Stop and identify statutes [on topic]

[cvfd1399 0]

I understand what you posted, but you did not answer my question. Where are all the out of control cases of these statues? You have 23 states and a decade of history of them being in operation, and it's not a full blown pandemic.

Just people like they guy in the previous video making a fool of himself.

[Andy9o8 0]

cvfd1399

I understand what you posted, but you did not answer my question. Where are all the out of control cases of these statues? You have 23 states and a decade of history of them being in operation, and it's not a full blown pandemic.

Just people like they guy in the previous video making a fool of himself.

I didn't say it's a full-blown pandemic (nice try), just that stop & identify laws, in conjunction with their close cousin, stop & frisk policies, have replaced the use and abuse of vagrancy laws to perpetuate the long-standing propensity for police to abuse the Constitution by providing an excuse to use profiling to harass people, and to criminalize non-compliance.

For example, This Article discusses this:

Quote

The nation's various obstruction, "stop and identify" and "stop and frisk" laws are so vague "you can chose to enforce it against whoever you want to," said Jeffrey Fagan, a law professor at Columbia and Yale. "This has severe consequences."

They're also known as "contempt of cop laws" or "cover charges", because police are suspected of using them to punish attitude or justify injurious force.

A Seattle Post Intelligencer investigation two years ago and a New York City probe co-authored by Fagan six years ago found that obstruction and "stop and frisk" laws were substantially targeting blacks over whites.

Several lawyers said even in states where there aren't "stop and identify" laws, abuses occur too frequently.

"The most common times I see it are when someone is injured by a police officer. Or someone flunks the attitude test," said Chanin, who helped write Oakland's police review commission ordinance 38 years ago.

..... Decades ago, the U.S. Supreme Court eliminated similarly vague vagrancy laws with landmark decisions in states like Texas and California, but states replaced them with "stop and identify" or "stop and frisk" laws that in his view still violate constitutional rights, said Fagan.

Or, see this law journal article: Unreasonable seizure: "stop and identify" statutes create an illusion of safety by sacrificing real privacy (criticizing the majority's ruling in Hiibel).

[cvfd1399 0]

Quote

I didn't say it's a full-blown pandemic (nice try)

Ok I figured since you were here attacking it that it was something that needed to be dealt with. So where does it lay on your radar from 0 to Out of Control Cop/Swat team?

Its funny that the OP has disappeared, without even really stating their position on severity of the S/I statutes.

I have laid out my feelings. I could care less if I get asked for my ID. If it goes past that, am I being detained, where is my lawyer, and then clam up.

[DanG 1]

Quote

I could care less if I get asked for my ID.

Snark: I think you meant that you couldn't care less.

Serious response: I don't care if I get asked for my ID either. I do very much care that I can get jailed for refusing to provide it even if I've committed no other crime.

- Dan G

[cvfd1399 0]

DanG

Quote

I could care less if I get asked for my ID.

Snark: I think you meant that you couldn't care less.

Serious response: I don't care if I get asked for my ID either. I do very much care that I can get jailed for refusing to provide it even if I've committed no other crime.

Yea its a common mistake I make when typing it thanks. I usually misspell because also, just a brain block with certain things.

If you dont care about giving your id, then just give it and you wont go to jail, its pretty simple, and other than a conspiracy theory about harassing people its probably used 99% of the time for good, than harassment.

If it ends up that they still take you into custody, well you were probably going to get that regardless if you provided it or not, and now its time to clam up call a lawyer, and let the judge decide. In that case you were probably going to jail anyways, if you refuse to give it your certainly going to jail with a credible charge you cant refute.

[DanG 1]

Quote

If you dont care about giving your id, then just give it and you wont go to jail, its pretty simple, and other than a conspiracy theory about harassing people its probably used 99% of the time for good, than harassment.

Nope, you misunderstood. I don't care if the cops ask for my ID. I never said that I don't care about giving my ID. If I think they are asking for a legitimate purpose, I'll surely provide it willingly. If, however, I think they are just fucking with me or overstepping their authority, I believe I should have the right to remain an anonymous citizen and go on my way. In short, the choice (absent extenuating circumstances like an active search for a criminal) should be mine. It shouldn't be a crime to be walking dowwn the street expect to be left alone.

- Dan G

[billvon 2,400]

> its probably used 99% of the time for good, than harassment.

Well, I'd say that 99% of the time it's not used for harassment, which is a number I'd agree with. But we don't excuse that 1% abuse in other areas of government. We should not meekly submit to its misuse here, either.

