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.

 

PA Announcements about carrying your Identification at Retail Shops.

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 31 2005 @ 12:33 PM
link   
Must Americans Carry Identification, or Else Risk Arrest?


Wednesday, Nov. 12, 2003

This may soon change. This Term, in the case of Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, the Supreme Court will decide a case that asks the following question: Does the Constitution permit a police officer to arrest someone simply because, when stopped under reasonable suspicion, that person fails to produce identification?



A short article but good imo. I looked up the decision for the case mentioned in the article.


www.epic.org..." target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow"> www.epic.org...

Supreme Court Upholds Constitutionality of Arrest for Refusal to Identify. In a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court has narrowly upheld a Nevada law allowing law enforcement to arrest an individual when he refuses to identify himself, and reasonable suspicion--though not probable cause--exists that he has committed a crime. (June 21, 2004)


So like i said in my previous post this is law unless i've missed something.




posted on Oct, 31 2005 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by andpau66
Why are some of you getting so worked up about this and paranoid? Defcon5 stated that he didn't even hear the whole message. He just focused on the word "identification".

Kind of like selective hearing..where you hear what you want to hear.


Absolutely not. I have already said that I do not go around making many threads; I just don’t like doing it. For me to go through this effort, believe me it was NOT selective hearing. I got the just of both announcements, I just did not get the details to a level that I could retype it word for word here. The just of both messages was to make sure you were carrying your ID.



Originally posted by Crakeur
what if you get hit by a car and need medical attention. let's say you are also allergic to some meds. without id, you might not be notified fast enough, which means a loved one might not find you in time to warn the docs about allergies. or the need for insulin or something along those lines.


None of this is covered by your identification anyway.


Originally posted by Crakeur
let's assume they are telling everyone to carry id for no real reason. who's to say what type of id. sitting in my pocket, at all times, is the following, in a nice litte bill fold.


Down here that means a drivers license or a DMV ID card.


Originally posted by Crakeur
yup. I carry a Joker. some girl gave it to me years ago at a night club and I found it funny. kept it. anyone asks for id without reason, that's what they get. does that count toward id?


I like that one; I’ll have to give it a try.



Originally posted by Crakeur
there is no state-wide id,unless you count driver's license which isn't something everyone has.

There is no national id, unless you count your social security card or your passport, both of which are not held by all of us. Besides, ss card has no photo so it's useless as an id and not everyone has a passport.


I am not sure where you have been, but yes there is. It was passed as the Real ID act, and I don’t see anyone moving to repeal this law very quickly. All states MUST comply by 2008.

The Real ID act also states that your Picture, Finger Prints, and possibly even your Retina Scan is to be digitized and contained on your drivers license now as well. Here in Florida they have been already storing the digitized pictures for quite some time now.


Originally posted by Crakeur
To start telling people to carry their id, you have to have a uniformly accepted form of id.


The licenses are to have a “Uniform Machine Readable Format” as part of the card. The choice is being left to the Department of Homeland Security and they have already stated that they want RFID’s.



Originally posted by AgentSmith
Quite, I can see the 'chinese whispers' effect easily happening here and somewhere down the line the story will be saying that it definately means something that it may not. There is not much else that can be said in my opinon until we know the whole story, or message in this case.


Which is why I told you guys up front I did not get all the details of the message, and asked for people to see if they came across anything similar and post it if they did.


[edit on 10/31/2005 by defcon5]



posted on Oct, 31 2005 @ 01:45 PM
link   
defcon, if you reread the second paragraph in my post, you will see that I was referring to a loved one getting speedy notification of your injury and thus someone who knows you will be able to say "allergic to..." never did I say that the id's say anything about medicines.

I see what you are saying but I really don't see the conspiracy here. I was serious about going back to listen to the PA system. For your own edification and for the board, go back, listen and see what they say. Who knows, it might say "there's a special on olive loaf and carry your identification and vote Jeb in 08"


I think I just made myself ill



posted on Oct, 31 2005 @ 10:48 PM
link   
defcon

Give me the address and telephone number of that wal-Mart. I will call them in the morning and ask them what this is all about.

Otherwise, I'd have to say that this is nothing but a bunch of bs.



posted on Oct, 31 2005 @ 10:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rren
Must Americans Carry Identification, or Else Risk Arrest?


Wednesday, Nov. 12, 2003

This may soon change. This Term, in the case of Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, the Supreme Court will decide a case that asks the following question: Does the Constitution permit a police officer to arrest someone simply because, when stopped under reasonable suspicion, that person fails to produce identification?



A short article but good imo. I looked up the decision for the case mentioned in the article.


www.epic.org..." target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow"> www.epic.org...

Supreme Court Upholds Constitutionality of Arrest for Refusal to Identify. In a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court has narrowly upheld a Nevada law allowing law enforcement to arrest an individual when he refuses to identify himself, and reasonable suspicion--though not probable cause--exists that he has committed a crime. (June 21, 2004)


So like i said in my previous post this is law unless i've missed something.

