Community > Politics, Current News & Events

Topic: This turned my stomach
daniel48706 Joined Fri 03/16/07 Posts: 8566	Wed 05/21/08 05:22 AM
Because my fourth assures me that I have a right to not be subjected to unreasonable searches and Seizures. By giving this stupid card out, we will be one step from seeing the "Show me your papers" Authoritarianism enacted right here in this country. Stupid cards aren't going to stop illegal immigration anyways, those things aren't fool proof and can be acquired via illegal means. Amendment IV. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Now, do we the people get decide what is reasonable or are we just going to let Government make that call... It all depends on how much you value this particular amendment, it's not like things like no knock search warrants and sneak and peek haven't eroded it already. Ok, so as long as the officer in question has a reason to ask you for id, then it is not unreasonable. Remember folks, it is perfectly legal for a cop to stop cars at random and ask for proof of license, registraion and insurance, without having a reason other than they have not stopped someone in a while. That being the case, there woudl be no illegality of doing it when you are not driving. Andyou are right war, nothing is full proof. Even if we were to go the route of putting to death all illegal aliens when found, they would still keep coming. So we have to do what we can with what we have available without losing site of our own beliefs and humanity. operating a vehicle is not a constitutional right, there is a huge difference. You give up that right to not produce id when you get behind the wheel. He who would trade freedom for security deserves neither. who said that again? Benjamin Franklin said it as you well know. And I agree with that statement. What I do not agree with however is the idea that you are giving up any type of freedom by being required to produce a legal id card if asked while out in public. Having said id card on you does not prohibit you from doing anything you would normally do if you did not have it. It does not prevent you from being able to go out and have a beer (provided you are legal age, lol). It does not prevent you fromgoing to a block party. It does not prevent you from going out to dinner or to hte movies, or to the beach. If you can name one right it would prevent, then I will drop the entire debate imediately. And fair warnign, the fourth amendmant is not violated by haviong a card on you, so long as the officer inquestio has a legitimate reason for asking for it (which could be as simple as showqing proof that you have the legal right to be where you are at; i.e in a bar). Good Luck. I disagree, The Amendment clearly states that I have the right to be secure in my papers and effects from unreasonable searches and seizures. It's not the having the card on me, that would violate the fourth, it's the idea that a public servant would have the authority to demand I present one on command. Land of the free, not home of the slave. Once again it comes down to what is or isn't unreasonable and who gets to make that call. As I said earlier, if he just walked up and indiscriminately asked you to produce it without there being a need, then yes that would be harrasment, and thus worng. However, if he had a reason to see your id, and there are too many to even begin counting in here, then it would not be worng to ask for it. Let's use the topic of this thread as an example. The officer responded to a 911 call. Right now, you are stating that she did not have to produce her id card when he asked. I believe yes she should have been required (even though she did so voluntarily). By being required to show the id, it would have helped the officer determine wether or not the issue at hand was one of public drunkenness (as an example) or more of a domestic dispute that got carried outside of the home. So yes, it should be legal for you to be required to show id on request. Any law is capable of being abused by its enforcers. To say something should nt be law,simply because it could be abused, is simply ignorant. On that note, I also feel that any officer found to have abused his post even once should at a minimum have a 6 month suspension without pay form his job,; depending on the abuse autoimatic termination and possible jail time. This would help keep officers honest.

warmachine Joined Tue 04/08/08 Posts: 4528	Wed 05/21/08 07:30 AM Edited by warmachine on Wed 05/21/08 07:31 AM
What you're ignoring is that there are already penalties on the books for cops that abuse their given authority, but you can't hardly get them enforced. By giving any public servant the power to demand Identification at the drop of hat, is opening the door for all kinds of abuse that I doubt you could get punishments enforced for at all, let alone on every case where it's necessary. Which is why the Fourth was written, the founding fathers had to deal with this kind of thing from King Georges men and it's a slippery slope from that, to just chipping everybody. In this case, the officers had responded to a 9-11 call, so yes, they had the authority to look at her ID, the issue was when she produced an ID, it was the keepsake of her dead sister, not her actual ID, then it went from bad to worse when a bunch of Male Cops thought it'd be okay to forcefully remove this womans clothing. My fourth however protects me from having to submit to some officer just randomly deciding that he wants to see who I am, I do not have to comply with that and if the officer wants to take it too far, I'll sue the spit out of him, not just the city, him personally for abusing his power trusted to him by the citizens and for violating my 4th. In fact some constitutionalists would say, if someone was intent on violating your 4th, then it would be time to excercise your 2nd.