The question comes down to - what advantage do we get by allowing a cop to arrest you for not producing ID in the absence of clear criminal activities or intent? I don't see much benefit overall, and as you mention, we know that it is sometimes used for harassment. Given that, what is the societal benefit for giving government that much power over you?

[cvfd1399 0]

DanG

Quote

If you dont care about giving your id, then just give it and you wont go to jail, its pretty simple, and other than a conspiracy theory about harassing people its probably used 99% of the time for good, than harassment.

Nope, you misunderstood. I don't care if the cops ask for my ID. I never said that I don't care about giving my ID. If I think they are asking for a legitimate purpose, I'll surely provide it willingly. If, however, I think they are just fucking with me or overstepping their authority, I believe I should have the right to remain an anonymous citizen and go on my way. In short, the choice (absent extenuating circumstances like an active search for a criminal) should be mine. It shouldn't be a crime to be walking dowwn the street expect to be left alone.

Point taken. If you were being harassed and could articulate that to a judge I wonder if an arrest for failing to identify could be beaten.

[cvfd1399 0]

billvon

> its probably used 99% of the time for good, than harassment.

Well, I'd say that 99% of the time it's not used for harassment, which is a number I'd agree with. But we don't excuse that 1% abuse in other areas of government. We should not meekly submit to its misuse here, either.

The question comes down to - what advantage do we get by allowing a cop to arrest you for not producing ID in the absence of clear criminal activities or intent? I don't see much benefit overall, and as you mention, we know that it is sometimes used for harassment. Given that, what is the societal benefit for giving government that much power over you?

Ok so just like the cop shootings we are now stuck in a situation where we agree that a huge majority of the times a tool that a cop uses is justified and deployed for good. The next question is how often does this tool get used. We both agreed 99% is a good number so how many number of cases does that 1% make up? 100-10,000 a year? I say it's low just like the unjustified cop shootings, and is usually taken care of when exposed. Should never happen in the first place, is not justified, but the good outweighs the bad.

I've never stated this here before but my daughter is mixed race, and her mother has spent half her life in Beaumont, Tx and the rest of her life here in Baton Rouge, La and as a minority has never been subject to anything concerning stop and identify, illegal stop and frisk, or any other cop issues.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Well, I'd say that 99% of the time it's not used for harassment, which is a number I'd agree with.

I wouldn't agree with that, although I presume it's because you and I are focusing on different sets/subsets of statistics. I'm also including "profiling" in addition to pure, malicious harassment. For example:
If you're a black male, especially under age 40, especially if you're in a residential neighborhood that's predominantly white, your chances of getting stopped "Just Because" are certainly more than 1%. Same if you're a young black male doing nothing other than walking, if it's in a poor, high crime neighborhood, because they wanna see if you're carrying or a gang-banger.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

I've never stated this here before but my daughter is mixed race, and her mother has spent half her life in Beaumont, Tx and the rest of her life here in Baton Rouge, La and as a minority has never been subject to anything concerning stop and identify, illegal stop and frisk, or any other cop issues.

I'm not dismissing that, but in all fairness minority males tend to get profile-stopped a good deal more often than minority females.

[billvon 2,400]

>Ok so just like the cop shootings we are now stuck in a situation where we agree that
>a huge majority of the times a tool that a cop uses is justified and deployed for good.

No, we don't agree there. I said that 99% of them were not used for harassment, not that they were used for good. I strongly suspect that those 99% of times a cop asks someone for ID - and absolutely nothing happens, bad or good. The guy is just detained for a few minutes more than he needs to be.

So we've seen a clear case of this statute being abused. Can you provide 9 cases where a cop who demanded ID of someone who was not either suspected of or beginning a crime - and it was justified and used for good? That would be at least a small sample showing that 90% (not even 99%) of the time it's used for good.

>I've never stated this here before but my daughter is mixed race, and her mother has
>spent half her life in Beaumont, Tx and the rest of her life here in Baton Rouge, La and
>as a minority has never been subject to anything concerning stop and identify, illegal
>stop and frisk, or any other cop issues.

Most people haven't. I am sure her rights have never been violated in most ways that have, in the past, identified civil rights abuses against women or minorities. That does not mean that it's OK to overlook those civil rights abuses in others.

Indeed, by the time a cop _does_ do something like this to someone you know or care about, it's generally too late to become an activist to stop such abuses. The damage has been done.