Skip to comments.
Bill Would Allow Arrests For No Reason In Public Place
Newsnet5.com (Cleveland, OH) ^
| December 19, 2005
Posted on 12/23/2005 8:02:13 PM PST by sourcery
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-72 next last
To: Buddy B
Be well buddy...Merry Christmas!
41
posted on
12/23/2005 10:47:20 PM PST
by
Crim
(I may be a Mr "know it all"....but I'm also a Mr "forgot most of it"...)
To: festus
"So what ever happened to the 5th amendment and the right to be silent."
(D) It is not a violation of this section to refuse to answer a question that would reveal a person's age or date of birth if age is an element of the crime that the person is suspected of committing.
There ya go!
And, for the record, I did a knee jerk reaction as well to this bill. However, in seeing the actual language that the ACLU is "protesting", it just gives police officers the right to arrest anyone who won't identify who they are - but only if the officer stops an individual on a "suspicion". They already have that power, somewhat. The officer must have an "articulable suspicion" of a crime as a reason he stopped an individual. This bill doesn't change that - it now gives them the authority to arrest anyone who is uncooperative.
Yes, of course, I see the power for abuse. It really doesn't sit well with me.
Case in point - I once ran into a rookie officer (that was trying to make a name for himself in the dept) that stopped me on a resonable suspicion. I cooperated fully and proved to him that his suspicions were false - while providing all necessary information. However, he demanded to see my social security number. I told him he wasn't entitled to that information and he threatened to arrest me then. I told him "go ahead - what law did I break?" None. Needless to say, I won that match. But the power for abuse is definitely out there.
To: sourcery
Same reasoning applies to one's wallet, the contents of one's financial accounts, and one's wife and children. Might as well drop trou, bend over and spread legs, too. It's not like that would actually kill, maim or cripple you, after all. The point is whether you have the right to Liberty--which is the right to do whatever does not violate the rights of others--or whether you are a slave to the State, and subject to its whims. That's the issue here. Whether providing one's ID is the most minor of incoveniences, does no harm, and would help the police do a better job is not the relevant question.
That's so 20th Century of you. I see some indoctrination is in order. Please report to your local Committee Officer to get your mind right. Blackbird.
To: sourcery
44
posted on
12/24/2005 6:01:34 AM PST
by
Alia
To: Dittohead68
I think there needs to be a legal standard that defines what "probable cause" is for requesting ID, where willful refusal to comply would be a crime. The standard should involve a reasonable basis for suspicion that obtaining the ID might solve or prevent a crime. Not having any ID (for whatever reason) should be an unchallengeable defense.
45
posted on
12/24/2005 10:05:22 AM PST
by
sourcery
(Either the Constitution trumps stare decisis, or else the Constitution is a dead letter.)
To: Buddy B
place the proof on Free Republic that "Your Social Security number is your serial number."
From the horse's mouth:
The first set of three digits is called the Area Number
The second set of two digits is called the Group Number
The final set of four digits is the
Serial Numberhttp://www.ssa.gov/history/ssn/geocard.html
First, remember, civilians do not have a serial number.
Everyone has a serial number...it is issued shortly after birth, just like an auto off the assembly line.
I will be watching and waiting for your post.
Your turn.
.
46
posted on
12/24/2005 11:00:05 AM PST
by
mugs99
(Don't take life too seriously, you won't get out alive.)
To: Crim
Good morning.
"The only people not wishing to give proper ID most likely have a warrant out anyways..."
Where on earth do people come up with statements like that?
I'll bet you think libertarians are socialists, and the government is just looking out for your well being, too.
Michael Frazier
47
posted on
12/24/2005 11:08:47 AM PST
by
brazzaville
(no surrender no retreat, well, maybe retreat's ok)
To: Dittohead68
(D) It is not a violation of this section to refuse to answer a question that would reveal a person's age or date of birth if age is an element of the crime that the person is suspected of committing. So then, it would be reasonable to ask the LEO to name the crime s/he suspects you of committing BEFORE answering any age/DOB questions, right?
