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.

 

arrested in Denver for refusing to show papers.

page: 2
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 02:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


I draw the line when, and if what the fear mongers say COULD happen happens.

As of right now, it is not required to attend an Oriels game...and if it is, the Oriels run a private corporation, that's their business if they want to ID people before they enter. You know they could require you show your driver license right now if they want?

When I opened my bank account, I had to provide an ID to prove I was me.

I assume when one purchases a gun from a reputable dealer you have to provide your identification, if it is a new one that is. How else do you run a background check?

I'm also pretty damn sure I had to provide ID that I was me when I vote as well...

What's the deal?

All of these things, outside of going to a ball game, makes perfect sense, and if a business wants to ID me before I enter, I either do or don't enjoy their services.

I agree with mnemeth, there should be probable cause. But lets be real, an officer could come up with anything, and if you disobey, you face a real chance of getting taken in.

I'd much rather show my ID and get on with my day. Let the A Hole cops be like that to someone else.

I still don't get it.




posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 02:47 PM
link   
reply to post by iamsupermanv2
 





I draw the line when, and if what the fear mongers say COULD happen happens.


If that is murder, then you draw the line after you've been murdered, which is just a little too late.




As of right now, it is not required to attend an Oriels game...and if it is, the Oriels run a private corporation, that's their business if they want to ID people before they enter. You know they could require you show your driver license right now if they want?


Providing ID, is not the same as providing a federally mandated standard ID.




When I opened my bank account, I had to provide an ID to prove I was me.


You did not have to provide a federally mandated standard ID.




I assume when one purchases a gun from a reputable dealer you have to provide your identification, if it is a new one that is. How else do you run a background check?


Again, not a federally mandated standard ID, where all purchasing data is then stored in a federal data base. Further, and here is where we get into this question of drawing lines, the 2nd Amendment makes clear that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Deny a person that right due to lack of ID sounds an awful lot like infringement.




I'm also pretty damn sure I had to provide ID that I was me when I vote as well...


Again, not a federally mandated standard ID, where that information is stored in a federal data base.




What's the deal?


Freedom, and protection of unalienable rights. That's the deal.




All of these things, outside of going to a ball game, makes perfect sense, and if a business wants to ID me before I enter, I either do or don't enjoy their services.


Long before there were state issued ID's, there were banks, people voted, and purchased guns. This means people were purchasing guns, opening bank accounts, and voting without providing any state issued ID card. What's the deal?




I agree with mnemeth, there should be probable cause. But lets be real, an officer could come up with anything, and if you disobey, you face a real chance of getting taken in.


Probable cause upon oath or affirmation, and that is not anything at all, so if you are arguing that everyone should go along with this because police officers are big bullies, then my remark about murder has real meaning.




I'd much rather show my ID and get on with my day. Let the A Hole cops be like that to someone else.


Expedience; this is the single greatest threat to our unalienable rights, the voluntary acquiescence of a waiver a rights, all for expedience.




I still don't get it.


I understand.



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 02:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


So it seems you have a problem with a federally mandated ID, am I correct?

If so, why do you not have a problem with a state mandated ID?

And your remark about murder..come on. Don't be a fool. That wiki article that spoke about opposition spoke of fear mongering. That's all it is.

[edit on 9/1/2010 by iamsupermanv2]



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 02:59 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Compensation should be granted to the activists?

You'll have a great career ahead of you if you decide to become an ambulance chasing tort attorney.



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 03:06 PM
link   
reply to post by iamsupermanv2
 





So it seems you have a problem with a federally mandated ID, am I correct?


National ID cards are not within the purview of the federal governments jurisdiction.




If so, why do you not have a problem with a state mandated ID?


States do not mandate ID cards. They require identification when applying for licenses and other privileges but they are not mandated by any law.




And your remark about murder..come on. Don't be a fool. That wiki article that spoke about opposition spoke of fear mongering. That's all it is.


Okay. Don't lawfully defend yourself, that is your choice. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 03:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


I understand what you are saying, but it really doesn't answer the main question: What is the problem with identifying yourself to an officer. What were these to yahoos problem with handing them their state issued ID card and letting the officers be on their way?

