[CHICAGOFARMER]

Freeprs should contact the Public Defender, keepandbeararms.com or the citizen directly for support.

[af_vet_rr]

That was chilling. If I had to use one word, that would be it - chilling.

I spent a little time in eastern Europe before the Soviet Union fell, and while the group I was with was escorted by other military officers, a few times we saw ordinary citizens stopped by the police or whoever and had to show ID and answer any and all questions. My German was not very good and so I have no idea what was said, but another freeper posted about living over there for a short time, as a civilian, and that was the first thing that popped into my mind.

[tpaine]

"When the Fourth and Fifth Amendments were adopted, 'the form that evil had theretofore taken' had been necessarily simple.
Force and violence were then the only means known to man by which a government could directly effect self-incrimination. It could compel the individual to testify-a compulsion effected, if need be, by torture. It could secure possession of his papers and other articles incident to his private life-a seizure effected, if need be, by breaking and entry.

Protection against such invasion of 'the sanctities of a man's home and the privacies of life' was provided in the Fourth and Fifth Amendments by specific language.

But 'time works changes, brings into existence new conditions and purposes. Subtler and more far-reaching means of invading privacy have become available to the government."

Brandeis on our Right to Privacy
Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1018268/posts

[Freedom2specul8]

Ping.....

[Freedom2specul8]

Thought you might like to read this too.. (who'd I forget?)

[Lazamataz]

This court will definitely rule in favor of The State.

And America continues it's slide into fascism.

[Lazamataz]

What else does a police officer need to know in order to feel safe while he asks you questions? Your medical history? Perhaps a DNA sample would be in order. Home ownership status? Your tax records?

With MATRIX, they will.

[KeepAndBearArms]

Responding to a few things I've seen on this thread, after reading every word...

"We have recourse in this country against bad cops"

Amadou Diallo doesn't. And he was trying to provide his papers, too.

"an ID or drivers' license request seems appropriate to me in the particular circumstances."

The officer's approach is what escalated the situation into an arrest. If the officer had calmly inquired as to whether or not there was a problem -- asking both people -- he'd probably have gotten back in his car after suggesting that the father/daughter team go home and make a fresh batch of lemonade.

"He refused to cooperate with the police officer. It's not that difficult to understand! I'm not trying to be mean here but this guy had made up his mind as soon as the cops showed up that he was not going to cooperate."

The officer demanded that he cooperate with an order the officer has no authority to enforce. You are not required to produce identification. How could that be a requirement, when you're not required to even carry identification? "It's not that difficult to understand."

"Asking for identification in perfectly legitimate and more important now than ever given the presence of terrorists and terrorist supporters in this country."

Asking is one thing. Cuffing a person who refuses to provide an ID is another.

"Driving is a privilege."

So is breathing -- when your erroneous belief is carried to its logical conclusion and enforced by government.

The right to travel freely pre-exists the first arrival of white people on this continent. It is innate. Your are born with a right to move around in public. Today, the modern mode of transportation is an automobile. 200 years ago, it was a horse or a horse-drawn carriage. In 200 years, if we don't implode and go back to the stone ages, it will be flying vehicles.

Do you actually believe, for one second, that George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and Patrick Henry -- among many, many others -- would have accepted a "horse drawn carriage license"? Of course they wouldn't have. If King George of 1776 had demanded them, their banishment would be mentioned in the Founding documents -- because licensing something so basic is utterly repugnant to a free society.

Are you going to tell us that the advancement of technology means licenses do not violate basic human rights? If so, where would you like your GPS-trackable bio-chip installed? Please come to your local police station to register your DNA, retina and have your chip installed.

"He just didn't submit and that drives cops crazy."

Indeed. That sums up this entire thread and issue perfectly.

If you cannot decline an invasive attempt to take something from you to which the taker is not entitled, you most definitely lack freedom in that area.

[TigersEye]

bttt for later

[FourtySeven]

After watching the video, seems like a lot of idiocy to go around.

Officer: "I'm investigatein' n investigashun"

"Suspect": Belligerent with the investigating officers, probably because he's still drunk in the middle of the day (at least it looked like the middle of the day).

