[ltc8k6]

“Since you’re bowing out without having told us, or even attempted to tell us:
1. What basis was there to reasonably suspect that these gentlemen were felons, or

2. What basis was there to reasonably suspect that these gentlemen were acting disorderly

I’ll take this as your concession that you have no actual facts or sound reasoning to back your opinion that the officers in this case were acting within the scope of their authority under the ID statute.”

For the record, I believe I have answered both of those more than once. I think the police were using the DC law and the Stop and ID law to ask for ID, and that the use was bogus.

Also, I never said a word about anyone being felons. I’m fairly certian that this post is my first use of the word on the topic.

[grady]

You stated that they were well within clear meaning of the statute in asking for ID. You previously said you didn't like the law, but the officers were acting within it's limits. This entire debate has been about trying to get you to articulate what crime the officers may have thought was being committed. You never identified any basis for such a suspicion. We have been inquiring as to why, in the absence of such suspicion, you would opine that the police were acting within the scope of the statute.

Are you now saying that they were not acting within the scope of the statute?