No, I don't think so. Refusing to identify myself is much different than not having my ID in my back pocket.



posted on Nov, 1 2005 @ 10:32 AM
link   
Okies people, let’s reel this in a bit and make some definitions. At the very least separate the aspects of this topic.

#1 The topic is about stores or private companies requiring, or simply asking, that you carry ID. The original poster did admit they haven’t heard the whole request. I would be willing to bet it’s a message to underage people who want to buy age requirement items.

#2 FACT: If a private company chose to require you to carry id, that does not make it a law and you would be in no legal violation as such. But remember: Retailers are in fact PRIVATE property and could require you to have an ID. Your choice would be to leave and not to shop there. But I don’t think this is the case here.

#3 There is no law that I am aware of that requires 100% of US citizens to carry ID.

Lets clarify the actual issues regarding the possible requirement to carry ID in the future:

Is it a violation of your rights to legally require you to have an ID?
Well, there are many opinions about this, but no, being legally required to carry an ID is NOT a violation of our rights. To understand why its not, we need to put aside our emotions and think about what our objection to carrying ID’s really are: It’s the reasons why somebody may want to see our ID we object too, not the actual ID itself. Being required to carry ID is no violation at all, but it’s the reasons an official may want to see our ID is what concerns us. You must separate the two and focus your arguments accordingly. This isn’t the 1800’s where pieces of paper hidden in a box at your home is the entire ID anybody had on who you were, we live in a digital society where your ID is everything. ID is all but required just to exist today.

Here is the big question: Does a representative of the government have a right to definitively know who you are if they feel they need to know such information? Yes they do. But we must assume that the official requiring that ID is acting appropriately and needs this information to serve the people, not some sinister government plot. Sorry guys, but we must assume the high road first, and suspect later.

There is a difference between being required to carry and ID and showing that ID, and that’s the real argument here. In emergency or special situations it’s not against our rights to have to show an ID. If your argument is that you don’t trust the government to ask us to show the ID under the proper circumstances then fine, but don’t confuse that with the carrying of the ID itself. Undertsand?

I will always support a government initiative to require mandatory ID’s. It scares me that certain elements (criminals) in society aren’t required to positively ID themselves if the situation arises where they need to be ID’d. And as a law abiding citizen, I have no issues showing my ID to the proper authorities in any investigation, as I have nothing to hide and so long as that investigation is legitimate and will ultimately lead to a safer environment for me and my family. Again, if your issue is government mistrust, then fine. But don’t confuse that with mandatory ID’s.


[edit on 1-11-2005 by skippytjc]

[edit on 1-11-2005 by skippytjc]



posted on Nov, 1 2005 @ 11:10 AM
link   

from Skippytjc
#1 The topic is about stores or private companies requiring, or simply asking, that you carry ID. The original poster did admit they haven’t heard the whole request. I would be willing to bet it’s a message to underage people who want to buy age requirement items.

We need to narrow this down a bit, Skippy. A private company that is not a retail store may full well require you to wear on your external clothing, proper ID. If you refuse, you will be denied access to the building. The typical example of this is an employee or visitor badge.

Can a retail establishment require you to carry, and show, proper ID? I can think of a case for this: places that serve liquor, or adult entertainment clubs. They are doing so to comply with state and federal minimum age requirement laws.

Can a Wal-Mart or Shell station require you to carry ID? Well, I imagine they could make such a rule, but it would be bad for business, so why would they?

Members only establishments such as Sams Club or Costco don't count here.


I'm still waiting for the author to supply the phone number & address of the store. I'm sure it was nothing more than a hearing error.



posted on Nov, 1 2005 @ 02:57 PM
link   
I did a recon in Wal-Mart today for over an hour, paying particular attention to the announcements. Nothing regarding ID, so it must not be a Wal-Mart thing.

Are you in an area of Florida affected by the hurricane? Since you heard it in two different places, maybe it's a local/regional thing.



posted on Nov, 1 2005 @ 03:12 PM
link   
I have never heard any such announcements at any place that
I shop. If I ever did, I would be concerned. However, since I haven't,
then I can't really comment on your two incidents.



posted on Nov, 1 2005 @ 03:49 PM
link   
I know what you're thinking; here comes that crazy constitutionalist TC again. You're wondering when I finally get it, aren't you? Funny, I'm wondering the same thing about the rest of the nation.

Why are you being told to carry your papers? What country is this? What decade is it?

The "I.D." is a government-issued document; why is it that a sovereign man on the land (Simmer down ladies, the term "man" is neutral) must carry a government piece of paper in order to not get into trouble with the Man?


Oh, now I remember! Because of the March 9 Updated Trading with the Enemy Act, which is a letter of Marque and Reprisal against the U.S. Citizen and the 14th Amendment residents of the several states, we are enemies of the U.S.!



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join