Civil matter or minor infraction at best, unworthy of a physical assault. Unless, of course, you love Our Police State.
2. Knowingly providing false identification
This one is much more problematic, although, one person on this thread has stated that California does not require production of identity on an 'order'. In any case, it's still not worthy of physical assault.
3. Failure to obey a lawful order
At some point, the order becomes unlawful. At that point, the person who should be prosecuted, is the officer. I might not have tried to leave unless denied counsel. I would have demanded IMMEDIATE counsel. I would have wanted my attorney THERE if the guy or gal tried to detain me without arrest for much more than, say, an hour.
I think that this trend to zap everyone, and the newest trends (to deny habeaus corpus or allow counsel) are very dangerous and are quite indicative of the trend towards a true Police State. Soon, we will be there.
4. ZZZZZZZZZap!
The answer of far too many officers, far to early in the encounter.
If suspected of a violation (even a minor one like walking an unleashed dog) you must provide identification if/when asked.
Agree, it’s a minor infraction, but once observed and stopped by the Ranger you must provide proper ID if requested. Failing to do so raises the ante unnecessarily.
Providing false ID is not at all problematic, it’s wrong and it’s illegal. Now we’re out of the civil infraction category.
Citizens in our society are obligated to follow the directions of appointed authorities...even it they think them wrong. There were witnesses present, he could have waited it out and brought charges later. Sounds to me like he knew he screwed up with the false name and was trying to get himself out of it by leaving.
If we allow citizens to determine when a an order becomes unlawful we’d have anarchy in the streets.
Besides....only illegal aliens are not required to show correct identification.