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.

[cinFLA]

In fact, the LEO was acting like a smart-a$$ with a badge and the citizen had no reason to believe it was any more than that.

Do you work for Mr. H? The video shows very clearly that Mr. H. was informed of the reason by the cop.

[CJ Wolf]

Live free or die.

[Dead Corpse]

You are nailed.

Dammit. Yer' right.

"I've got a report that there has been a fight goin' on between you two."

Sounds like he already KNOWS who who Hibel is. So why the fuss over the ID? Or are cops allowed to presume someone guilty right off the bat?

[cinFLA]

Sounds like he already KNOWS who who Hibel is. So why the fuss over the ID? Or are cops allowed to presume someone guilty right off the bat?

He got the report of the description of the two in the truck, not their names. Of course if he had their names, it would be even more prudent to ask for ID to ensure he had the right person. Duh!

[xrp]

It's called the truth.

Yeeeeeeeeeeah, right.

[cinFLA]

Dammit. Yer' right.

I will assume that also qualifies for an apology for the words you made earlier.

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.

[Old Professer]

It is still about power; this whole thing would have gone away had the authorities apologized for the arrest and dropped all charges once they were fully informed of the supposed altercation between Hiibel and his daughter. Because the state wants to establish its right to detain and I.D. anyone at any time the case goes forward.

[Dead Corpse]

Still not justified. The whole thing stinks on toast. I understand that there are proceedures the cops try to follow. If this is the result, those proceedures need to be scrapped.

You did notice that the supposed "victim" was never questioned and ended up on the ground with a cops knee in her back? You defend this kind of behavior?

[cinFLA]

See #83.

[B4Ranch]

Yes, you are correct. The DoI cover all rights that the gov't must protect.

[cinFLA]

You did notice that the supposed "victim" was never questioned and ended up on the ground with a cops knee in her back? You defend this kind of behavior?

She was bolting toward the other cop. Would you rather that she were allowed to possible attack the other cop?

[Dead Corpse]

So this required a bodyslam and three cops to cuff her? She wasn't that big. Also notice that Deupty Dawg on that side of the truck seemed less interested in getting the supposed "victims" side of the story than he was about keeping her shut up inside the truck. If she'd just been in a slug fest with her Dad, wouldn't her welfare be a concern?

[cinFLA]

Because the state wants to establish its right to detain and I.D. anyone at any time the case goes forward.

No. The case goes forward because of the socialist Ninth. They rule on the side of the law-breakers most every time.

[freeeee]

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

Exactly what "Initial part"?

[Old Professer]

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.

Pardon me for not sharing your great leap of prescience, but the court is more likely taking it because it is an issue that must be addressed, IMO.

If SCOTUS were that predictable we wouldn't concern ourselves over its makeup as we do.

[hosepipe]

[ The difference is an armed agent of the state is detaining an individual entirely against his free will, then demanding identification without informing the individual of probable cause. Failure to provide ID is made a crime, backed by the force of the state.
Even the most obtuse, dim witted person could see the clear difference between the two. ]

SO.... you believe thats money you're spending, rights you're defending, and liberty you're exibiting.. and votes you're voting.
I offer you a red pill and a blue pill (Matrix the movie)..
But the truth may be beyond you...

[cinFLA]

Exactly what "Initial part"?

Please go back to 18:37 and 18:38

[cinFLA]

Pardon me for not sharing your great leap of prescience, but the court is more likely taking it because it is an issue that must be addressed, IMO.

RIGHT! They cannot let the Ninth ruling stand favoring Mr. H.

[Chip_Douglas]

I try to.

[CJ Wolf]

"Because the state wants to establish its right to detain and I.D. anyone at any time the case goes forward."

That's what it's all about. It's not about "this case" it's about setting precedence toward this degree.