual. This is why when dealing with out of state drivers, the state they are in are prohibited from confiscating the license.
Driving is a privilege, not a right and as such a person must be licensed in order to operate a motor vehicle.
Requesting identification is not a violation of any rights. respectfully.
Its no different than my state, where law enforcement is required to produce our commission card if requested (situation specific, just like driver's license request).
rangerdanger
InverseLookingGlass
reply to post by rangerdanger
I've met good cops, and I've met bad cops. Geography plays a big part in these kinds of situations I think.
Said a mouth full there. Geography. That and skin color...and steroids and how the last traffic stop went and how the LEO is getting along with their spouse and kids. And other stuff.
Criminal mafia. Ironically the civil courts have been helping to clean up the smaller cells. Now we are turning the bigger PD's in to military units. That's the new thing. Straight up Fascism. Watch Ukraine there were good cops in there sniping protesters.
Think that can't happen here?
I stand by my statement. I've met good cops, and bad cops. In my experience it isn't worthwhile to generalize an entire group based off the actions of a few.
It gets to a point where you are just fear mongering. I see plenty of police brutality videos, but I wonder why people don't film all the good police do around the country. Probably because nobody care about the good, they only focus on the bad.
I for one, am not scared of LEO in the slightest. The only power they have is the power you give them.
As for the militarization, I live in a pretty big urban area. SLC is not small, and yet we have no tanks, apcs, drones or any of that. The cops in Salt Lake ride 10 speeds with fanny packs. I don't know how many are-15s you can fit in a fanny pack, but I'd say none is a good guess.
Like I said, I agree with the OP, and those that abuse their power should be punished. It's a shame that they don't always get punished, but I haven't seen any police snipe people at the countless rallies/protests I've attended in my adult life.
Honestly, if you're so fed up, and want to make a change, pick up a badge, and change it yourself. Creating fear won't change anything.
Aazadan
Unless you're in a state which doesn't have a stop and identify law which is the case here. If you're driving the cops have every right to check if you're licensed, however this man was not driving. That part is key. Yes he was going to, but you can't hold someone responsible for an action they're going to do. You can only hold them accountable for what they have previously done. At that point he had not driven and was under no requirement to provide identification. His wife would have to identify if the cops asked since at that point she was a driver and not a passenger.
WCmutant
Xcathdra,
I think in a previous post you stated that looking into a vehicle was fair game but searching was not. Where does one draw the line with the officer in the video opening the door and looking inside van?
WCmutant
To me this appears to be a search. Peering in windows to look for anything in plain sight okay. Opening door and looking inside? This seems to be not okay.
WCmutant
And thanks for your experience and insight. I am not sure what area of the country you work in and that seems to make a difference. There seems to be pockets of corruption involving LEOs with some states and/or cities being prime for a much higher rate for such things.
It would be interesting to take a lot of these reports and many others and see if there is any statistical significance.
Xcathdra
I have the law on my side,
HandyDandy
I think you summed up why we all have disdain for LEOs, the DOJ, and pretty much our whole justice system at this point. Because the law IS on your side. The laws are so stacked in your favor that you can kill with impunity. Then you'll be on a message board telling us how lawful that murder was.
Just remember that back in the day LEOs used to round up escaped slaves to have them hanged because it was the law.........
BTW...thanks for posting all the laws and proving the premise of the OP and video.........that we DO live in a jackboot society.
edit on 7-3-2014 by HandyDandy because: (no reason given)
Xcathdra
As for killing with impunity - I see this position a lot and I don't agree. A person needs to understand that the majority of the application of deadly force encounters occur in a snap judgment environment. The requirement set by scotus when it comes to use of deadly force by officers is based on what the officer perceived as a threat the moment force was used (hindsight 20/20 cannot be used). Totality of circumstances is a factor as well.
Xcathdra
Stop and Identify, even in states (like mine) that allow it, is not uniform. Municipalities have enacted ordinances for it however the state has not, which means Sheriff and Highway patrol cant enforce it.
Since Law enforcement is not a part of the judicial branch, we have nothing to do with guilt / innocence / fines.
Since Law Enforcement is not a part of the legislative branch, we have nothing to do with creating law, the elements of that crime, or type of classification (misdemeanor / felony / infraction).
Since Law Enforcement is a part of the Executive, our focus is enforcement of those laws.
There is a reason we have checks and balances and separations of power. While I have seen the argument that cops should not enforce "illegal / unconstitutional laws" (and I agree) one must realize that is not our purpose or function. We all complain about the federal government taking action people think is illegal / unconstitutional.
Because of that, the people are the ones who must initiate change. Absent that, it looks as if an armed segment of government is attacking the other branches, which is never good. That type of action leads to questions about the legitimacy of any changes that are derived from that action.
Aazadan
He wasn't charged with failure to identify however, which means the cops couldn't charge him.
Aazadan
The most evil men in history were just ordinary people doing their jobs. I do agree that as a general rule it's the role of law enforcement to enforce the laws and the role of the courts to decide what the laws are. These previous two sentences are total opposites, yet are both true which means the ideal lies somewhere in the middle.
Aazadan
The main issue in my mind is that with quota systems, the idea has been created for LEO's that everyone is guilty.
Aazadan
It's the job of the officer to figure out what that person is guilty of. While this isn't outright unconstitutional (innocent until proven otherwise only exists inside the courtroom) it blatantly goes against the spirit of our laws, and there's no room for it in a free society.
Aazadan
Law enforcement is a tough subject to approach. Sanity in our laws can and often is portrayed as being soft on crime. If a politician wants to keep their career it's wise to not have a soft on crime stigma attached. One of the problems I believe is that there's a fundamental misunderstanding between what the people say they want with what they really want, and what the politicians hear people want.
~Lucidity
On a gut level, and after reading through most of this thread, I have to conclude that I don't like anyone in that video or how they acted and reacted. And i'm going to be very optimistic here and say that most people wouldn't behave that way given the same set of circumstances and that this is not indicative of anything...just a sad string of events where everyone behaved less than graciously and professionally. Still a good lesson on what not to do. For everyone.
Xcathdra
Aazadan
Xcathdra
Aazadan
You can say just show your ID but that's tacit admission that we do not have our system of rights.
If you don't mind me asking, what supports the above statement?
Respectfully, I know of no where in the US Constitution or my State Constitution that states pedigree information (name / dob / address / etc) and Law Enforcement requesting that information (when appropriate / required) is protected as a right.
Not trying to argue, but I am curious what led to that conclusion.
The Fourth Amendment. Temporarily handing over a document is no different than having it seized in the electronic age. Because copies can be rapidly duplicated and kept forever.
The 4th amendment prevents an unreasonable search and seizure.
Identifying information is pedigree information and is not protected.
The license itself is the property of the state, not the individual. This is why when dealing with out of state drivers, the state they are in are prohibited from confiscating the license.
Driving is a privilege, not a right and as such a person must be licensed in order to operate a motor vehicle.
Requesting identification is not a violation of any rights. respectfully.
Its no different than my state, where law enforcement is required to produce our commission card if requested (situation specific, just like driver's license request).edit on 6-3-2014 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)
sean
Forced to have ID, Forced to hand it over. The state and police already has that info in the computer. So the officer preemptively forces you into agreement to incriminate yourself, for breaking some law that you don't even know you broke.
Xcathdra
Requesting / requiring Id has no incrimination attachment. Could you please clarify / explain how you arrived at this conclusion? (respectfully asking)