And we all know what happens to dogs at the pound that don't have one of these:
It's only one injection away.
Posted on 12/23/2005 8:02:13 PM PST by sourcery
CLEVELAND -- A bill on Gov. Bob Taft's desk right now is drawing a lot of criticism, NewsChannel5 reported.
One state representative said it resembles Gestapo-style tactics of government, and there could be changes coming on the streets of Ohio's small towns and big cities.
The Ohio Patriot Act has made it to the Taft's desk, and with the stroke of a pen, it would most likely become the toughest terrorism bill in the country. The lengthy piece of legislation would let police arrest people in public places who will not give their names, address and birth dates, even if they are not doing anything wrong.
WEWS reported it would also pave the way for everyone entering critical transportation sites such as, train stations, airports and bus stations to show ID.
"It brings us frighteningly close to a show me your papers society," said Carrie Davis of the ACLU, which opposes the Ohio Patriot Act.
There are many others who oppose the bill as well.
"The variety of people who opposed to this is not just a group of the usual suspects. We have people far right to the left opposing the bill who think it is a bad idea," said Al McGinty, NewsChannel5’s terrorism expert.
McGinty said he isn't sure the law would do what it's intended to do.
"I think anything we do to enhance security and give power to protect the public to police officers is a good idea," he said. "It is a good law in the wrong direction."
Gov. Bob Taft will make the ultimate decision on whether to sign the bill.
WEWS was told that Taft is expected to sign the bill into law, but legal experts expect that it will be challenged in courts.
Be well buddy...Merry Christmas!
"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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
And we all know what happens to dogs at the pound that don't have one of these:
It's only one injection away.
Yes we do.
It's your Social Security Number. And it's used by many entities to identify, track, judge, etc...
*sigh*
I know that the terrorist sympathizing ACLU is against it...and that most likley makes it a good thing...
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...
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.
Actually, that's so 'late 18th Century' of me :-)
Yes you do it's called your SSN.
actually it was a reference to the show "The Prisoner".
Some things are illegal because they are wrong.
Some things are wrong because they are illegal.
Some laws are wrong and just plain illegal.
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.
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.