TexasCHLforum.com

cb1000rider wrote:Because they manage to arrest a lot of people with outstanding warrants, etc just by "contact" as part of an investigation. I don't know how many reports I've read that start with "contact" and end in an arrest due to an outstanding warrant.

And if those people with warrants don't know their rights or wish to waive those rights, more power to them, but it doesn't work in their benefit. I'm not advocating running from the law, I'm advocating flexing your rights. If an officer asks to search my vehicle, I'm going to tell him no. Not because I have anything illegal in my car, but because I'm not required to help him find things to arrest me for. Same premise applies to identification.

cb1000rider wrote:In my experience, if an officer is talking to you about an incident, they ask for ID, even if you're just a "witness". It's likely department policy... Without the tin-foil hat, it's a good way to make sure they get your name right in case they need your account in the future. I don't see any reason to stir something up in these circumstances, do you?

I haven't tried saying "no" - but I'm sure it will be looked at suspiciously.

There's no tin foil hat involved here, and the mere mention of such to degrade the opposing argument shows an inherent lack of respect for human rights.

I don't understand how people can be selective of which rights they support, and which ones they don't. We're all here because we obviously support the 2nd Amendment, but every other part of the Constitution is just as important. If I'm not doing anything wrong, there should be no need for the government to identify me. If I am doing something wrong, they have the right to arrest me and identify me in the process.

Charlies.Contingency wrote: If you would like to accuse me of not agreeing with MY rights, you are sadly mistaken.

I didn't accuse you of anything, no need to get defensive. My comments were not directed at any single person, I was just addressing the popular opinion here.

I fully support anyone who refuses to show ID to an officer when they're not arrested, pulled over, or being written a citation.

You shouldn't have to "present your papers" on demand.

Just as it's your right to refuse to consent to searches, it's your right to refuse to identify yourself to an officer.

Why does an officer need to identify you if you're not arrested or cited anyways? So he can make sure you're not a felon? Does he have reason to believe you're a felon? The presence of a gun, when lawfully carried, cannot be the sole purpose of a detention. I support our police, but I support our Constitutional rights even more. Even though you may not agree with some rights, that doesn't make them any less important.

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

mr1337 wrote:Perhaps the most disgusting thing in the video is the cop trying to, or threatening to delete the video.

The guy needs to brush up on the 1st and 2nd Amendments, as well as the 4th.

Its only a threat if he can't do it. Thats why the new body cameras have to be immune to this. Its my understanding that, in some departments having issues, obtaining camera footage of an event is difficult because often the camera was never turned...not functioning, etc.

"Not functioning" (emphasis on the quotes)

Perhaps the most disgusting thing in the video is the cop trying to, or threatening to delete the video.

The guy needs to brush up on the 1st and 2nd Amendments, as well as the 4th.