48
posted on
12/24/2005 11:14:19 AM PST
by
savedbygrace
(SECURE THE BORDERS FIRST (I'M YELLING ON PURPOSE))
To: Crim
Good morning.
"You guys sound like the liberals balking at showing ID to frickin vote.."
You like that word "fricken", don't you FRiend.
The rub on this bill is that it gives the .gov agents the right to stop anyone, anytime, and demand to see identification. It has nothing to do with buying beer or renting a car or voting, and definitely nothing to do with probable cause.
"My ass has it printed on it..."
You must want everyone to know that since you keep showing it.
Michael Frazier
49
posted on
12/24/2005 11:22:19 AM PST
by
brazzaville
(no surrender no retreat, well, maybe retreat's ok)
To: Dittohead68
In other words, there's a 'reasonable belief' requirement in the bill, which would prevent peace officers from making blanket demands for ID, and there's a fifth amendment exception also. As proposed, the law lets a cop find out the identity of witnesses to a crime, and ask you who you are if he catches you skulking around acting suspicious. Somewhat less draconian than the ACLU makes it out to be.
To: Vigilant1
This is a 'people license', like a dog license. If the dogcatcher finds a dog loose in public without a license, he catches it and takes it straight to the pound. Now, you will have to have your 'people license', or the first LEO that stops you will take *you* to the 'pound'.And we all know what happens to dogs at the pound that don't have one of these:
It's only one injection away.
51
posted on
12/24/2005 11:58:45 AM PST
by
Freebird Forever
(If they're truly public servants, why do they live in the mansions?)
To: Buddy B
"Civilians do not have serial numbers."Yes we do.
It's your Social Security Number. And it's used by many entities to identify, track, judge, etc...
52
posted on
12/24/2005 12:04:15 PM PST
by
2111USMC
To: brazzaville
*sigh*
I know that the terrorist sympathizing ACLU is against it...and that most likley makes it a good thing...
53
posted on
12/24/2005 2:01:44 PM PST
by
Crim
(I may be a Mr "know it all"....but I'm also a Mr "forgot most of it"...)
To: brazzaville
All that tells me is that you can read...but you cant seem to comprehend...
The ordinace was posted.....but dont lets a few facts get in the way or your argument...
54
posted on
12/24/2005 2:03:41 PM PST
by
Crim
(I may be a Mr "know it all"....but I'm also a Mr "forgot most of it"...)
To: sourcery
Why does Ohio need anti-terrorist legislation in the first place? Al Qaeda hates America, they're not exactly going to do it a favor by blowing up Cleveland.
55
posted on
12/24/2005 2:03:59 PM PST
by
Alter Kaker
("Whatever tears one sheds, in the end one always blows one's nose." - Heine)
To: BlackbirdSST
That's so 20th Century of you. Actually, that's so 'late 18th Century' of me :-)
56
posted on
12/24/2005 2:27:48 PM PST
by
sourcery
(Either the Constitution trumps stare decisis, or else the Constitution is a dead letter.)
To: Buddy B
Yes you do it's called your SSN.
57
posted on
12/24/2005 4:01:01 PM PST
by
mad_as_he$$
(Never corner anything meaner than you. NSDQ)
To: Crim
actually it was a reference to the show "The Prisoner".
58
posted on
12/25/2005 8:20:29 AM PST
by
isom35
To: Crim
but it IS the frickin law Some things are illegal because they are wrong.
Some things are wrong because they are illegal.
Some laws are wrong and just plain illegal.
To: Crim
How does a law enforement officer determine if someone is frickin illegal alien if he cant ask for ID? Without probable cause, or a warrant, or not having witnessed a crime, the officer should not be asking.
This law requires that you identify yourself without meeting the constitutional requirements as stated.
Therefore it is wrong.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-72 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson