Video: Cops Tase Man For Refusing To ID

[donnay]

Video: Cops Tase Man For Refusing To ID


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAohbDVYfWk&feature=player_embedded#!

[PaulConventionWV]

I can't believe this shit.

[LibertyRevolution]

He was obstructing traffic, the cop gave him the answer in the first 5 secs...
Is it a BS charge? You bet, but its a charge..
Then add to that failure to comply, and some resisting arrest...

This was an example of selective enforcement at its finest...

When Police is trying to handcuff you, and you don't let them, you are resisting..
When police tell you stop, and then try and handcuff you, and then you run...Yes you will get tazed, if your lucky..

[smhbbag]

Thumbs up to these officers who showed real restraint in the face of these two clowns.

The only possible objection against the officers is selective enforcement, and we do not know enough to determine anything about that.

They give him all the chances in the world. He didn't take them. They were right on the law and the enforcement. He was wrong on every level. I hope the woman was cited or arrested as well.

[dillo]

is not providing an ID a crime?

[MJU1983]

is not providing an ID a crime?

Depends on the state.

[Working Poor]

is not providing an ID a crime?

apparently it is...

[Czolgosz]

There's no lawful requirement to have a government issued ID.

[XTreat]

\\

[Revolution9]

Thumbs up to these officers who showed real restraint in the face of these two clowns.

The only possible objection against the officers is selective enforcement, and we do not know enough to determine anything about that.

They give him all the chances in the world. He didn't take them. They were right on the law and the enforcement. He was wrong on every level. I hope the woman was cited or arrested as well.

They were punks for acting like a couple of blowhard nazi's with their "papers" BS. All that does is put you in their jurisdiction. Do not show them ID unless it is entirely merited. The SCOTUS have already ruled on this. Any cops pushing are pushing against SCOTUS decisions.

That being said I hope above quoted poster gets his ass kicked or jacked to the jailhouse by cops for nothing someday. Serve him right for thinking uniformed control freak bullies have any right under God to pull such BS hogtying of the public for asking an entirely legitimate question. The mouthy cop didn't even have pubic hair for fuxaches.

Rev9

[smhbbag]

They were punks for acting like a couple of blowhard nazi's with their "papers" BS. All that does is put you in their jurisdiction. Do not show them ID unless it is entirely merited. The SCOTUS have already ruled on this. Any cops pushing are pushing against SCOTUS decisions.

That's just it. It was warranted. The guy gave up his right to privacy about his identity when he broke the law.

[odamn]

Doesn't obama have a board where you can post this sh*t?

[smhbbag]

Doesn't obama have a board where you can post this sh*t?

Do you have an actual argument?

[PaulConventionWV]

He was obstructing traffic, the cop gave him the answer in the first 5 secs...
Is it a BS charge? You bet, but its a charge..
Then add to that failure to comply, and some resisting arrest...

This was an example of selective enforcement at its finest...

When Police is trying to handcuff you, and you don't let them, you are resisting..
When police tell you stop, and then try and handcuff you, and then you run...Yes you will get tazed, if your lucky..

The video didn't really put the whole thing in context, so I didn't know about the obstructing traffic charge. Is that actually a law? I suppose it is. If so, he should have complied. The best way to expose tyranny is to know the law, not break it and then complain when the police enforce it.

It was also pretty stupid that he was running around and resisting arrest, all the while yelling "I'm not resisiting." People, don't be an idiot. His partner on the video camera yelling was annoying as f*ck, too.

[PaulConventionWV]

is not providing an ID a crime?

You are required to provide it if you are being investigated for a crime. Knowing that he was charged with obstructing traffic, this makes it lawful for the police to require him to identify himself. These people, in light of the information now known, are novices in the law.

[NCGOPer_for_Paul]

He was obstructing traffic, the cop gave him the answer in the first 5 secs...
Is it a BS charge? You bet, but its a charge..
Then add to that failure to comply, and some resisting arrest...

This was an example of selective enforcement at its finest...

When Police is trying to handcuff you, and you don't let them, you are resisting..
When police tell you stop, and then try and handcuff you, and then you run...Yes you will get tazed, if your lucky..

Thing that's bad about this video is you don't see what caused the cops to get involved in the first place. Was the "suspect" blocking someone trying to back out, was he blocking the entrance, did he cross the street improperly, etc.? Now, none of those things warrant a tazing, but something had to have happened leading up to the situation we see. If that did happen, the police were well within the law to stop the guy.

The police certainly didn't handle this properly. Selective enforcement? Not so much as improper "arrest" procedure. They escalated it. They should have gotten the guy and his bike out of the traffic lane, told him why he was being stopped/detained, THEN IDed to check for warrants, etc., and then either cited, or more likely warned and be sent on his way.

[newbitech]

ok obstructing traffic? One person on a bike, and one person on foot. I don't buy it. It's private property, they were not in a car. That is what is called a trumped up charge. The only thing that obstructed traffic was the 50 police cars that were called in to deal with this. Unless these people were actively blocking cars instead of going about their normal routine business, the cops were simply harassing them.

Also, the guy asked if he was being detained. The answer was no. The guy asked if he was free to go. The answer was no. That means the guys was under arrest. At that point in time, he has no obligation whatsoever to answer ANY of the cops questions without his lawyer present.

The cops trying to say that they were investigating a crime. What crime? Oh, they are investigating obstructing traffic? If they witnessed the guy breaking the law, then their job is to put the guy under arrest for obstructing traffic. Not stand their in the middle of the parking lot (obstructing traffic and generally causing a scene) asking for a useless piece of "evidence" in the "crime".

Cops trying to justify their existence in an otherwise peaceful scenario.

[newbitech]

Thing that's bad about this video is you don't see what caused the cops to get involved in the first place. Was the "suspect" blocking someone trying to back out, was he blocking the entrance, did he cross the street improperly, etc.? Now, none of those things warrant a tazing, but something had to have happened leading up to the situation we see. If that did happen, the police were well within the law to stop the guy.

The police certainly didn't handle this properly. Selective enforcement? Not so much as improper "arrest" procedure. They escalated it. They should have gotten the guy and his bike out of the traffic lane, told him why he was being stopped/detained, THEN IDed to check for warrants, etc., and then either cited, or more likely warned and be sent on his way.

The cops say he crossed the sidewalk, which affects the flow of traffic, its a stop sign. Totally trumped up charge. So it's not even that they are giving him a hard time about something that happened in the parking lot. The guy was on a bike, on the side walk and it sounds like he crossed the street without getting off the bike. The cop didn't like that and decided to use that as a reason to escalate. The guy asked, did anyone get hurt? The cop avoids the question. The answer of course was, no, no one was hurt.

The whole affecting the flow of traffic thing is BS. The only thing they have on this guy is he didn't stop at a stop sign. IF that is even what this incompetent cop is accusing him of. I doubt it. What you see here is a bunch of societal leeches and looters drumming up their paychecks

[PaulConventionWV]

ok obstructing traffic? One person on a bike, and one person on foot. I don't buy it. It's private property, they were not in a car. That is what is called a trumped up charge. The only thing that obstructed traffic was the 50 police cars that were called in to deal with this. Unless these people were actively blocking cars instead of going about their normal routine business, the cops were simply harassing them.

Also, the guy asked if he was being detained. The answer was no. The guy asked if he was free to go. The answer was no. That means the guys was under arrest. At that point in time, he has no obligation whatsoever to answer ANY of the cops questions without his lawyer present.

The cops trying to say that they were investigating a crime. What crime? Oh, they are investigating obstructing traffic? If they witnessed the guy breaking the law, then their job is to put the guy under arrest for obstructing traffic. Not stand their in the middle of the parking lot (obstructing traffic and generally causing a scene) asking for a useless piece of "evidence" in the "crime".

Cops trying to justify their existence in an otherwise peaceful scenario.

I agree, but unfortunately, the current law makes this behavior justified. Know the law, don't make a fool of yourself. If you would say you weren't obstructing traffic, you're going to have to argue that in court. We don't know the details yet. Trumped up charge or not, what the police did was justified under the current law, and I don't like it either, but that's the way it is.

[pcosmar]

Do you have an actual argument?

Do you have an actual crime?
or,, Do you have some Justification for these enforcers to exist in the first place?

They simply should not exist in a free society.
http://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/cops.htm

However they do, and are necessary in an Authoritarian society.



authoritarian
 
adjective
1.
favoring complete obedience or subjection to authority as opposed to individual freedom: authoritarian principles; authoritarian attitudes.
2.
of or pertaining to a governmental or political system, principle, or practice in which individual freedom is held as completely subordinate to the power or authority of the state, centered either in one person or a small group that is not constitutionally accountable to the people.
3.
exercising complete or almost complete control over the will of another or of others: an authoritarian parent.
noun
4.
a person who favors or acts according to authoritarian principles.

[No Free Beer]

he broke a law. what r u all talking about? if someone breaks the law, they have to show id.

[Revolution9]

That's just it. It was warranted. The guy gave up his right to privacy about his identity when he broke the law.

He didn't break any law. The cops did though.

Rev9

[newbitech]

I agree, but unfortunately, the current law makes this behavior justified. Know the law, don't make a fool of yourself. If you would say you weren't obstructing traffic, you're going to have to argue that in court. We don't know the details yet. Trumped up charge or not, what the police did was justified under the current law, and I don't like either, but that's the way it is.

If you are directing that at both parties I will agree, and I will disagree that trumped up charges are not justified under any law. That would be a false accusation, and if the man was arrested under false pretense that is also against the law. Of course the problem is, we don't hold the enforcers to same standards.

The cop actually says the reason he was confronting the guy was an infraction. Pretty sure an infraction is not a crime. The cop should have told the guy that he needed his id because he was citing him for an infraction. That would have deescalated the situation. The cop lost his authority when he was unable to recite the law he was supposedly enforcing. At that point, the man should have been free to go.

[newbitech]

he broke a law. what r u all talking about? if someone breaks the law, they have to show id.

what law? pretty sure you don't know because the cop didn't know either.

[newbitech]

He didn't break any law. The cops did though.

Rev9

If the guy broke the law, they would have put him under arrest immediately, searched him, found his id. Of course the guy didn't break any law, based purely on the way the cop acted.

[NCGOPer_for_Paul]

The cops say he crossed the sidewalk, which affects the flow of traffic, its a stop sign. Totally trumped up charge. So it's not even that they are giving him a hard time about something that happened in the parking lot. The guy was on a bike, on the side walk and it sounds like he crossed the street without getting off the bike. The cop didn't like that and decided to use that as a reason to escalate. The guy asked, did anyone get hurt? The cop avoids the question. The answer of course was, no, no one was hurt.

The whole affecting the flow of traffic thing is BS. The only thing they have on this guy is he didn't stop at a stop sign. IF that is even what this incompetent cop is accusing him of. I doubt it. What you see here is a bunch of societal leeches and looters drumming up their paychecks

I don't disagree with you. The cops trumped something up, no doubt, BUT, we don't know why they did it.

Were they just harrassing this guy for the heck of it? Maybe.

Is it also possible that there had been complaints of issues with traffic blockage at that particular spot? Could be. Where we live in Charlotte, NC, we have a major jaywalking problem. I'm not talking in the city part of town; I'm talking along what amounts to a 5-lane undivided highway with a 45-50 MPH speed limit. There are groups of "people" who will actually step in front of vehichles with BABY STROLLERS and feel entitled to mosey across this road because "they's gots to gets dey bus". I'd have absolutely no problem if one day the CMPD set up an operation to cite the heck out of these brats. I wouldn't want anyone tazed or injured, but a good 200 citations might send a message to cross at crosswalks.

We don't live where this happened. We don't know the circumstances leading up to this.

What we do know is that these cops don't know the first thing about properly "detaining" someone, and proper procedure for what amounted to a traffic stop.

I'm not defending these armed thugs. I'm just saying the "stop" was not unlawful. The actions taken by the officers after the stop were beyond excessive.

[Dr.3D]

Interesting! So now there is such a thing as a walkers license? Seems to me, one does not need to even have an identification to walk down the street. As for providing it to someone who requests it, it seems you will be tortured if you don't comply with their request.

[Dr.3D]

he broke a law. what r u all talking about? if someone breaks the law, they have to show id.
And if they don't have identification, then what?

[NCGOPer_for_Paul]

He didn't break any law. The cops did though.

Rev9

He didn't "break a law". He must have violated a statute related to operating a bicycle.

If that's the case, the cops can detain him, as they would temporariy detain a driver for a violation of a motor vehicle statute.

The problem is, they didn't secure the "offender". They started barking for his ID before they "stopped" him. He never responded to what would have amounted to the blue lights signaling a request to pull over.

[NCGOPer_for_Paul]

Interesting! So now there is such a thing as a walkers license? Seems to me, one does not need to even have an identification to walk down the street. As for providing it to someone who requests it, it seems you will be tortured if you don't comply with their request.

You don't need ID to walk down the street.

He wasn't walking down the street. He was on a bicycle and must have made an improper move as per the cops. There are statues that govern proper operation of bicycles, just as there are statues about pedestrian behavior. You can't stand in the middle of a street and block traffic.

[Dr.3D]

You don't need ID to walk down the street.

He wasn't walking down the street. He was on a bicycle and must have made an improper move as per the cops. There are statues that govern proper operation of bicycles, just as there are statues about pedestrian behavior. You can't stand in the middle of a street and block traffic.

There were many years I rode a bicycle down the street without an ID. Did they suddenly make a law that says I have to have an ID to ride a bicycle?

[PaulConventionWV]

If you are directing that at both parties I will agree, and I will disagree that trumped up charges are not justified under any law. That would be a false accusation, and if the man was arrested under false pretense that is also against the law. Of course the problem is, we don't hold the enforcers to same standards.

The cop actually says the reason he was confronting the guy was an infraction. Pretty sure an infraction is not a crime. The cop should have told the guy that he needed his id because he was citing him for an infraction. That would have deescalated the situation. The cop lost his authority when he was unable to recite the law he was supposedly enforcing. At that point, the man should have been free to go.

I know. That's the point, though. Even though the charges may be trumped up, the law allows a cop suspecting someone of a crime to ask for an ID. There are plenty of examples of people just standing on the street with open carry or just standing there, period, who have been approached by cops. When asked to present ID, the person can ask what crime they are being suspected of, and the officer,more than likely, won't be able to answer.

In this case, however, trumped up charge or not, the law allows, with the mere presence of suspicion, for the officer to ask for ID. The rest is for the court to decide. The cop was obviously pretty incompetent, but that doesn't mean what he did wasn't justified under the law. I am not trying to defend him in any way. I'm just saying, those people should have known the law better if they were going to refuse to comply like that because what they did justified police action, leading to the tasing and everything. They should have known it was going to happen.

I offer this not as any kind of defense or justification of a police force, or the use of force by police in any way. I am saying this so that people defending themselves against tyranny know the law before they try to fight and make a scene. It's in your own best interest. And yes, I was directing that to the police as well, but you can't expect that from them because they have authority and they will abuse it no matter what. This is directed at people looking to be able to look out for themselves when they are confronted by police. Telling the police they can't do something will only go so far, namely, not far at all, but people who want to protect themselves from unjustified searches and seizures or unlawful orders and invasion of privacy, they should know the law even better than the cops. The people in this case did a very poor job of that and are very much responsible for what happened under the circumstances.

[PaulConventionWV]

If the guy broke the law, they would have put him under arrest immediately, searched him, found his id. Of course the guy didn't break any law, based purely on the way the cop acted.

How can you be so sure? The cop was incompetent, but I am just not sure. I made my previous post under the assumption that the guy was being investigated for breaking a law. That may still be the case, regardless of how the cop was acting. He is obviously a control freak that doesn't like to answer questions.

[Dr.3D]

I just want to know if I am required to have ID whenever I am in public.

[PaulConventionWV]

And if they don't have identification, then what?

Then the cop would ask them to verbally identify themselves, he would run checks, and then they would probably be asked a few questions. If suspicion was mounted reasonably, they might be arrested.

[kcchiefs6465]

The video didn't really put the whole thing in context, so I didn't know about the obstructing traffic charge. Is that actually a law? I suppose it is. If so, he should have complied. The best way to expose tyranny is to know the law, not break it and then complain when the police enforce it.

It was also pretty stupid that he was running around and resisting arrest, all the while yelling "I'm not resisiting." People, don't be an idiot. His partner on the video camera yelling was annoying as f*ck, too.
"Obstructing traffic" is on par with disorderly conduct, obstructing justice, jaywalking etc. One of the many laws they will charge you with for questioning their authority. Such as, refusing to show ID. I'm not sure which came first. I'm not sure of the condition of the sidewalk, whether he was walking in the middle of the road or on the edge, the 'busyness' of the road he was on, etc. Therefore, unlike some, I will reserve judgement.

ETA: After actually watching the video, he was in a goddamn shopping mall... they cited that he walked in front of a car in the 'street' instead of at the stop sign. Do you know how many tens of people do this everytime I try to find parking at Walmart? Obviously the pig trumped up the charge of obstructing traffic... mind you, at a shopping mall, because his authority had been called into question. It's sickening that some people agree with this type of bullshit. Namely, bullying and harrassment of the public for any reason under the sun.

[PaulConventionWV]

There were many years I rode a bicycle down the street without an ID. Did they suddenly make a law that says I have to have an ID to ride a bicycle?

It's really not a problem. The ID just makes things easier. I think you are only required to have your ID with you if you are in a car, I think. However, they can still identify you without having your card present if they stop you on the street without a car for a minor violation.

[NCGOPer_for_Paul]

There were many years I rode a bicycle down the street without an ID. Did they suddenly make a law that says I have to have an ID to ride a bicycle?

No, but had you violated a statute and the police stopped you, they would have asked you for one, or at the very least, they would have asked for your name.

Even if we didn't have driver's licenses, there would still be a need for some kind of identification process in case of improper operation.

[Dr.3D]

Then the cop would ask them to verbally identify themselves, he would run checks, and then they would probably be asked a few questions. If suspicion was mounted reasonably, they might be arrested.

Oh I thought perhaps if I didn't have an ID, I would be subjected to torture.

[PaulConventionWV]

"Obstructing traffic" is on par with disorderly conduct, obstructing justice, jaywalking etc. One of the many laws they will charge you with for questioning their authority. Such as, refusing to show ID. I'm not sure which came first. I'm not sure of the condition of the sidewalk, whether he was walking in the middle of the road or on the edge, the 'busyness' of the road he was on, etc. Therefore, unlike some, I will reserve judgement.

ETA: After actually watching the video, he was in a goddamn shopping mall... they cited that he walked in front of a car in the 'street' instead of at the stop sign. Do you know how many tens of people do this everytime I try to find parking at Walmart? Obviously the pig trumped up the charge of obstructing traffic... mind you, at a shopping mall, because his authority had been called into question. It's sickening that some people agree with this type of bullshit. Namely, bullying and harrassment of the public for any reason under the sun.

So it was probably selective enforcement, which is a very valid complaint, but there really isn't anything you can do about that, legally.

[PaulConventionWV]

Oh I thought perhaps if I didn't have an ID, I would be subjected to torture.

No, it just makes it easier for them if you have your papers.

[mike6623]

The dude was resisting. Plain and simple. If he didn't want to show his ID, he shold have said, arrest me, and then took it to court where he could have won and possibly sued for discrimination. Resisting arrest and acting like a lawyer is not good. He deserved it for sure. And why the hell does this girl think that the cop is going to stop what he is doing, and "get his supervisor" as if he is sitting in the car.

[NCGOPer_for_Paul]

"Obstructing traffic" is on par with disorderly conduct, obstructing justice, jaywalking etc. One of the many laws they will charge you with for questioning their authority. Such as, refusing to show ID. I'm not sure which came first. I'm not sure of the condition of the sidewalk, whether he was walking in the middle of the road or on the edge, the 'busyness' of the road he was on, etc. Therefore, unlike some, I will reserve judgement.

ETA: After actually watching the video, he was in a goddamn shopping mall... they cited that he walked in front of a car in the 'street' instead of at the stop sign. Do you know how many tens of people do this everytime I try to find parking at Walmart? Obviously the pig trumped up the charge of obstructing traffic... mind you, at a shopping mall, because his authority had been called into question. It's sickening that some people agree with this type of bullshit. Namely, bullying and harrassment of the public for any reason under the sun.

He was on a bicycle and the offense happened prior to them going into the check cashing place. The video doesn't show the infraction, which is part of the whole problem.

Don't think the police have any authority in a private parking area.

BTW, I DO NOT EXCUSE the police's behavior here. The officers had no clue on how to properly detain the "suspect".

[kcchiefs6465]

what law? pretty sure you don't know because the cop didn't know either.
"Errrr.. Ummmmm.. Obstructing traffic. Now show me your papers."

[mike6623]

The cop should have told the guy that he needed his id because he was citing him for an infraction. That would have deescalated the situation


I doubt it, these two were too busy playing lawyer to be deescalated.

[PaulConventionWV]

The dude was resisting. Plain and simple. If he didn't want to show his ID, he shold have said, arrest me, and then took it to court where he could have won and possibly sued for discrimination. Resisting arrest and acting like a lawyer is not good. He deserved it for sure. And why the hell does this girl think that the cop is going to stop what he is doing, and "get his supervisor" as if he is sitting in the car.

That's not necessarily true. The cops don't have any legal right to arrest someone for refusing to provide ID. They have to be a suspect in a crime. I would have asked what crime I was being investigated for. If he had a legitimate answer, I would provide it to him and then use my 5th amendment right to avoid incriminating myself. I would also refuse all searches, as is my 4th amendment right if there is no probable cause to believe I was involved in a crime.

Those people were idiots, including the woman with the camera, and the guy was clearly resisting arrest, but saying he should just allow the cop to arrest him is not correct. There are other ways, which they did not utilize and, instead, escalated the situation.

[kcchiefs6465]

Oh I thought perhaps if I didn't have an ID, I would be subjected to torture.


No, it just makes it easier for them if you have your papers.

I wouldn't be so sure of that. Best bet is to have your 'papers.' You never know when you might stopped at a roadside (safety) checkpoint.

[PaulConventionWV]

The cop should have told the guy that he needed his id because he was citing him for an infraction. That would have deescalated the situation


I doubt it, these two were too busy playing lawyer to be deescalated.

And, I might add, they were very bad at it.

[kcchiefs6465]

The dude was resisting. Plain and simple. If he didn't want to show his ID, he shold have said, arrest me, and then took it to court where he could have won and possibly sued for discrimination. Resisting arrest and acting like a lawyer is not good. He deserved it for sure. And why the hell does this girl think that the cop is going to stop what he is doing, and "get his supervisor" as if he is sitting in the car.



I doubt it, these two were too busy playing lawyer to be deescalated.

Wow. Epic posts.

[PaulConventionWV]

I wouldn't be so sure of that. Best bet is to have your 'papers.' You never know when you might stopped at a roadside (safety) checkpoint.

Yeah, you never know, but I thought that was what the law was. Correct me if I'm wrong. Sometimes it just depends on how good a day the cop is having and/or how much of a control freak he/she is.

Btw, avoid female cops like the plague.

[donnay]

You are required to provide it if you are being investigated for a crime. Knowing that he was charged with obstructing traffic, this makes it lawful for the police to require him to identify himself. These people, in light of the information now known, are novices in the law.

They were after him for allegedly jaywalking.

[donnay]

The dude was resisting. Plain and simple. If he didn't want to show his ID, he shold have said, arrest me, and then took it to court where he could have won and possibly sued for discrimination. Resisting arrest and acting like a lawyer is not good. He deserved it for sure. And why the hell does this girl think that the cop is going to stop what he is doing, and "get his supervisor" as if he is sitting in the car.

Hope you aren't on any juries any time soon. :rolleyes:

[kcchiefs6465]

Yeah, you never know, but I thought that was what the law was. Correct me if I'm wrong. Sometimes it just depends on how good a day the cop is having and/or how much of a control freak he/she is.
Btw, avoid female cops like the plague.
No, you are correct. You are 'not required' to have ID on you. (In my state at least, though I believe the SCOTUS has ruled this way) The bolded part is the problem with America. Oh, and the apologist mindset of quite a few people. I know, I know. No one is 'excusing' this type of behavior. They are just pointing out the fact that mundanes have no legitimate recourse during a false detainment/arrest. Do what you're told, and all ends well, right? The italicized part isn't neccessarily directed towards you. It is directed at quite a few posters.

[donnay]

"Obstructing traffic" is on par with disorderly conduct, obstructing justice, jaywalking etc. One of the many laws they will charge you with for questioning their authority. Such as, refusing to show ID. I'm not sure which came first. I'm not sure of the condition of the sidewalk, whether he was walking in the middle of the road or on the edge, the 'busyness' of the road he was on, etc. Therefore, unlike some, I will reserve judgement.

ETA: After actually watching the video, he was in a goddamn shopping mall... they cited that he walked in front of a car in the 'street' instead of at the stop sign. Do you know how many tens of people do this everytime I try to find parking at Walmart? Obviously the pig trumped up the charge of obstructing traffic... mind you, at a shopping mall, because his authority had been called into question. It's sickening that some people agree with this type of bullshit. Namely, bullying and harrassment of the public for any reason under the sun.


So they tase him in the middle of the street, leave him on his stomach, face down, (in the middle of the street) and charge him for jaywalking and failure to show identifications--because the lords and masters told him to. :rolleyes:

[kcchiefs6465]

So they tase him in the middle of the street, leave him on his stomach, face down, (in the middle of the street) and charge him for jaywalking and failure to show identifications--because the lords and masters told him to. :rolleyes:
What?
ETA: I'm not sure if you are in agreement with my post or not. The 'roll eyes' smiley seems misplaced. That is precisely what happened, though.

[kcchiefs6465]

Hope you aren't on any juries any time soon. :rolleyes:
Amen.

[donnay]

What?
ETA: I'm not sure if you are in agreement with my post or not. The 'roll eyes' smiley seems misplaced. That is precisely what happened, though.


I wasn't disagreeing. I was summing it all up on how very stupid the cops were in this video. I usually roll my eyes on sheer stupidity--not directed at you.

[newbitech]

The cop should have told the guy that he needed his id because he was citing him for an infraction. That would have deescalated the situation


I doubt it, these two were too busy playing lawyer to be deescalated.

or they were too busy going about their daily PRODUCTIVE lives, perhaps? No?

[newbitech]

I don't disagree with you. The cops trumped something up, no doubt, BUT, we don't know why they did it.

Were they just harrassing this guy for the heck of it? Maybe.

Is it also possible that there had been complaints of issues with traffic blockage at that particular spot? Could be. Where we live in Charlotte, NC, we have a major jaywalking problem. I'm not talking in the city part of town; I'm talking along what amounts to a 5-lane undivided highway with a 45-50 MPH speed limit. There are groups of "people" who will actually step in front of vehichles with BABY STROLLERS and feel entitled to mosey across this road because "they's gots to gets dey bus". I'd have absolutely no problem if one day the CMPD set up an operation to cite the heck out of these brats. I wouldn't want anyone tazed or injured, but a good 200 citations might send a message to cross at crosswalks.

We don't live where this happened. We don't know the circumstances leading up to this.

What we do know is that these cops don't know the first thing about properly "detaining" someone, and proper procedure for what amounted to a traffic stop.

I'm not defending these armed thugs. I'm just saying the "stop" was not unlawful. The actions taken by the officers after the stop were beyond excessive.

what we do know is that if the scenario was like your town here, with the cops being called and the cops witnessing a crime, the cops wouldn't be asking for ID, they'd be arresting people. So I think the conclusion that these people were being harassed is accurate. I am not giving the cop the benefit of the doubt simply because he has a costume and a gun.

He lost his authority when the guy point blank asked him to cite the statute and the cop could not do so. The guy wasn't arrested for committing a crime. He was arrested because he became the authority in the situation. The man knew that the cop had no right to ask him for his ID unless the cop was conducting a criminal investigation. The cop flat out admitted that he witnessed what appeared to be an infraction. So at that point, the cop simply needed to say, that his investigation was concluded and the law requires a citation, which requires an ID for a court summons.

The cop completely lost control of himself, and his role by assaulting the man instead of enforcing the law/infraction what have you. The cop is also responsible and will be held accountable for his actions which have more severe consequences in that it led to another individual being physically hurt. This crime/infraction is an escalation over what the cop was accusing the man of in the first place. The cop committed the more serious offense.

It's like borrowing money at a higher rate to pay previous loan that is in default at a lower rate. It doesn't make sense, and it needs to end.

[Dr.3D]

The cops just wanted his ID so they could check the computer to see if they could find something to bust him on.
Him not giving them his ID provided them an excuse to charge him with something else.

[mike6623]

"Errrr.. Ummmmm.. Obstructing traffic. Now show me your papers."

This whole "show me your papers" propaganda thing is out of control. Asking for ID, is not asking for proof of citizenship. When you get pulled over for speeding, you are not being arrested, yet you have to show ID. This guy, whether he did someting or not (just like if you weren't speeding) was asked to provide ID, he could have shown it, and been given a warning not to obstruct traffic and been on his way. Now if he was just walking down the street talking on the phone, and this happened. Different story, but that isn't what happened.

[donnay]

This whole "show me your papers" propaganda thing is out of control. Asking for ID, is not asking for proof of citizenship. When you get pulled over for speeding, you are not being arrested, yet you have to show ID. This guy, whether he did someting or not (just like if you weren't speeding) was asked to provide ID, he could have shown it, and been given a warning not to obstruct traffic and been on his way. Now if he was just walking down the street talking on the phone, and this happened. Different story, but that isn't what happened.

You obviously do not get it.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzhIPvEanMg&feature=related

[enjerth]

Positive identification is stating your name, address and date of birth. Even if you're breaking the law.

Unless you are driving a motor vehicle, and reasonably suspected of committing a violation (and not "we think you did something, but we don't know what"), you are not required to show a license or ID, AFAIK-IANAL.

[kcchiefs6465]

This whole "show me your papers" propaganda thing is out of control. Asking for ID, is not asking for proof of citizenship. When you get pulled over for speeding, you are not being arrested, yet you have to show ID. This guy, whether he did someting or not (just like if you weren't speeding) was asked to provide ID, he could have shown it, and been given a warning not to obstruct traffic and been on his way. Now if he was just walking down the street talking on the phone, and this happened. Different story, but that isn't what happened.
An ID is proof of citizenship. And depending on where you are living, as well as your skin tone, you very well could be asked to provide additional proof. So I really don't see the point in your semantics. How do you know this isn't what happened? From what I gathered from the video, the man was in a local shopping mall. (You know, the ones with stop signs in them) Because he crossed not at the 'crosswalk,' but rather just crossed the 'street,' the cop felt the need to harrass him. Citing what exactly? Obstructing traffic. Every shopping mall I have been to requires me to stop every 20 damn feet for a pedestrian crossing before the crosswalk. While annoying, I wouldn't think to harrass the people, as they have the right of way. Furthermore, your statement of "he deserved it." (Referring to the taser, I assume) is simply incredible. Saying that really takes all of the validity out of any future justification/apology you might make for this incident. The man didn't deserve to be stopped and harrassed. Let alone tortured. (Which, semantics aside.. is exactly what it is)

[NCGOPer_for_Paul]

what we do know is that if the scenario was like your town here, with the cops being called and the cops witnessing a crime, the cops wouldn't be asking for ID, they'd be arresting people. So I think the conclusion that these people were being harassed is accurate. I am not giving the cop the benefit of the doubt simply because he has a costume and a gun.

He lost his authority when the guy point blank asked him to cite the statute and the cop could not do so. The guy wasn't arrested for committing a crime. He was arrested because he became the authority in the situation. The man knew that the cop had no right to ask him for his ID unless the cop was conducting a criminal investigation. The cop flat out admitted that he witnessed what appeared to be an infraction. So at that point, the cop simply needed to say, that his investigation was concluded and the law requires a citation, which requires an ID for a court summons.

The cop completely lost control of himself, and his role by assaulting the man instead of enforcing the law/infraction what have you. The cop is also responsible and will be held accountable for his actions which have more severe consequences in that it led to another individual being physically hurt. This crime/infraction is an escalation over what the cop was accusing the man of in the first place. The cop committed the more serious offense.

It's like borrowing money at a higher rate to pay previous loan that is in default at a lower rate. It doesn't make sense, and it needs to end.

I completely agree with your conclusion. These cops were out of control, and they escalated the situation.

However, the guy was NOT going to be arrested for the statutory offense. At most, he would have been cited for a moving violation on a bicycle. He was being stopped akin to a motor vehicle stop. The problem was the police didn't act in that manner. They started barking about an ID before the "suspect" was lawfully stopped. He was never actually detained, and was ABSOLUTELY CORRECT in what he was saying to the cops.

That being said, the police should have acted properly in stating something to the affect of "STOP! I observed you blocking traffic, etc. That is a violation of such and such statute in the (localities) code. May I see your ID please?" If the officer did that, then the guy's actions are completely unwarranted. The cop was probably never trained in proper procedure, especially when making a vehicle stop on a bicycle.

In my hypotethical, nobody gets ARRESTED for jaywalking. The "perp" gets detained and cited. It is a statutory offense, not even a misdemeanor. The penalty is a small fine. A jaywalker WOULD get arrested for resisting while in the flow of traffic or mouthing off (depending on what's said, uttering threats, etc.), because those penalties can rise to felony.

[NCGOPer_for_Paul]

An ID is proof of citizenship. And depending on where you are living, as well as your skin tone, you very well could be asked to provide additional proof. So I really don't see the point in your semantics. How do you know this isn't what happened? From what I gathered from the video, the man was in a local shopping mall. (You know, the ones with stop signs in them) Because he crossed not at the 'crosswalk,' but rather just crossed the 'street,' the cop felt the need to harrass him. Citing what exactly? Obstructing traffic. Every shopping mall I have been to requires me to stop every 20 damn feet for a pedestrian crossing before the crosswalk. While annoying, I wouldn't think to harrass the people, as they have the right of way. Furthermore, your statement of "he deserved it." (Referring to the taser, I assume) is simply incredible. Saying that really takes all of the validity out of any future justification/apology you might make for this incident. The man didn't deserve to be stopped and harrassed. Let alone tortured. (Which, semantics aside.. is exactly what it is)

At least in North Carolina, the police have no traffic jurisdiction in a PVA (Private Vehicle Area), which means parking lots, property not publically owned, etc. This means that traffic offenses, if any, would be handled by the property's security.

It appears (again we don't know because we don't actually see the offense), that the offense happened on the street in front of the strip mall. The "suspect" was in the check-cashing place and appeared to be leaving via bicycle. It seems as if the cops observed him doing whatever before he entered the building, and then waited for him to exit. It's entirely possible he made a move on his bike that nearly caused an accident. WE DON'T KNOW!

Pedestrians and bicyclists do not ALWAYS have the right of way. They DO, and DO ONLY, when they are following proper procedures, i.e. crossing on green in a crosswalk -- they have right of way against vehichles making turns. Pedestrians and bicyclists do not have the right to cross wherever they feel like it.

Moreover, a bicycle is a vehicle, subject to the same rules of the road as a motor vehicle.

I AM NOT DEFENDING the poorly-trained and incompeteny police officer. However, if he conducted a proper stop, he was not out of line in requesting an ID.

[mike6623]

You obviously do not get it.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzhIPvEanMg&feature=related
Again, taking it to the extreme. This is no where near what happened, and i'd like proof as to where that is ACTUALLY happening (video proof) not just what could happen. No one knows exactly what happened, do you?.

Do I think the police were right in the initial response, no. Was he resisting and acting the fool.....yes. My GUESS is, because I see it daily, is that he was probably on his bike, just sitting in the middle of the road. This happens daily where I live and it is a pain in the ass. Granted, he could just be being profiled, who knows...do you? Also, at least where I live, a bike is treated as a vehicle. As in, if you ride a bike, you drive in the street, follow the same rules as if you were in a car or motorcycle.

[kcchiefs6465]

That being said, the police should have acted properly in stating something to the affect of "STOP! I observed you blocking traffic, etc. That is a violation of such and such statute in the (localities) code. May I see your ID please?" If the officer did that, then the guy's actions are completely unwarranted. The cop was probably never trained in proper procedure, especially when making a vehicle stop on a bicycle.

I don't understand how you obstruct traffic in a shopping mall. There are people walking buggies everywhere. The man was on a bike and crossed, what could not even be deemed a road, stopping 'traffic' a far shorter amount of time than the countless other people walking through 'traffic' with buggies, strollers, etc. The cop simply wanted to harrass the man. (Probably because he was on a bicycle and was assumed to be an "undesirable") Once this man questioned the cop's authority to ask for identification, the cop conveniently stated, "Obstructing traffic." He very well could have said obstructing official police business, disorderly conduct, or any other number of convenient statutes meant to provide justification for the arrest of anyone, at anytime. A woman was also recently arrested for obstructing traffic. (I'll edit and add the story once I stumble accross it again; though I do believe it was posted here) The amazing thing about that particular case is that she was warning people of an obstruction of traffic. (That being a DUI checkpoint up ahead) So while they knew full damn well that they were the ones obstructing traffic this woman was arrested for obstructing traffic, while she was standing on the sidewalk, simply because she challenged their authority.

[NCGOPer_for_Paul]

I don't understand how you obstruct traffic in a shopping mall. There are people walking buggies everywhere. The man was on a bike and crossed, what could not even be deemed a road, stopping 'traffic' a far shorter amount of time than the countless other people walking through 'traffic' with buggies, strollers, etc. The cop simply wanted to harrass the man. (Probably because he was on a bicycle and was assumed to be an "undesirable") Once this man questioned the cop's authority to ask for identification, the cop conveniently stated, "Obstructing traffic." He very well could have said obstructing official police business, disorderly conduct, or any other number of convenient statutes meant to provide justification for the arrest of anyone, at anytime. A woman was also recently arrested for obstructing traffic. (I'll edit and add the story once I stumble accross it again; though I do believe it was posted here) The amazing thing about that particular case is that she was warning people of an obstruction of traffic. (That being a DUI checkpoint up ahead) So while they knew full damn well that they were the ones obstructing traffic this woman was arrested for obstructing traffic, while she was standing on the sidewalk, simply because she challenged their authority.

I think the "offense" took place outside the "mall", and the cops got him on the mall's property.

We're in complete agreement that this went entirely too far. Where you and I disagree is that I believe there has to be some kind of enforcement of traffic obstructions (again, and I repeat for about the 9th time, WE DON'T SEE WHAT LED UP TO THE CONFRONTATION) and you think it's perfectly okay for people and bikes to block traffic.

[donnay]

Again, taking it to the extreme. This is no where near what happened, and i'd like proof as to where that is ACTUALLY happening (video proof) not just what could happen. No one knows exactly what happened, do you?.

Do I think the police were right in the initial response, no. Was he resisting and acting the fool.....yes.

Your interpretation; he was acting like a fool for resisting. My interpretation; he and the videographer knew their rights and were not going to back down. I say Hooray for them!!




Also, at least where I live, a bike is treated as a vehicle. As in, if you ride a bike, you drive in the street, follow the same rules as if you were in a car or motorcycle.

Another stupid law--but there are lots of stupid statutory laws--which are selectively enforced. If you get run over by a bicycle will you sustain the same injuries as if you got hit by a motorcycle or automobile? I, personally, like riding against traffic on my bike, rather than what the law in my state says, ride with motor traffic.

The extreme is not me, it is cops going around asking for Identification on a whim. My 4th amendment right be damned. That's extreme!

[PaulConventionWV]

This whole "show me your papers" propaganda thing is out of control. Asking for ID, is not asking for proof of citizenship. When you get pulled over for speeding, you are not being arrested, yet you have to show ID. This guy, whether he did someting or not (just like if you weren't speeding) was asked to provide ID, he could have shown it, and been given a warning not to obstruct traffic and been on his way. Now if he was just walking down the street talking on the phone, and this happened. Different story, but that isn't what happened.

It happens all the time, though. Yes, it's just like nazi Germany.

[mike6623]

Your interpretation; he was acting like a fool for resisting. My interpretation; that he and the videographer knew their rights and were not going to back down. I say Hooray for them!!

Just because you know your rights, doesn't make you right, if in fact you are violating some law, agree with the law or not.

Another stupid law--but there are lots of stupid statutory laws--which are selectively enforced. If you get run over by a bicycle will you sustain the same injuries as if you got hit by a motorcycle or automobile? I, personally, like riding against traffic on my bike, rather than what the law in my state says, ride with motor traffic.
I personally can't stand anyone riding a bike in the street with or against traffic. Unless they are actually in the middle of the lane, all it does if give you enough room to either go 5mph, hit them, or swirve and hit the car in the next lane

The extreme is not me, it is cops going around asking for Identification on a whim. My 4th amendment right be damned. That's extreme!
Again, we do not know what happened. So, according to you, you should never be asked for ID under any circumstances? So, if this guy was obstucting traffic, he should have asked his name and address, took his word for it, and sent the ticket to the provided address?

[kuckfeynes]

It's civil disobedience. Get over it people.
They're not idiots for expecting some other outcome.
They knew what was going to happen, and chose to pay the price to make a point.
State violence is one-sided, unbound by any real law, and arbitrarily enforced. QED.
The fact that this thread is this long is evidence that they were successful.
This viral video thing is all the new rage I hear...

[PaulConventionWV]

Your interpretation; he was acting like a fool for resisting. My interpretation; he and the videographer knew their rights and were not going to back down. I say Hooray for them!!

No, they did not know their rights. If they did, that might not have happened. There was a much better way to go about it that would have likely ended peacefully. If they knew their rights according to the current law, they would have found a better way to diffuse the situation because what they did was novice.


Another stupid law--but there are lots of stupid statutory laws--which are selectively enforced. If you get run over by a bicycle will you sustain the same injuries as if you got hit by a motorcycle or automobile? I, personally, like riding against traffic on my bike, rather than what the law in my state says, ride with motor traffic.

The extreme is not me, it is cops going around asking for Identification on a whim. My 4th amendment right be damned. That's extreme!

The law is stupid, but they gave up their rights when they broke the law. If they had known that, then they could have handled it better, but they kept with the 'leave me alone' charade because they weren't aware that they were legally required to show their ID in their situation.

[NCGOPer_for_Paul]

Again, we do not know what happened. So, according to you, you should never be asked for ID under any circumstances? So, if this guy was obstucting traffic, he should have asked his name and address, took his word for it, and sent the ticket to the provided address?

Stop trying to bring logic and reason to this thread.

The person you're responding to thinks he can ride his bicycle any way he damn well pleases (against the flow of traffic) because he thinks it's a dumb law. I guess ensuring every VEHICLE on the road is traveling in the same direction is a dumb law in his mind...don't know. Does he also feel that stop signs are optional for bicyclists? Traffic signals?

There's plenty of police wrongdoing in that video without needing to make the "suspect" completely innocent.

[PaulConventionWV]

It's civil disobedience. Get over it people.
They're not idiots for expecting some other outcome.
They knew what was going to happen, and chose to pay the price to make a point.
State violence is one-sided, unbound by any real law, and arbitrarily enforced. QED.
The fact that this thread is this long is evidence that they were successful.
This viral video thing is all the new rage I hear...

They were trying too hard and all legitimacy was lost on the fact that they broke the law and didn't even acknowledge it. There was no "this law is BS!" stuff. They just broke it and insisted that they had the right to be left alone, which, at that point, they did not, according to the law. They went about it all wrong. At the very least, it is not effective at all at making their point.

[PaulConventionWV]

Stop trying to bring logic and reason to this thread.

The person you're responding to thinks he can ride his bicycle any way he damn well pleases (against the flow of traffic) because he thinks it's a dumb law. I guess ensuring every VEHICLE on the road is traveling in the same direction is a dumb law in his mind...don't know. Does he also feel that stop signs are optional for bicyclists? Traffic signals?

There's plenty of police wrongdoing in that video without needing to make the "suspect" completely innocent.

I disagree that we need to enforce this. Nobody is stupid enough to purposely drive a vehicle on the wrong side of the road. We don't need police forcing people to drive on the right side of the road. Preventing all crashes due to people being on the wrong side of the road would take an overwhelming about of police surveillance, tantamount to a full-blown police state, way worse than what we already have.

[newbitech]

Again, we do not know what happened. So, according to you, you should never be asked for ID under any circumstances? So, if this guy was obstucting traffic, he should have asked his name and address, took his word for it, and sent the ticket to the provided address?

if the cop observed the guy breaking a criminal law, he should have been arrested on the spot, no questions asked until the perp was in custody with a lawyer present. If the cop was enforcing a statutory offense, the cop should have cited the statute, and then lawfully commanded the man to give his name and address where the summons could be sent. If the man was not able to provide evidence of his name and address for citation purposes, then the cop should have cited the law that allows him to detain the man until such time as the man is able to provide evidence of his name and address. If the law says the man is a criminal because he does not carry evidence of his name and address for the purpose of providing statute enforcement personnel with a place to send the summons, then the cop should have cited that statute and arrested the man as a criminal for not showing his proof.

I don't think such a law exists. Detainment, yes, until his identity is proven. Arrest? No. The cop could have simply told the man he was being detained for investigation. That is what the man asked. The cop said no, you are not being detained. The man asked if he was free to go, the cop said no. So that means the cop put him under arrest for a non criminal offense, which is false arrest.

The man knew his rights, and although YOU and the cop may not like the way he asserted his rights, assert them he did. And since the cop wasn't doing his job, it is the cop that looks like the fool for harassing and assaulting a law abiding citizen who was going about his productive life, not harming anyone.

[helmuth_hubener]

Honestly, after the animal shot him and he broke away, this guy could have just run away and kept running. He looks like he would be a swifter runner than the animals, and he was on a bike, so he probably knows the neighborhood better than them as well. He could have just gotten away.

That's what I would have done. Being familiar with this class of animals, I know they don't ever back down nor change their minds, and they will gladly escalate any situation with absolutely no limit due to their innate cowardice, paranoia, and sub-human intelligence levels, all of which make them unable to deal with their environment effectively. Just run. They're stupid, they're out of shape, they're weighed down with bullet-proof vests -- they will not understand what's happening until it's too late, and they will never catch you.

[Dr.3D]

Those boobs are obviously taught to never back down.

[kcchiefs6465]

I think the "offense" took place outside the "mall", and the cops got him on the mall's property.

We're in complete agreement that this went entirely too far. Where you and I disagree is that I believe there has to be some kind of enforcement of traffic obstructions (again, and I repeat for about the 9th time, WE DON'T SEE WHAT LED UP TO THE CONFRONTATION) and you think it's perfectly okay for people and bikes to block traffic.

Do not make assumptions as to what I believe. Please quote the section of any of my posts that states, or even implied that I think there should be no traffic enforcement whatsoever. Also please quote where I state or imply that a bicycle, or anything else for that matter, blocking traffic is "okay." I've simply pointed out the fact that charges such as what he was charged with are commonly used to intimidate people into a sense of compliance with the harrassment they face at the hands of thugs.

ETA: After all this talk of we simply don't know, I decided to look further into the case. In the interest of fairness I'll add this additional information.

Florida police said they followed procedure when they Tasered accused jaywalker Zikomo Peurifoy three times when he refused to provide identification after police stopped him for allegedly jaywalking.
.....[Snipped]

"Del Rosso said that after the officers cuffed Peurifoy, they found an unlicensed concealed firearm on him.

Peurifoy was booked on charges of resisting arrest and battery on a law enforcement officer. Both officers had incurred minor injuries, Del Rosso said. Peurifoy also faces charges for carrying a concealed weapon.

Price, Peurifoy's friend and camera operator, declined to provide police with her full name, despite the fact officers informed her she was required to by law since she was at the scene.

You can legally address me as Ms. Price," she said in the video.

Price was arrested on a charge of resisting an officer without violence because she did not provide her name.

Officers searched Price's backpack and found brass knuckles, a firearm, pepper spray and a knife, Del Rosso said. The backpack arsenal resulted in an additional charge of carrying a concealed weapon.

ABCNews.com was unable to reach Peurifoy or Price for comment.
hxxp://gma.yahoo.com/florida-police-tasering-jaywalker-book-160241458--abc-news-topstories.html

Also, the C.O.P. stated that this video, will be used to train other officers.

[NCGOPer_for_Paul]

I disagree that we need to enforce this. Nobody is stupid enough to purposely drive a vehicle on the wrong side of the road. We don't need police forcing people to drive on the right side of the road. Preventing all crashes due to people being on the wrong side of the road would take an overwhelming about of police surveillance, tantamount to a full-blown police state, way worse than what we already have.

Point taken.

I just wish those of you who think it's perfectly okay to ride against traffic, jaywalk, impede the proper flow of traffic, etc. could visit what we here in Charlotte have to deal with on a regular basis, i.e. people too lazy to walk 50 feet to a crosswalk, people walking in front of vehicles doing 45 MPH and creating rear-end collisions, people walking their 3 year olds across what amount to 5-lane highways, etc. It's to the point here where I don't care when one of these people are mowed down by a car (it happens regularly, and the motorist is not charged in 99 of 100 cases). Just saying there are reasons for those statutes to be on the books and occassionally enforced.

[helmuth_hubener]

Just saying there are reasons for those statutes to be on the books and occassionally enforced. No, there are reasons for removing the roadways from the jurisdiction of a murderous and incompetent pack of animals and instead placing them under the purview of the market, where multiple competing individuals will strive to out-do each other in providing you a safe, quick, convenient, low-price roadway which you will love using, which will just be an absolute joy to drive on, and which will not kill tens of thousands of your friends (and their customers) every single year.

[kcchiefs6465]

Point taken.

I just wish those of you who think it's perfectly okay to ride against traffic, jaywalk, impede the proper flow of traffic, etc. could visit what we here in Charlotte have to deal with on a regular basis, i.e. people too lazy to walk 50 feet to a crosswalk, people walking in front of vehicles doing 45 MPH and creating rear-end collisions, people walking their 3 year olds across what amount to 5-lane highways, etc. It's to the point here where I don't care when one of these people are mowed down by a car (it happens regularly, and the motorist is not charged in 99 of 100 cases). Just saying there are reasons for those statutes to be on the books and occassionally enforced.

But,
"they's gots to gets dey bus."

ETA: All that shuckin' and jivin' in between your traffic flow. :rolleyes: Another thing, crosswalks in a majority of Glendale are a mile apart. So with all do respect, 'FU' I'm waiting until the lane is free and crossing to the median. Then when the other side is clear I *gasp* jaywalk. And if you asked you me why, I might just reply, "I have to catch the bus." I also ride my bicycle against traffic. If someone is going to mow me down I at least want the chance to move. So before you have an aneurysm from the thought of that (safer) scenario, there are usually sidewalks.

[NCGOPer_for_Paul]

No, there are reasons for removing the roadways from the jurisdiction of a murderous and incompetent pack of animals and instead placing them under the purview of the market, where multiple competing individuals will strive to out-do each other in providing you a safe, quick, convenient, low-price roadway which you will love using, which will just be an absolute joy to drive on, and which will not kill tens of thousands of your friends (and their customers) every single year.

Private police? Bring it on.

Still would love to know how EVERY single road would be private and "tolled" without some kind of GPS/RFID tag. That's a libertarian's conundrum.

[NCGOPer_for_Paul]

Do not make assumptions as to what I believe. Please quote the section of any of my posts that states, or even implied that I think there should be no traffic enforcement whatsoever. Also please quote where I state or imply that a bicycle, or anything else for that matter, blocking traffic is "okay." I've simply pointed out the fact that charges such as what he was charged with are commonly used to intimidate people into a sense of compliance with the harrassment they face at the hands of thugs.

ETA: After all this talk of we simply don't know, I decided to look further into the case. In the interest of fairness I'll add this additional information.

Florida police said they followed procedure when they Tasered accused jaywalker Zikomo Peurifoy three times when he refused to provide identification after police stopped him for allegedly jaywalking.
.....[Snipped]

"Del Rosso said that after the officers cuffed Peurifoy, they found an unlicensed concealed firearm on him.

Peurifoy was booked on charges of resisting arrest and battery on a law enforcement officer. Both officers had incurred minor injuries, Del Rosso said. Peurifoy also faces charges for carrying a concealed weapon.

Price, Peurifoy's friend and camera operator, declined to provide police with her full name, despite the fact officers informed her she was required to by law since she was at the scene.

You can legally address me as Ms. Price," she said in the video.

Price was arrested on a charge of resisting an officer without violence because she did not provide her name.

Officers searched Price's backpack and found brass knuckles, a firearm, pepper spray and a knife, Del Rosso said. The backpack arsenal resulted in an additional charge of carrying a concealed weapon.

ABCNews.com was unable to reach Peurifoy or Price for comment.
hxxp://gma.yahoo.com/florida-police-tasering-jaywalker-book-160241458--abc-news-topstories.html

Also, the C.O.P. stated that this video, will be used to train other officers.

After that, Peurifoy and Price even seem like bigger dumbasses. Because of the crap they were carrying, no jury these days are going to find them not guilty.

Can't believe the cops are going to use that for training, because it was totally improper police procedure. Peurifoy was never legally stopped and detained.

[helmuth_hubener]

Private police? Bring it on.

Still would love to know how EVERY single road would be private and "tolled" without some kind of GPS/RFID tag. That's a libertarian's conundrum. One can't predict for sure what the market will come up with and evolve into. That said, I think that yes, some road systems may have an automated toll system with something that could be read on or in your vehicle, such as a RFID in the windshield or a barcode printed on the chassis underside. I don't see this as any conundrum, actually, as I'm comfortable with private individuals and companies monitoring me. Just so: I have no problem with the proliferation of security cameras in businesses, because they're just trying to keep their place safe, keep me from stealing stuff and for other business-related goals, not to try to steal my funds and lock me in a cage, while I do have a problem with gov't surveillance, because robbing, kidnapping, and even killing me are their motives precisely. Surveillance is fine, as long as it is put there by private individuals trying to protect me from crime, rather than a murderous monopoly horde of animals trying to engage in crime against me.

Some sort of unlimited use monthly subscription fee would be another possible business model.

Much revenue could be provided by selling advertising. For some companies, that could conceivably be their primary revenue source, to the point where the vehicles themselves pay nothing (except, probably, for freight haulers).

Other side services, for that matter, could be extremely lucrative. The use of the highway might be provided for free as a loss leader, while revenue is generated by express drive-through restaurants, fueling stations, car washes, amusements, etc. built right into the highway. "To experience the Drive-Through Spam Museum and Laser Show Extravaganza, just pull into Lane 4." This would be similar to how Cornelius Vanderbilt lowered his ferry boat fare to zero and made his money off selling food to the passengers.

Local roads within the commercial districts of cities would, I think, probably usually be funded by the commercial establishments which line those roads These businesses want people to come and patronize them, so providing an attractive and well-maintained road in front of their shop would just be a cost of doing business, much as providing lighting and air conditioning is today (or, even more analogous: providing a parking lot).

Non-arterial residential roads would likely have no tolls, but rather be paid for by an association of residents pooling their funds. This would be the same way gated communities and other semi-autonomous communities, condos, and apartment complexes do it today. Could I be wrong and in fact under freedom every cul-de-sac will set up a toll-gate at the entrance? Yes, it's possible, but I don't think many people are going to want to charge their friends for the privilege of visiting them. I could be anticipating consumer preferences incorrectly.

In summary, long-distance arterial roads seem to lend themselves to be paid for (either directly or indirectly) by those who drive on them, via tolls, subscriptions, advertisements, side services, or a combination, or something else I haven't thought of. Short-distance local road networks seem to lend themselves to being funded by the people who live on them, and the businesses who operate on them. All of this would be done voluntarily, that's the key. And because it would be part of the free market, there would be competition, and free entry, and unlimited innovation, so there would always be pressure to excel and improve and do things better.

[LibertyRevolution]

There were many years I rode a bicycle down the street without an ID. Did they suddenly make a law that says I have to have an ID to ride a bicycle?

You can't ride your bike on a sidewalk, and you cant block traffic..
If you break the law, and don't have ID, your going to get booked and printed..

[pcosmar]

Private police? Bring it on.

Still would love to know how EVERY single road would be private and "tolled" without some kind of GPS/RFID tag. That's a libertarian's conundrum.

Better yet NO POLICE. They should not exist.
The very Concept is contrary to Liberty.

http://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/cops.htm


The Constitution contains no explicit provisions for criminal law enforcement. Nor did the constitutions of any of the several states contain such provisions at the time of the Founding. Early constitutions enunciated the intention that law enforcement was a universal duty that each person owed to the community, rather than a power of the government. Founding-era constitutions addressed law enforcement from the standpoint of individual liberties and placed explicit barriers upon the state.

You have no right to demand that I identify myself to you.
You can ask, and if I chose to. I will. But you have no right to demand anything of me.
Neither do your hired thugs.

Police are an Authoritarian Construct.



authoritarian
 
adjective
1.
favoring complete obedience or subjection to authority as opposed to individual freedom: authoritarian principles; authoritarian attitudes.
2.
of or pertaining to a governmental or political system, principle, or practice in which individual freedom is held as completely subordinate to the power or authority of the state, centered either in one person or a small group that is not constitutionally accountable to the people.
3.
exercising complete or almost complete control over the will of another or of others: an authoritarian parent.
noun
4.
a person who favors or acts according to authoritarian principles.

[GunnyFreedom]

I just want to know if I am required to have ID whenever I am in public.

That varies from state to state. Unfortunately it is difficult to list the state by state requirements because some states pretend that it is required while by statute it is not (Texas, New York, Louisiana?) other states it is neither required by statute nor do the police pretend that it is (North Carolina, New Hampshire) and finally in a few states I am pretty sure that it is required by statute (Arizona, Indiana, Nevada, Ohio, Louisiana?)

Many states have a 'requirement to identify ones self' or allow police to 'demand a person identify themselves' with a varying degree of punishment for noncompliance, these statutes are usually satisfied however with verbal identification. New Hampshire, for instance, allows their police to arrest people for failure to identify themselves, but statutorily the 'crime' is tied to loitering, and I assume was originally an attempt to crack down on robberies.

[Simple]

According to Terry v. Ohio you are not requires to provide ID unless the police suspect you of committing a crime. When the cops asked for the woman's ID she asked why she was being asked for ID and the cop told her that she would find out. The police should be able to identify the crime. When the guy was asked for ID and he just yelled, "No!," that can be interpreted with failure to comply.

[Dr.3D]

That varies from state to state. Unfortunately it is difficult to list the state by state requirements because some states pretend that it is required while by statute it is not (Texas, New York, Louisiana?) other states it is neither required by statute nor do the police pretend that it is (North Carolina, New Hampshire) and finally in a few states I am pretty sure that it is required by statute (Arizona, Indiana, Nevada, Ohio, Louisiana?)

Many states have a 'requirement to identify ones self' or allow police to 'demand a person identify themselves' with a varying degree of punishment for noncompliance, these statutes are usually satisfied however with verbal identification. New Hampshire, for instance, allows their police to arrest people for failure to identify themselves, but statutorily the 'crime' is tied to loitering, and I assume was originally an attempt to crack down on robberies.

So little 15 year old Bobby Smith rides his bicycle down the street and some cop decides to ask him for his ID and the kid not having one is arrested?

[kcchiefs6465]

According to Terry v. Ohio you are not requires to provide ID unless the police suspect you of committing a crime. When the cops asked for the woman's ID she asked why she was being asked for ID and the cop told her that she would find out. The police should be able to identify the crime. When the guy was asked for ID and he just yelled, "No!," that can be interpreted with failure to comply.
In Florida there is apparently a statute that requires you to show ID if you are at 'the scene of the crime.'

[pcosmar]

In Florida there is apparently a statute that requires you to show ID if you are at 'the scene of the crime.'

That would be pretty much everywhere.
:(

[kcchiefs6465]

That would be pretty much everywhere.
:(
I meant, "at the scene of a crime." Not, "at the scene of the crime." I don't believe Ohio has a law that forces you to identify yourself if you witness a crime. Then again, it wouldn't surprise me one bit if they did.

[pcosmar]

I meant, "at the scene of a crime."


And I meant .."everything is a crime" Anything is a "crime".

So anywhere, anytime is the scene of a crime.

:(

[LibertyRevolution]

So little 15 year old Bobby Smith rides his bicycle down the street and some cop decides to ask him for his ID and the kid not having one is arrested?

If he was riding on the sidewalk, or blocking traffic, or something else, then yes little bobby's parents would be picking him up from the local PD.

I have been in this situation.. I was 14, it was 2am, I was on a bike, no ID. I got my first ride in the back of a police car.
Charged with, nothing.. They called my mother to pick me up. She was angry at the cops for making her come pic me up.
Soon as we got off property she made me ride my bike all the way home as punishment for making her wake up and get me.

And no, there are no curfew laws in my town. I was stopped and picked up for "suspicious activity"..
I guess riding your bike as a teen at night = must be looking to rob someone in cop...

[satchelmcqueen]

i hope they sue the department for all they have.

[mike6623]

You are aware, that in some states (not sure about this one) that providing a name or ID IS required. Nothing else though. If that is the case then when you are pulled over, when the police ask to see ID, they'd be breaking the law.

[mike6623]

According to Terry v. Ohio you are not requires to provide ID unless the police suspect you of committing a crime. When the cops asked for the woman's ID she asked why she was being asked for ID and the cop told her that she would find out. The police should be able to identify the crime. When the guy was asked for ID and he just yelled, "No!," that can be interpreted with failure to comply.

That is the tricky part. If the police "suspect" you of a crime. Suspicion is not always provable. They cay we suspect this of happening. It doesn't say there needs to be evidence of a crime, or witnessing a crime. The cops can say we smell marijuana, even if they don't....they thought they did=suspicion. You are fucked unless you have $$$ to get an attoney and fight it in court. The police get to say what is suspicious and what is not

Terry V. Ohio...these guys were simply walking on a corner "acting suspicous". They were searched and arrested for having a gun. All courts help up the conviction. So, all the police have to say is that they had suspicion that you were doing something, ready to do something, or already did something illegal.

[unknown]

They were punks for acting like a couple of blowhard nazi's with their "papers" BS. All that does is put you in their jurisdiction. Do not show them ID unless it is entirely merited. The SCOTUS have already ruled on this. Any cops pushing are pushing against SCOTUS decisions.

That being said I hope above quoted poster gets his ass kicked or jacked to the jailhouse by cops for nothing someday. Serve him right for thinking uniformed control freak bullies have any right under God to pull such BS hogtying of the public for asking an entirely legitimate question. The mouthy cop didn't even have pubic hair for fuxaches.

Rev9

I'm likin this.