Doors close on bus case - Technicality frees Arvada woman who refused to show ID

Rocky Mountain News ^ | December 8, 2005 | Karen Abbott

[InsureAmerica]

Actually I believe they all did show ID's and succesfully boarded. And your point? Oh, I know. We should never under any circumstances show ID's because of our right to not show ID's as written in the constitution (I forget again where is the ID thing written there?)

(And now I'll wait for all the constitutional scholars here to respond about the various amendments protecting rights against search and seizure, etc.)

[steve-b]

Under which scenario (and please be honest) is there more likelihood of stopping the threat???

The scenario where somebody grows a brain and stops running public bus lines through a secure facility. Duh.

[Ol' Dan Tucker]

I am the last person here who wants anything resembling a police state, but I am for reasonable precautions in a time of war...

Do police states start off with draconian measures or reasonable ones?

[InsureAmerica]

Yes, correct, but what if a threat of someone going thru that station who is not going to disembark, just explode?

I am positive there would be a lockdown and ID check...

[InsureAmerica]

and which side is that?

[Heyworth]

And your point? Oh, I know. We should never under any circumstances show ID's because of our right to not show ID's as written in the constitution (I forget again where is the ID thing written there?)

Actually my point is that showing IDs does absolutely nothing toward stopping a terrorist attack.

[steve-b]

Here: you have 1000 people on mass transit and a threat. Scenario 1 - all ID's are checked. Scenario 2, because of people who think like you no ID's are checked, nothing is done. Under which scenario (and please be honest) is there more likelihood of stopping the threat???

This one.

[steve-b]

Here: you have 1000 people on mass transit and a threat. Scenario 1 - all ID's are checked. Scenario 2, because of people who think like you no ID's are checked, nothing is done. Under which scenario (and please be honest) is there more likelihood of stopping the threat???

This one.

[InsureAmerica]

Well, we can be sure of one thing. If nothing is done, then there is a 100% chance he will detonate. I think common sense would tell us then the more that is done that the 100% would start to reduce. ID isn't the solution, it can be part of the solution..

[ican'tbelieveit]

If there is a "lockdown," the buses won't be going through that area anyway, so ID checks on the buses aren't going to happen anyway.

[InsureAmerica]

"A cursory look at an ID isn't going to protect anything terrorist related."

Would it be fair to say, that if I can provide for you one instance where an ID check stopped a crime, that you will cease from the obsession with ID checks????

[Wurlitzer]

" I don't like the "your papers please" aspect of this, however, it is a federal facility"

So! I am not impressed by the fact it is a federal facility. That simply means we paid for it. Do federal employees get special protection (????) not offered to the rest of us? What makes them so special just because they get paid by us? Are they a higher class citizen? Why not show your ID no matter where you go on a public bus or do you think like I do that this will come soon enough? Being employed by the feds should never entitle you to special treatment. However, if the feds want to ask for ID for someone getting off the bus then that is a horse of a different color.

[InsureAmerica]

Did Ben say this after, how many homicide bombings, or planes into buildings????

Good old Ben. Always pull him out as needed..

[steve-b]

Yes, correct, but what if a threat of someone going thru that station who is not going to disembark, just explode?

Ah, yes; if only the cops had looked as his ID, specifically at the "SUICIDE BOMBER _YES _NO" check box. (I think it's between "ORGAN DONOR _YES _NO" and "CORRECTIVE LENSES REQUIRED _YES _NO".)

[JeffAtlanta]

Did Ben say this after, how many homicide bombings, or planes into buildings????

So if someone attacks us, we respond by giving up our freedoms? That seems like a raw deal.

Are you saying that we should be under martial law?

[InsureAmerica]

now that I like

[InsureAmerica]

Saddams police state started off with the slaughter of 450 of his 'enemies' I call that not reasonable. What other police states are you interested in??

[ican'tbelieveit]

Now you are making a little more sense. If they want to secure the facility, do it in a productive way. Assuming that forcing someone to show an ID will keep them from misbehaving accomplishes nothing. Make the actions worthwhile. Consistently enforce them.

In all honesty, I am in agreement with others that if the facility needs to be secured, and people entering need to be screened, then close the facility. Only allow in those who will be screened, stop the bus transiting the facility.

If you want to keep the facility open, then screen people at the entrance to the buildings they want to enter.

But to tell people that by checking ID's you are "securing the facility" is patently untrue.

[JTN]

So if someone attacks us, we respond by giving up our freedoms? That seems like a raw deal.

Remember, they hate us for our freedom. We must appease then enemy.

[InsureAmerica]

"Actually my point is that showing IDs does absolutely nothing toward stopping a terrorist attack."

Yeah, I got that point. Its been written here a time or two. I just disagree.