Single_Rob Joined Mon 02/04/08 Posts: 8233	Wed 05/21/08 07:50 AM
What you're ignoring is that there are already penalties on the books for cops that abuse their given authority, but you can't hardly get them enforced. By giving any public servant the power to demand Identification at the drop of hat, is opening the door for all kinds of abuse that I doubt you could get punishments enforced for at all, let alone on every case where it's necessary. Which is why the Fourth was written, the founding fathers had to deal with this kind of thing from King Georges men and it's a slippery slope from that, to just chipping everybody. In this case, the officers had responded to a 9-11 call, so yes, they had the authority to look at her ID, the issue was when she produced an ID, it was the keepsake of her dead sister, not her actual ID, then it went from bad to worse when a bunch of Male Cops thought it'd be okay to forcefully remove this womans clothing. My fourth however protects me from having to submit to some officer just randomly deciding that he wants to see who I am, I do not have to comply with that and if the officer wants to take it too far, I'll sue the spit out of him, not just the city, him personally for abusing his power trusted to him by the citizens and for violating my 4th. In fact some constitutionalists would say, if someone was intent on violating your 4th, then it would be time to excercise your 2nd. every right and freedom we have hinges off of the second amendment

daniel48706 Joined Fri 03/16/07 Posts: 8566	Wed 05/21/08 09:25 AM
then it went from bad to worse when a bunch of Male Cops thought it'd be okay to forcefully remove this womans clothing. you are conveniently forgetting, not a single male officer removed her clothing. them,ale officers present only held her down, and in doing that, they only applied the neccesary force to do so in order to prevent harm or injury to her. The female officers present were the ones to remove the clothes. Also kjeep in mind parts of the story are missing. The oficers asked her if she had thought about hurting herself, and she got smartmouthed about it. Why do you think they asked her if she was a danger to herself? Maybe part of the missing story is that she is suicidal? just a suggestin there. And if thats the case, then the cops were more thanresponsible in asking her if she thought to hurt herself, then making sure she couldnt when she refused to answer them. Ask my ex, if you are picked up on a safety (in other words you are picked up because yhou threatened yourself) then at least in some states, Florida being one of them, it is completely legal to be subjected to a strip and body cavity search, in order to make sure you dont have,s ay a razor blade, hiddensomewhere. I have not made specific referance to this particular article due to the fact that so much is missing fromt he story that anything can be guessed at by this point. But seeing as you brought up the officers stripping her, I had to show you the other side of the missing information possibility.

daniel48706 Joined Fri 03/16/07 Posts: 8566	Wed 05/21/08 09:28 AM Edited by daniel48706 on Wed 05/21/08 09:29 AM
What you're ignoring is that there are already penalties on the books for cops that abuse their given authority, but you can't hardly get them enforced. By giving any public servant the power to demand Identification at the drop of hat, is opening the door for all kinds of abuse that I doubt you could get punishments enforced for at all, let alone on every case where it's necessary. Which is why the Fourth was written, the founding fathers had to deal with this kind of thing from King Georges men and it's a slippery slope from that, to just chipping everybody. In this case, the officers had responded to a 9-11 call, so yes, they had the authority to look at her ID, the issue was when she produced an ID, it was the keepsake of her dead sister, not her actual ID, then it went from bad to worse when a bunch of Male Cops thought it'd be okay to forcefully remove this womans clothing. My fourth however protects me from having to submit to some officer just randomly deciding that he wants to see who I am, I do not have to comply with that and if the officer wants to take it too far, I'll sue the spit out of him, not just the city, him personally for abusing his power trusted to him by the citizens and for violating my 4th. In fact some constitutionalists would say, if someone was intent on violating your 4th, then it would be time to excercise your 2nd. By exercising your second, I believe you mean oyour riht tobear arms, right? Well I promise you if you pulled a gun on an officer because he threatened to arrest you for not showing your id, you not only would go to prison, you would lose your 2nd amendment rights for as very long time. The onl y time you have the right to "bear arms" against a fellow human being, is if it is indirect reaction to someone else bearing arms against you. In order to protect your life not your perceived liberties and rights. You can also do so in order to protect another person, excuse me.

warmachine Joined Tue 04/08/08 Posts: 4528	Wed 05/21/08 09:28 AM
Where I live, if male cops were even watching that take place, then disciplinary actions could follow and the bible belt would have come unglued! I think we are going to disagree about the 4th, which is fine, but I lean towards strictly adhering to that Grand Document, without it we are in trouble.

daniel48706 Joined Fri 03/16/07 Posts: 8566	Wed 05/21/08 09:31 AM
Where I live, if male cops were even watching that take place, then disciplinary actions could follow and the bible belt would have come unglued! I think we are going to disagree about the 4th, which is fine, but I lean towards strictly adhering to that Grand Document, without it we are in trouble. Oh I agree with doing everything in our power to protect the idea behind the constitution. As you say, without it, we are nothing. But like you also said, I doubt we will come into agreement (at least in this case) abotu the fourth amendment, seeing as it can be looked at in so many different views. Which is why, thankfully, we have constitutional lawyers; lawyers whose only job is to study and describe what the constitution actually means. This way, it is our job to argue about it, but their jobs to figure it all out