They have no said what lead to the police contact. Nor have I been able to find it online anywhere.

It has also been stated in this thread that by state law for Colorado, where they were, that they must identify who they are an officer. So if they were not in compliance with the law, then the officer was in full right. This is also assuming the officer made contact with probable cause. Let us not forget that Civil Disobedience is still Disobedience. Breaking the law, whether you feel you are justified or not, is still breaking the law.

I have stated what I would do as a rational human being who does not see how me providing, or not providing my ID for that matter, would lead to me being dead. I'll say that I really do not get your train of thought on this matter. But that is ok. I have a healthy level of fear for how law enforcement could screw me over, but you can't deal with each situation like they will. It only leads to bad things. Sometimes a cop is just trying to do their job. I think we have wasted enough space on this thread with off topic? back and forth. I look forward to having this conversation in the future. I'm sure we will both pop up on the same thread sooner or later.

(and for the record, I totally give you the win. I still think you are misguided, as I'm sure you think I am. It happens though.)



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 03:36 PM
link   
The events that led to the arrest of the gentlemen in LOT can be found in this article:

www.coloradofreedom.net...

(this is the only way I know how to post the info. mods...change it if you must)

It appears that it wasn't just a matter of them refusing to show "papers", but a little more was involved. Either way, I believe it was again a harassment
by the PTB to chip away at our rights, period.

~holly



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 03:38 PM
link   
reply to post by iamsupermanv2
 


There is nothing wrong with identifying oneself to a police officer, but why does that have to be done by state issued ID cards? What is your problem with a verified oath? Why can't a person just swear they are who they say they are and then be on their way?

What was stated in this thread regarding Colorado law and identification was that if suspected of a crime, then identifying oneself is necessary, and if refused, police are within their jurisdiction to arrest. The big if is regarding criminality. Since neither one of us know the reason why these two gentlemen of whom you seem to want to call "yahoos" were initially approached by the police, we cannot know if it was the two gentlemen who were acting contrary to law, or if it was the police officers doing so. Contrary to what you have stated, police officers cannot just make up any old reason and declare that probable cause.

Whether you are rational or not remains to be seen, but your insistence that there is no problem in acquiescing to police officers demand regardless of the circumstances does not appear to be all that rational. Further, when it comes to fear mongering, it was you who indicated that police can make up any reason they want and call it probable cause, and you who followed that remark with them possibly arresting a person for failure to comply. What is that if not fear mongering?

It is always telling when someone wants to advocate for government but has no valid argument, that at some point they insist the argument is off topic. What is telling here, when you make the claim, is that both of us have been discussing the legality of supplying identification. Can you understand that?



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 04:30 PM
link   
Not sure why "refused to show papers" equates with I.D or Identification. Papers could be a permit or other type of papers but if you actually follow the link on that page, that source says nothing abut ID or papers of any kind. It mentions they were handing out free beer with a sign "Free Beer" and was asked to remove it. They complied and still handed out beer and their literature and police were later called. It still isn't clear but it mentions nothing about "papers".



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 04:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nikolam
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Compensation should be granted to the activists?

You'll have a great career ahead of you if you decide to become an ambulance chasing tort attorney.


Tort has its place.

In this case we have victims that were unjustly deprived of their liberty.

A lawsuit is the proper remedy to this injustice.



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 04:36 PM
link   
reply to post by iamsupermanv2
 



What is the problem with identifying yourself to an officer?


There isn't a problem. If I want to, I will. If I don't want to, I don't want to. What's the big deal if I don't identify myself?



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 04:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by iamsupermanv2
reply to post by Funkydung
 


I could be wrong but I always though it was an offense to refuse to identify yourself to an officer when they ask.

I don't really see the problem with it in the first place...I am going to go back and read the article...it's having trouble loading right now for me.


hey iam....the problem i have with it...this is america..land of the free...free people do not have to produce id to some person just because they ask for it...especially a law enforcer. the police work for us and if we do not wish to provide our employees with some sort of id then we dont have to. and the thought of our employees throwing us in a cage for not doing so is insane. maybe if this was north korea and we lived under a tyrannical government then maybe yeah.....wait a sec....maybe thats the problem...maybe we do live under a tyrannical government where the law enforcers do throw their people in cages for not providing proper papers. naah that couldnt be it.



