"What I don't understand about your view is how you can defend a man who from the beginning refused to cooperate with the police who were doing their job by investigating a complaint of a domestic altercation? It doesn't seem silly to you to think that the cops have no right to ask for this man's identification. That request is made for numerous reasons."
I'll attempt to convey where I'm coming from in a rational, dispassionate way. Not to try to persuade you away from your own opinion, but in hopes of meeting your genuine seeking with the best understanding I can convey. ...
First, the officer did not make it clear that he was investigating a domestic violence call. He went straight to asking for ID. Even if he said it once (about getting a call), he clearly did not have the full attention of the subject, in part due to the fact that he immediately began demanding something from the subject that the subject has no legal requirement to provide. The police officers I know -- and there are many, most of them the kind of people you wish lived next door -- would first introduce themselves. Something like:
"Good afternoon, sir. How are you today? My name is Officer John Doe, with the YadaYada police department. I'm here on official business today, and I hope that you can help me. I'm approaching calmly and peacefully, and I would like to let you know about a call we received at dispatch that may have been about you. I'm not sure, but I was told to come out here and see if I could be of assistance and maybe help out."
That kind of approach tends to set the officer up as an ally -- which a good cop always wants to be, when he's dealing with regular folks. And we're all supposed to be treated like innocent people until the officer has confirmed reason to believe otherwise. A call to dispatch did not make the subject guilty of anything. (I know someone whose neighbor called the cops on his for the high crime of swatting his sassy boy's behind one time, open-handed, in the front yard. The neighbor described it as "beating a kid" even though multiple eye witnesses said it was one open-handed swat like a parent might give to a boy who is not paying attention or who is picking on his little sister. He was guilty of nothing. Being the subject of a call to dispatch, even to 911 by someone screaming "child abuse!" does not make you guilty.)
Then, after establishing a rapport as "friendly, allied, wanting to help," they would explain why they are on the scene. They know that most people who see a police officer come at them suddenly are likely filled with adrenalin. That's just how it is. Even seeing the bubble gum lights go off when you're driving, for most people, sends a jolt of adrenalin into the bloodstream. So police who truly want to de-escalate and "disarm" a situation approach from a place of calm, and a place of serious, genuine, heartfelt respect.
Next, once the officer was told by the man that he would not provide ID, the officer, if he was properly trained and if he took his training and his oath seriously, needed to back off on asking for it -- and explain his presence and his demand for said ID. The officer did not do that. He kept pressing and pressing for something he'd already been rightfully denied -- the exact opposite of an action from one who truly sought de-escalation.
NOTE: I say "rightfully denied" because there is no requirement to give your ID to a police officer on the street. They had no immediate evidence that the man was the driver of the vehicle, so a driver's license was not necessarily required on his person. That in itself should have been enough to have the officer say, at least to himself,
"OK. Let's hold off, at least for now, on the ID -- and get to the point of why I am here. I must confirm that the female passenger is safe and determine whether or not she requires assistance. I must determine -- while respecting these people's rights and their status as 'innocent until proven guilty' -- if the DV call was legitimate, or if it just came from a jumpy local who needs a better pair of glasses and should stop watching so much TV."
But that was not his choice. He chose to antagonize, even after he'd be rightfully refused the ID. And it got worse from there because he chose to continue demanding something to which he had, and has, no legitimate right or authority.
In my opinion, the police officer could have gotten the man to hand over his ID -- if he even had it on his person -- by being friendly and helpful, courteous and respectful -- and by respecting the man's "no" the first time. I suspect there'd have been no arrest, and none of this would be posted on a website and talked about here... if the police officer had respected the citizen and approached him differently than he did.
"your sole complaint about cops is the ID issue and I can't tell you how frustrating that is for me."
It's not my sole complain. It's the source of the blowout, from which all other complaint-worthy things flowed.
And I understand that it's bugging you. I don't mean to intentionally bug you. But our beliefs conflict in this area, so it's not surprising that when we have a go at understanding one another that there's a bit of friction.
As I understand it, you think that anyone told by a police officer to produce ID should just produce the ID. My position is that there is no law requiring you to produce ID, so you should not do it. I also believe that anyone who submits to a consent search in the absence of probable cause is doing a disservice to us all and to freedom itself. You say that we should obey a law that doesn't exist, which means we should just obey a cop's order -- even when he has no authority to give the order. I say that cops get shot for forcing people to do things they are not required to do.
In any event, it's okay that we don't agree with one another. You're still you, I'm still me, and the world keeps turning. I bet we agree that Waco was mishandled, that Vicky Weaver did not deserve her fate, and that the cops in the Rampart Scandal deserve a long stay in the general population of the prison where they do their hard time. So we agree that some police abuse their authority. We just disagree on degrees. And that's not so bad, really. Hell, there are people who wish the feds had torched Waco, and all the women and children, on Day One -- and people who want every gun confiscated and every gun owner sent to prison for disobeying a gun ban. I'll take you by my side over such people any day of the week! :-)