Single_Rob Joined Mon 02/04/08 Posts: 8233	Wed 05/21/08 09:34 AM
then it went from bad to worse when a bunch of Male Cops thought it'd be okay to forcefully remove this womans clothing. you are conveniently forgetting, not a single male officer removed her clothing. them,ale officers present only held her down, and in doing that, they only applied the neccesary force to do so in order to prevent harm or injury to her. The female officers present were the ones to remove the clothes. Also kjeep in mind parts of the story are missing. The oficers asked her if she had thought about hurting herself, and she got smartmouthed about it. Why do you think they asked her if she was a danger to herself? Maybe part of the missing story is that she is suicidal? just a suggestin there. And if thats the case, then the cops were more thanresponsible in asking her if she thought to hurt herself, then making sure she couldnt when she refused to answer them. Ask my ex, if you are picked up on a safety (in other words you are picked up because yhou threatened yourself) then at least in some states, Florida being one of them, it is completely legal to be subjected to a strip and body cavity search, in order to make sure you dont have,s ay a razor blade, hiddensomewhere. I have not made specific referance to this particular article due to the fact that so much is missing fromt he story that anything can be guessed at by this point. But seeing as you brought up the officers stripping her, I had to show you the other side of the missing information possibility. Let us break this down to the known elements; She was arrested after calling 911 for help herself She handed the police someone elses id She became hysterical over the police oficers refusal to return her dead sisters id She was then arrested for disorderly conduct because of this Disorderly conduct is a misdemeanor Midemeanos do not require a person be removed of their articles of clothing unless believed to be in possession of drugs, weapons, etc and a threat to themselves or others. When asked if she ever thought about killing herself she was smug, but not verbally abusive. The officers did not ask for clarification to the answer, they forced her to the ground and stripped her. The department has a clear poicy detailing that men not be a party to another genders strip search. God forbid your daughter ever calls the police for help. God help you if the tables are turned. They will lose their ass, and rightly so. POlice are there to enforce the law, not judge, not interpret, not let their emotions get the better of them. I am sorry for you that you feel the way you do on this matter.

daniel48706 Joined Fri 03/16/07 Posts: 8566	Wed 05/21/08 09:44 AM
Midemeanos do not require a person be removed of their articles of clothing unless believed to be in possession of drugs, weapons, etc and a threat to themselves or others. When asked if she ever thought about killing herself she was smug, but not verbally abusive and you still do not know why they asked her about her past as far as wanting to hurt herself. Maybe they were told she had threatened to hurt herself, which is why there was the conflict between her and the other family member (the other one trying to remove, say a knife). There is too much unknown to be able ot say for certain what exactly happened, which means there is room for benefit of the doubt. This means that if it were to go ont rial, just with what you and I saw i nthe video, it would be thrown out for lack of evidence.

Single_Rob Joined Mon 02/04/08 Posts: 8233	Wed 05/21/08 09:50 AM
Midemeanos do not require a person be removed of their articles of clothing unless believed to be in possession of drugs, weapons, etc and a threat to themselves or others. When asked if she ever thought about killing herself she was smug, but not verbally abusive and you still do not know why they asked her about her past as far as wanting to hurt herself. Maybe they were told she had threatened to hurt herself, which is why there was the conflict between her and the other family member (the other one trying to remove, say a knife). There is too much unknown to be able ot say for certain what exactly happened, which means there is room for benefit of the doubt. This means that if it were to go ont rial, just with what you and I saw i nthe video, it would be thrown out for lack of evidence. lol, it is in there why they asked her that question. They asked her because she was in a hysterical state over her sisters id not being returned, and being arrested after she called for help. I am still waiting for an apology, or backing over this required id thing, and where you did your combat service

daniel48706 Joined Fri 03/16/07 Posts: 8566	Wed 05/21/08 10:04 AM
well, the video is no longer available, I just tried to go back and rewatch it for verification. I do nto remember it being stated she was asked for her id due to being hysterical, but without being able to rewatch it I cant say for certain. You will not get an apology from me unless I do something you deserve an apology for. As far as it goes, why dont you try and provide me the information you know I am looking for? You start researching each state, and get the facts on each one, as I am doing little by little. When we get done, we can compare notes. If your information proves me wrong, I will retract my belief that in some states it is legal to demand id in public. As far as where I did my service, I told you before, I dont talk about it aus eit is no concern to this discussion, and there is no reason for me to "prove myself" to you or nayone else, as far as my service record goes. You can either except that I served, or you dont accpet it. Choice is yours.

Single_Rob Joined Mon 02/04/08 Posts: 8233	Wed 05/21/08 02:27 PM
As far as where I did my service, I told you before, I dont talk about it aus eit is no concern to this discussion, and there is no reason for me to "prove myself" to you or nayone else, as far as my service record goes. You can either except that I served, or you dont accpet it. Choice is yours. Well I don't believe you, sorry. You outright called me a liar, but hey I was man enough to admit I was "wrong", guess some just cannot accept that.

daniel48706 Joined Fri 03/16/07 Posts: 8566	Wed 05/21/08 02:37 PM
As far as where I did my service, I told you before, I dont talk about it aus eit is no concern to this discussion, and there is no reason for me to "prove myself" to you or nayone else, as far as my service record goes. You can either except that I served, or you dont accpet it. Choice is yours. Well I don't believe you, sorry. You outright called me a liar, but hey I was man enough to admit I was "wrong", guess some just cannot accept that. When did I "outright call you a liar"? Ijust went back through the entire post, and not once did I call you a liar.