Your papers, please

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

[Dead Corpse]

Hey troll-boy. Watch the damn video. The cop never mentions WHY he wants to see Hibels ID. Not once.

Flame-bait troll is all you are. EVERY thread I've seen you on it is the same thing over and over again.

[freeeee]

he DID inform him of probable cause.

I just watched the tape and HE DID NOT.

Here's what I found:

"I need to see some identification"
"Why?"
"Because I'm conducting an investigation"

"Investigating what?"
"Investigating (garbled)"

"Im conducting an investigation"
"Why?"
"Because I want to find out who you are I want to find out what I've got going on here"

"Let me see some ID then we'll talk ok"

"Let me see some ID"
"Why?"
"Because you are facing arrest here if I don?t get some identification and cooperate"

[Outlaw76]

"The facts will ruin the story. If the cop had let everyone go and someone had ended up dead, the same people that are crowing about ID would be crowing about the uselessness of the police."

Tell me, how would getting this guy's ID have helped the policemen in any way? Clearly they did not know what or who they were looking for. In my neck of the woods it would have been far easier for the policeman to say: "Hello sir, we have reports of a domestic disturbance in this area. I'm [Rank/Name] and you are?"
Odds are the guy would have answered, and answered honestly out of habit.
Then a simple, "Mind if we ask you a few questions?" and "Mind if we talk to your daughter a moment? We'd like to get this whole thing straitened out." Would have ended the need for tackling a girl and cuffing an old guy.
-- Not only that, they could have gotten on the radio and verified that the owner of the pickup did indeed go by that name. {If he gave them a false name, they would have cause to check id.}

Domestic disturbance calls can't be much fun, but adding to the stress of the situation by making needless, and literally unwarranted demands can't make them better. In no way could the actions taken by the officer save lives in any situation, that argument is unacceptable.

[cinFLA]

18:37:43 He informs the guy that he has gotten a report of a fight between the to of them (Mr. H and his daughter).

[Old Professer]

In California now you have to show your SSN card to get a driver's license; right after this law was passed I needed to go to DMV to renew my license and they asked me for my card. I showed it to them and they said it was not a valid card; the problem was that I still carry the original card I was issued in 1954 when I went to work part-time for a bowling alley setting pins (on metal pins that came out of the floor when you stepped on a pedal) because I had to have one for the IRS and my dad's taxman.

At the very bottom of my card it states clearly: Not to be used for identification; this statement no longer appears on the new cards and was a great source of consternation for these fine folk at the Department of Moron Vesicles; after quite a bit of haggling and a near-fatal episode of apoplexy on my part I was able to convince the so-called supervisor that I was indeed who I said I was since I still had the same D.L. # that was issued to me by the state of California in 1964.

I have since left and haven't had to renew my license there, but I can't help but think that privacy was the least of the worries of the martinets who installed this law.

[cinFLA]

Hey troll-boy. Watch the damn video. The cop never mentions WHY he wants to see Hibels ID. Not once. Flame-bait troll is all you are. EVERY thread I've seen you on it is the same thing over and over again.

You are nailed. 18:37:43. The gop informs Mr. H about the report of the fight.

[cinFLA]

I just watched the tape and HE DID NOT.

He did. 18:37:43 and Mr. H responded that he didn't know anything about it.

[cinFLA]

Flame-bait troll is all you are. EVERY thread I've seen you on it is the same thing over and over again.

It's called the truth. And you are the troll for hiding the truth and spreading lies!

[Liberal Classic]

Call me in favor of child abuse if you like, but I believe a man has the right to be on his property without the need to carry credentials. If there was a call into dispatch about a possible domestic disturbance, then it doesn't make sense to me that the police officer should arrest the man under the auspices of obstruction of justice. I would think that an arrest under simple assault or domestic violence would make more sense. If the officer were to say "We have a report of someone matching your description behaving in a certian way. You must come with me, sir." A simple assault charge could easily be tossed by the judge and then there would be no constitutional issue. Obstruction sounds phony to me, but my gut reaction is that there's something missing from the story.

[Wonder Warthog]

"Apparently you are prone to call cops "jack-booted thugs" and ignore the fact that the guy had been observed beating his daughter while driving and had skidded to a halt on the side of the road."

No, I call SOME cops "jack-booted thugs"---because they are. Ask any officer you happen to know well whether their "brother officers" sometimes abuse their authority--the answer might surprise you.

As to your assertions about "beating his daughter", the article says ZIP about that, or ANY grounds for suspicion by the officer.

[cinFLA]

As to your assertions about "beating his daughter", the article says ZIP about that, or ANY grounds for suspicion by the officer.

The article doesn't say the sun rose this morning either.

[Old Professer]

That ruling holds against a specific law and broadly applied to the need for such a law; what this new case presents is a chance to apply the ruling to practice in the same manner that the Miranda Act requires a suspect to be fully informed of his rights before evidence is held admissable, if SCOTUS rules that the police were wrong in Hilber then Congress could enact a law that would guide officers in their pursuit of identification.

Anyone in this country by virtue of conditional circumstance such as legal aliens, tourists, or official visitors ought to carrry proof of their legality and a suitable I.D. while natural-born citizens would be free to simply vouch for their identity and an officer could detain long enough to confirm only with probable suspicion for a known approximate offense.

[Old Professer]

Hoppy toads don't have wings.

[cinFLA]

You very carefully quoted only the part you wanted while leaving out the initial part. Why?

[cinFLA]

That ruling holds against a specific law and broadly applied to the need for such a law; what this new case presents is a chance to apply the ruling to practice in the same manner that the Miranda Act requires a suspect to be fully informed of his rights before evidence is held admissable, if SCOTUS rules that the police were wrong in Hilber then Congress could enact a law that would guide officers in their pursuit of identification.

You are missing the point. 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; the most overturned court in the nation.

[sauropod]

Isn't the 4th Amend protection against unreasonable search and seizure?

need more coffee...

[Fury]

Anyone in this country by virtue of conditional circumstance such as legal aliens, tourists, or official visitors ought to carrry proof of their legality and a suitable I.D. while natural-born citizens would be free to simply vouch for their identity and an officer could detain long enough to confirm only with probable suspicion for a known approximate offense.

Good point. I have my driver's license in my glove box. I don't carry it around. Not out of any protest - it's just something I've always done.

[sauropod]

No, that would not be preferable.

[CJ Wolf]

And so it goes, the enemy we feared and defeated is the enemy we have become.

[Old Professer]

Who would have predicted three years ago that we would have a new, overwhelmingly large and unwieldy bureacracy called the National Homeland Security Act?