Bottom line, I believe he was technically right to be able to refuse identification, (and I hope he wins for ALL our sake), but he had some culpability here, I think. (because of his temper)

What should've happened was the officer should've told him what he was out there for! Then this wouldn't have even been an issue. The drunken cowboy could've been as hostile as he wanted, and had no leg to stand on.

Big time screw up by the cops here.

[GulliverSwift]

If that's all true, I don't see anything wrong with the man's behavior. Good post.

[sweetliberty]

"All Dudley knew was that one minute he was smoking a cigarette and the next minute there was a man with a badge demanding he show his ID."

Well, there you have your "probable cause." < /sarcasm >

"nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

That one went in the toilet with "forfeiture laws."

"One of the arguments made in favor of refusing to show 'the papers' an arrest-able offence is that the police need to know who they are dealing with when they are conducting an investigation."

The fatal flaw in that argument is that most of the people who cause serious problems are illegal aliens (including terrorist types) who carry false documentation anyway.

Ping Aggy!

[sweetliberty]

By the way, keep us posted of the outcome.

[CHICAGOFARMER]

TO: ALL responders to Mr. Hiibal fight to the USSC my final comment.

As presenter of this thread, I responded to some but not all (would not flame inappropriate issues) the battle appeared to boil down to what the officer did or did not do, rather than a battle of if the 4th and 5th would be honored as written. To those who posted, the discussion points about the rights of citizens of the United States and the balance between rights and police over stepping their mandate was interesting considering the war on terror in now in full swing.

Some passion notes from loved ones who have Leo’s. Some very logical arguments about how to conduct a stop, what the LEO should have done differently, arguments of the 9th circuit court liberal slant. With ths new world of terrorism, with all the hype of terror, citizens must continue to support the principles that make us great as they have civil discourse regarding our founding principles. The greatest principle will be the hearing on March 22nd in front of the United States Supreme Court. Will we lose a more of our founding principles or will the court take a stand this officer did not do his job properly. What is important this argument can take place while the war on terror is in full swing, which would never happen in Germany 1935.

To do fight this battle on terror without turning our society into a police state is the real issue behind this battle Mr. Hiibal is taking to the USSC, and his argument of the 4th and 5th amendment rights of a person to be secure in his or her person.

What was interesting to me is that no one brought up the argument of the Patriot Act. Those FP,s who lurk around this website know that the entire demagogy about the patriot act by the democrats is pure partisanship politics. In the TV media dialog, it is seldom mentioned (Patriot Act) as most all the statues and regulations have been used for years to bring down organize crime. It is most logical to use the Patriot act to fight our greatest enemy.

What is important from my view point in this discussion, is that all American go though war on terror with their eyes wide open, knowing once a right is taken away it is seldom given back. I am like the old Indian elder in the Indian camp. I am an old harmless man who has experienced a lot and can see the change from the late 40s and 50s to today's the government will take care of us. I was high school kid milking cows on the farm when Kennedy give his quarantine to the Russians we listeners not knowing that H-bomb death could be just around the corner.

I just finished reading Sean Hannity book deliver us from evil. A powerful book about how Reagan changed the course of history with his principle stands for honor, character, and morals when facing Russia. This is a stark change from our liberal left than want a living constitution, rather than living on the foundations that our founding fathers presented for us.

People who read the book would be amazed how the approach Bush is taking with the War on Terror (WWIV) is similar if not identical with Reagan approach.

For any of those I may have offended, we have had a civil discourse and have remained friends.

[SevenDaysInMay]

Blackrobes feel more powerful when they regard our Ratified Constitution as archaic guidelines.

For our Ratified Constitution to be THE Law of OUR Land, most of "constitutional law" is throw-away trash.

Outlaws acting under color of law are the most dangerous; they know it and We the People know it. We sorted it all out before, but judicial tyrants are usurping all powers within their imagination, for you and me, under penalty of "law".

No court has the lawful authority to void our Bill of Rights, in total or in part.

[PureSolace]

We have no National ID Card and therefore the idea that we're supposed to have any 'papers' to show in the first place is un-American.

I thought that's what Social Security was for. ;)

[CHICAGOFARMER]

Another blog started xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Another blog has started on Freepr.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1083662/posts?page=2