Your papers, please

The Washington Times ^ | February 23, 2004 | House Editorial

[xsysmgr]

Next week the U.S. Supreme Court will hear a case to decide whether or not all Americans must have identification on them at all times. The case has been brought by a cowboy in Nevada who was asked to show ID while he was leaning against his pickup truck on the side of the road near his ranch. The police officer did not offer any specific reason why he demanded proof of identity. Having committed no crime, Dudley Hiibel, the cowboy, refused -- and was arrested. He was later convicted for "Delaying a Peace Officer." In America, still a free country, citizens should not be required to provide identification papers at any whim of the authorities.

[TEXASPROUD]

Check the earlier message, I said a 5" barrel.

[mrsmith]

"My posts have supported the telling of the truth "

Yes, and it's appreciated.

It was a terrible article and those who got the wrong idea from it have mainly you to thank for correcting it.

That's one constant advantage of Free Republic- truth.

[tpaine]

'Sure', as if that snippit proves that everyone here is picking on you..


Really, you need some professional help. Dial DrDementia.

[cinFLA]

Thank you.

[cinFLA]

Well it certainly shows how y'all treat an honest attempt at the discussion of the facts!

[cinFLA]

And here is your first post on this thread:

Daffy 'cin' strikes again by claiming that people had 'identification' in the 1780's, and some authority had the power to stop & question them.. Give us all a good laugh and try to support your goofy comment, florida boy..

Not only do you post my claim falsely, you demonize me. So much for your posting ethics.

[grobdriver]

Model 25-9 in .45 Colt

Ah, so you did.
I read this to be:
Model 25, 9-inch, 45 colt cartridge...

My bad. Not being current on revolvers, esecially S&W, it got by me.

Now I really feel for you. Remember: Sight Picture, Trigger Control, is everything. Carry lots of ammo. Never stop to pick anything up off the ground. Fire and forget; never check shot placement in paper (trust your instincts, Luke).

[hershey]

Think back to every WWII film ever made...the Gestapo demanding everybody's papers. This gives me the creeps.

[tpaine]

My first post was at #240, long after you had already posted dozens of troll posts, -- making this thread into a major flame fest.. -- My reply to you was in kind, in the spirit of the thread.

[headsonpikes]

Re: Koestler

I'm glad that you are taking my instruction to heart.

[cinFLA]

My first post was at #240, long after you had already posted dozens of troll posts, -- making this thread into a major flame fest.. --

As usual, you distort the truth. I have posted the actual posts to show who partakes in the flame fests, including you.

[Sandy]

cinFLA: The Ninth already ruled in favor of Mr. H. The USSC is considering this case since they feel the Ninth is out to lunch and will probably overturn them as they usually have to do with the Ninth

Sandy: What the heck are you talking about? This case is being appealed from the Nevada Supreme Court. And Hiibel lost in that court; that's why he's appealing (duh).

cinFLA: Go back and read the filings.

Here, why don't you take a look at the Supreme Court docket.

03-5554	Status: GRANTED
Title:	Larry D. Hiibel, Petitioner v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, Humboldt County, et al.
Docketed:	July 28, 2003
Lower Ct:	Supreme Court of Nevada

And if you're still confused, look at the opinion from the lower court, and note that it says--near the top of the page--IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA.

Then, a few lines later, it says

Original petition for a writ of certiorari challenging the district court's order affirming petitioner's conviction in justice court for resisting or obstructing an officer investigating a crime.

Petition denied.

FYI, that means Hiibel lost his case.

[eno_]

Of course you have provide ZERO support for your claim that the cops lied.

how about answering some questions:

1. Do you find it credible that that cops trust a witness enough to "inestigate an investigation" and then conveeeeeeniently "can't locate" that witness?

2. Do you find it credible the cops didn't call the witness back to verify anything - which, of course, would be impossible if the "witness' didn't exist.

3. Do you find it credible that they apperently can't find the witness based on call logs at the PD?

4. Do you find it credible that, once this became a federal case, the PD would not take the time to or somehow failed to use telco billing records to locate the witness?

5. And what about that amazing high tech tool, The Phone Book? Did the cops even look up this "witness's" number in the phone book?

Or do you find it more credible that they have been caught in a commonplace lie of convenience?

All of these curious circumstances and omissions are facts, not "speculation." Or do you also believe dogs eat a lot of homework?

[_Jim]

Let me chime in too and say that I appreciate your effort to reveal 'the rest of the story' behind the original new-story that was the basis for this thread.

Further comment: I see you've met a majority of the 'slime squad' that will twist, ignore and otherwise reduce known recorded fact and history to inconsequential details when it doesn't suit there preconceived notions of how things 'went down in history'.

Just don't let them get to you. Always bear in mind that there are tens of hundreds and perhaps tens of thousands of lurkers who are reading but not posting - it is them you are educating and introducing to the facts; your detractors will never give you credit for your efforts ...

[_Jim]

All of these curious circumstances and omissions are facts, not "speculation." Or do you also believe dogs eat a lot of homework?

Synthesizing a 'case' out of thin air again transposed against the known facts of the event?

Great ... you do great service to Free Republic, logic and reason this way.

"You are known by the friends you keep, the seeds you sow and the harvest you reap."

[cinFLA]

Just don't let them get to you. Always bear in mind that there are tens of hundreds and perhaps tens of thousands of lurkers who are reading but not posting - it is them you are educating and introducing to the facts; your detractors will never give you credit for your efforts ...

Thank you. It is nice to know that a lot of lurkers are supporting and more than nice to have them chime in with their support.

[cinFLA]

They had no need to. Mr. H agreed to it all. Now why would Mr. H. agree to the cops lying? He did not and they did not.

[cinFLA]

From your source. Now the USSC will be able to finally overturn the 9th!

"There is a split of authority among the federal circuit courts of appeals on this issue.[10] In Oliver v. Woods,[11] the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a Utah statute that requires individuals to produce identification to an officer during an investigatory stop. However, in Carey v. Nevada Gaming Control Board,[12] the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that NRS 171.123(3) violates the Fourth Amendment because "'the serious intrusion on personal security outweighs the mere possibility that identification [might] provide a link leading to arrest.'"[13] We find the reasoning in Carey to be unpersuasive. Given the conflicting authority, we believe an independent analysis of the constitutionality of NRS 171.123(3) is warranted."

[Sandy]

Sandy: FYI cinFLA, tpaine has been talking about Barron for years on this forum. So exactly what point do you think you're "teaching" him here?

cinFLA: Prove it.

Well gee, here's a thread from almost 4 years ago. And if that doesn't convince you, do a find-in-forum search on his name. You'll see Barron mentioned numerous times. Try here, here, here, here, and here, for example. And that's just this month.

[cinFLA]

Do I find it credible that you offer no support for your insinuations that the cops lied? No.