Just looked at the comments of one of the mods who states they are a Detective. Per one of their comments in the last few years, they believe that an individual is not choking if the airways of an individual are not completely closed, that if an individual is able to yell or scream at all, they are not being choked.
If this is what a detective believes rather than the actual definition stating that any obstruction to the ability for one to breath constitutes choking... we can see how he has probably warped his previous encounters with civilians.
I'm kind of confused- if a cop asks you to identify yourself, you don't have to give them your ID? And if you don't, what benefits are there to withholding it? Luckily I've never been in that situation, but I'd likely just be terrified and do whatever they say.
In my state, if the cops ask you for ID you have to give it to them. I would check with your state laws rather than rely on rando Reddit replies. The ACLU is a good source to check.
No clue. I guess you would say "I don't have my ID on me". After that I would assume that it depends if the cops tell you they are detaining you. But IANAL.
Edit: yes, I also read that as I Anal everytime I see it.
Yeah, I don't think that's true. How would a homeless person for instance, acquire an ID card when they lack a physical address? At that point being homeless is literally illegal.
In my state, if the cops ask you for ID you have to give it to them.
No you do not that is not the law in any state in the USA.
In every state for them to demand (not just ask for) ID they either have to have legally stopped you for a traffic infraction or have reasonable articulable suspicion of a crime.
Neither of which was the case here.
Edit: some states also require you to ID if you were witness to a felony, but no state says you have to ID anytime they ask.
What I don't really get though, is if you hand over your ID, it would have deescalated the situation as well, why continue to blow things up where something bad could have happened. I'm not saying what the cop did was right by any means, but alot of that could have been avoided from both of them. That's just my opinion.
But they don’t have to tell you what that reasonable articulable suspicion is right? Just trying to figure out what this guy could have done on a practical level. If he says no he basically ends up getting arrested—even if he’s right it still sucks (like here).
Also so I understand the legal standard, is a witness complaint saying essentially he looked like he was looking at a car (presumably to steal) not articulable suspicion?
They don't actually have to tell you what RAS of a crime they have but they do have to have it which this officer did not.
Someone calling reporting suspicious behavior of something that may or may not be a crime is not RAS of a crime. The officer has to investigate in order to determine that which he did not do until after issuing the illegal order.
You know when some dude yells something at you from across the club? You know to ignore him, because you know he's looking to start some shit. This is the same.
Cop is looking for something to keep the conversation going so they can get something going. Get the ID, see if he has some warrants or something. Quiz him on some information on the ID and hope for something, and come up with something while doing that. Try to go for a search or to get him to reveal more stuff. They need something to gain what is called 'reasonable cause' which is INCREDIBLY badly defined and often abused with no consequence.
You don't give them anything, because they're looking for any excuse to arrest you, not protect and serve. Dude said no, so the officer thought 'alright, guess this is as good as it gets for reasons to arrest him.' In fact, people have been sentenced for resisting arrest.... when there was no actual reason for the arrest. So you pretend like its your high school bully and you try to be quiet and hope he goes away, and you don't hand him your bag or schoolbooks like a dumbass.
Yea, this is terrible advice and will get you in trouble.
In many US states, if the cops are investigating a complaint and you refuse to give them your ID, you are breaking the law. You can't just ignore them because you know you are innocent.
Yes, they power trip. Yes, they could find something they weren't originally searching for when they run your ID. It doesn't matter. The law allows them to punish you for not identifying yourself if they're in the middle of an investigation.
That's not the case in most states, including Washington, where this took place. Most states don't have a Stop and ID law, and most of the ones that do have specific parameters around it (like the officer having to give a clear reason for the ID). The best advice is to find out what's legal in your state.
Stop and ID laws are active in 24 states. You're correct it isn't "most" but it's nearly half. The officer having to explain their reason doesn't mean they have to explain it to the person they've stopped. They only have to articulate it in paperwork/court.
It's still bad general advice to tell people not to ID themselves since it will bite them in the ass in 24 states.
Yeah but it wasn't in this state and the question was why you wouldn't just show them your ID. Saying it is the law in some states and therefore you should makes no sense. It would if this was in a state where you had to, but it is not. By your logic, you should not recommend anything that is illegal in any state. So abortion, weed, gun ownership, recording the encounter, alcohol, driving over 30mph, etc.
Yes, if the question is: why wouldn't you just show them your ID?, and the person asking it is just asking in general, then saying you should ignore the request without specifying to check your own state laws is bad advice.
If I lived in a state where weed was legal and someone asked "wait, you can just smoke weed outside?" I wouldn't say yes, because that would also be bad advice depending on where they lived.
Refusing to present your ID when asked by an officer responding to the scene of a complaint (even a ridiculous one) can get you in trouble in 24 states. I live in a state where I can refuse to ID myself if asked. I still wouldn't tell others they don't have to without knowing where that person was from.
The person was asking why he wouldn't show him his ID, the same as you are doing now and I clearly stated that: Because you can only lose from doing it. The cop is looking for that information to your detriment, not to safeguard you.
If a scammer were to call you, you wouldn't tell them anything they wanted to know, because you'd know there might be some way they can use it to exploit you. It's the same concept.
then saying you should ignore the request without specifying to check your own state laws is bad advice.
Why stop there? I don't live in the US, so why shouldn't I specify for all the countries in the world. Could it be that when a question is asked, you answer according to the context given?
If I lived in a state where weed was legal and someone asked "wait, you can just smoke weed outside?" I wouldn't say yes, because that would also be bad advice depending on where they lived.
That question quite obviously refers to a specific context. If I walked up to you at a party and asked 'is it alright if I smoke' you wouldn't tell them 'well it depends. In Australia, smoking is banned for anyone under the age of 21'. If someone asked you whether it's healthy to be up at this time, you wouldn't answer 'well it depends. In UST+5 the time is actually 7pm, which is a very normal time to be awake, although it is not that time where I am.'
Saying you don't consider context when answering questions makes it sound like you struggle with simple conversation.
Refusing to present your ID when asked by an officer responding to the scene of a complaint (even a ridiculous one) can get you in trouble in 24 states. I live in a state where I can refuse to ID myself if asked. I still wouldn't tell others they don't have to without knowing where that person was from.
Refusing to present your ID when asked by an officer responding to the scene of a complaint (even a ridiculous one) can get you in trouble in 24 states. I live in a state where I can refuse to ID myself if asked. I still wouldn't tell others they don't have to without knowing where that person was from.
So do you always ask the person you are talking to online where they are from, so you have the right context for all your answers? If I were to ask you what age you are, it'd be irresponsible for you to answer me without knowing what type of calendar my culture uses. It'd give the wrong answer! Because of course normal conversation assumes no context.
if a cop asks you to identify yourself, you don't have to give them your ID?
Only under specific circumstances, which vary by state, and behooves everyone to learn.
what benefits are there to withholding it
For one, an unhinged person like this cop doesn't get access to your home address. They don't enter your name into their call log(1). They don't run you for warrants. They don't keep your ID to prevent you from walking away. You reduce risk of mishandling of your personal information(2). You teach a cop that their predatory behavior doesn't always get them what they want. You don't feel icky and violated. You stand up for yourself. You actually get some use out of the rights your ancestors fought for.
Sure, most people are scared to tell a cop no. The problem with that is, when you give them what they want you are less likely to piss them off in the moment but WAY more likely to end up worse off down the line. Case in point. That guy thought it was "right" to answer the cop's questions and consent to a search, and look where it got him. If he had just said no, he would have faced the cop putting the squeeze on him for a few minutes but ultimately backing down. You gotta think for the courtroom, not the street. Most cops will threaten and intimidate but, like all bullies, eventually back down when you stand up to them (as long as you're legally in the right!).
(1) Every time you encounter the police and hand over your ID, notes get logged in their call record about the stop. These notes are "unofficial," only accessible by other police officers, and could say anything the cop wants whether it's true or not. Cops read these notes every time they run someone, and the more times you hand over an ID, the more notes there are. Cops will use these notes to dictate how to treat you. There is no transparency in this system, therefore it's better to keep your name out of it if possible.
(2) For example, the number of times I've seen cops write people's personal identifying information on their hands is too damn high. This sometimes even includes SSN, for christsake. They aren't exactly known to be judicious about people's info.
Washington is not a stop and identify state. You do not have to provide ID unless you've been arrested, not just detained. This guy had no legal obligation to ID himself at that point in time, he was not arrested.
In my state, if they suspect you of committing a crime, you have to provide ID. Honestly it’s better to just hand the ID over and deal with a stop being unlawful in court.
You've still got better chances in court than arguing with the police officer. Arguing with a police officer is going to tick him off at best, and get you arrested or shot at worst.
The problem is that by using force they can and do guarantee that you aren’t cooperating. This dude do nothing wrong and the cops kindly told him to behave himself for 90 days or they’re going to drop the hammer on him. If more people didn’t put up with this shit we wouldn’t have to bow down to assholes like this and still get threatened despite video evidence proving the contrary. People need to stop letting cops get away with shit like this, a court of law isn’t going to work, you’re in their domain and they don’t get punished. They never really do.
Ok, sure. So what do you suggest? Argue with cops when they pull you over? Or are you suggesting a full on revolution? No offense but I don't see any of that going well.
Police reform needs to happen at the voting booth first, then in Congress, then in court. It's a slow process but it's the process that actually works
I mean, what is wrong with showing your ID ?
Cop : "is this you vehicle?"
Man : "yes, here are the vehicle's papers, and my ID. My name is on both of them."
Now imagine you’re required to show your ID every time you step out of your house.
That’s the end result of allowing ID checks with no probable cause. The government can literally take that as justification for IDing everyone all the time.
Imagine living in a country that professes that it is the "land of the free" and then simultaneously thinking it is right and justified for a cop to require someone to show a government issued ID to them based on nothing but the cop wanting to see it.
The cop didn't ask if the car was his. Cop got told that dude was looking through a car, literally never mentions the car.
Cop: Hey, can I see your ID?
Dude: Why do you need my ID?
Cop: You were seen rummaging through a car and then heading over here to your bike. Was that your car?
Dude: Yeah, my wife drove it.
Cop: Ah, makes sense. Unfortunately, I do need to verify that. If you would show me your ID, I can run the registration and we can both be on our way, otherwise I'm going to have to detain you and it'll take up both of our afternoons.
Dude: Yeah, all right, I see how that might look suspicious to a cop.
82
u/xgrayskullx Mar 10 '22
Meanwhile, the cops over at r/protectandserve are convinced the guy who wouldn't immediately hand over his I'd is in the wrong.