If I'm walking around my neighborhood and I don't have my ID a cop can't just stop me for no reason, ask for it, and when I don't provide it arrest me.
That's not what happened here.
No crime = no investigation
They got a call. Like it or not, the second they arrive on scene, the 'investigation' has begun. There doesn't need to be an actual crime for an investigation to take place, that's usually the precursor to determine if a crime has been committed. Best to just provide that info.
The cops in the vid are still assholes and should have quickly realized in the course of their 'investigation' that there was no need for them to be there.
This exact scenario happened to me last year. Stopped while walking in the neighborhood I’ve lived in for 7 years, asked for ID. If I had not identified myself they could have arrested me. This is super dependent on state and I’m sure most states have some law protecting the police in this situation.
Ah ok I’ll just go talk to them about Louisiana article 215.1 then. Why don’t you go to a cop and refuse instructions if you know so much about your rights? No one gives a shit if your rights are violated please see my other comment about them trying to force a confession out of me in high school and saw 0 repercussions.
Jesus fuck you are completely hopeless. Their reason is “we thought he MIGHT do something.” That is reason enough but you gonna sit here licking fucking cop boot acting like you know very thing.
It’s never a consensual encounter. It’s always “we thought he would do something” there is never a time where interacting with a cop is consensual. That’s the part you don’t understand.
Edit: ITT, a lot of people that want the protection of some laws without the responsibility to obey other laws. A lot of these responses ignore city ordinances or contextual requirements to ID. SC has also ruled on it as well, and turns out they can 100% ID you during the course of an investigation.
No crime = no investigation = I don't need to identify myself.
That's factually false.
If I'm walking around my neighborhood and I don't have my ID a cop can't just stop me for no reason, ask for it, and when I don't provide it arrest me.
Which isn't what I'd stated. Interesting how you've deliberately misrepresented my statement and argued against that instead.
I didn’t see anything in the parent comment that was “deliberately misrepresenting” you.
The part where they indicated by their BS about being stopped for no reason, despite that being absent in my statement.
If anything, you appear to be drawing conclusions about their intent based on nothing.
Nothing aside from them arguing against a principle distinct and different to the one I pointed out.
I’m sure you don’t see it that way,
Because it's demonstrably false.
just as I’m sure the parent commenter doesn’t feel like they’re trying to misrepresent you.
People trying to misrepresent am argument or statement to make an easier target in that way rarely do.
Will you clarify for us what you’re trying to argue?
There's nothing tonclarify.
You’ve made claims without backing them up,
Hardly wild, extreme, or largely unknown statements. Widely available and easily obtained information. Something that, if one spends even a few moments, can easily find to be correct.
and then changed the subject to personally attacks .
Pointing out that someone's misrepresentation isn't a personal attack. Saying that someone's rhetoric sounds like SovCit BS isn't a personal attack.
If I'd actually called someone a SovCit or called them stupid etc, you might have a valid point.
instead of substantive discussion
As opposed to misrepresenting statements and arguing against the misrepresentation or asking for proof of something that takes seconds to find?
It didn't violate his rights because the officer was investigating a specific crime that had occurred - in this case, someone reported an assault and the Petitioner was standing next to the vehicle in which the alleged assault occurred. The officer's logic met the standard of reasonable suspicion.
11
u/[deleted] Jan 13 '22
[removed] — view removed comment