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 05:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Spiro
My dear friend,


From this >


Originally posted by Funkydung
Pete and Adam from Liberty on Tour were arrested in Denver for refusing to show papers.


To this >


this is free talk lives site.....an excellent freedom oriented radio/podcast the best out there that shows the tyranny and police stupidity that is looming over us and what we can do about it...
www.freetalklive.com...


Emphasis added.

Could this be the reason they were stopped. It could very well be the case that they are known " free talkers against the police " and this could quite possably have led to them being stopped, questioned and asked to show their papers. Harassment?

It appears so.

Be safe be well,

Spiro


hey spiro....they could very well be known for their freedom and anti-tyranny stance they take. from what ive seen over the last few years the law enforcers do not like people like this and will harass those who have to balls to speak out about it especially when the law enforcer are in the area.....free talk live is very popular and are friends with Pete and Adam and is an excellent podcast and radio show and very entertaining to boot...
here is an example of one of the calls......



Free Talk Live - Ian and Wayne destroy a statist




[edit on 1-9-2010 by Funkydung]



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 05:19 PM
link   
i figured i would post this video to give a little bit more info about liberty on tour. they sure dont seem like criminals to me.

Presenting Liberty On Tour
in this five-minute video Pete Eyre and Adam Mueller give an overview about themselves, Liberty On Tour and the ways organizations and businesses can get on-board with this dynamic project.




posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 05:52 PM
link   
It is sad that in America people are treated as these two men were when they weren't actually doing anything to be arrested for...I notice there are a lot of theories flying around in the answers as to why they were arrested for not showing papers...if y'all really want to know why they were hauled off in cuffs, try reading the link I posted in my earlier comment...if y'all would rather continue to theorize...you can do that as well.

~holly



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 05:52 PM
link   
OK, so here's the actual language of Colorado's stop and identify statute:


(1) A peace officer may stop any person who he reasonably suspects is committing, has committed, or is about to commit a crime and may require him to give his name and address, identification if available, and an explanation of his actions. A peace officer shall not require any person who is stopped pursuant to this section to produce or divulge such person's social security number. The stopping shall not constitute an arrest.


Colo. Rev. Stat. §16-3-103(1)

So, there's nothing here that says you have to carry an ID. It just says that you must identify yourself. "Hello, I am Unit 541." should suffice. Sticking to the letter of the law, it seems that the officer would need to divulge what crime he "reasonably suspects" you are committing, have committed, or are about to commit, to establish the "reasonable suspicion" that is the prerequisite for requiring the citizen to identify themselves.

Seems like something even a first year law student should be able to argue successfully.

haha, actually, if the law is to be imposed to the letter, then it looks like you don't have to do squat if the LEO is a woman.


edit for emphasis.

[edit on 9/1/2010 by Unit541]



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Unit541
OK, so here's the actual language of Colorado's stop and identify statute:

(1) A peace officer may stop any person who he reasonably suspects is committing, has committed, or is about to commit a crime and may require him to give his name and address...


There I fixed the emphasis for you



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 07:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Unit541
 


No, you read that wrong, if the person being stopped is a WOMAN.

See here, from your quote-

may require him to give his name and address, identification if available



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 12:13 PM
link   
reply to post by saltheart foamfollower
 


Well then, I suppose it's either/or...


... A peace officer may stop any person who he reasonably suspects is committing...



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
I just did a write up on this for my blog.

And police wonder why people hate them.

Police have no right to conduct a terry stop, demand ID, or otherwise order a citizen to do anything unless they have probable cause that a crime has been committed.

The officers in question should be fired and compensation should be granted to the activists.



Do you know why they were stopped in the first place? You are pretty quick to jump on the "they should be fired" every time something like this happens. We always see the end of the investigation on the youtube videos that come out like this, but never the part where the people getting arrested are "we were just doing nothing and they came up to us." How come you think?



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join