OC confronted by police - Page 2
Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 74

Thread: OC confronted by police

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Colorado Rocky Mountain High
    Posts
    3,900
    Quote Originally Posted by SGB View Post
    That's not in Florida and if open carry is legal wherever it occurred then yes the LEO where wrong.

    That's what I thought but all the comments say it's in Dade County which is about as deep into FLA as you can get. But those don't look like FLA Sheriff's Dept. uniforms

    Quote Originally Posted by BC1 View Post
    The police have the right to ask anyone for ID. If you don't provide it you may be taken into custody to determine if you have any warrants. Refusal to provide an ID is proper grounds regardless of the gun issue. He can be detained for obstruction. This a$$hat has been told six or seven times to produce ID and he can go. My head hurts from shaking it in disbelief.
    Clearly, you're already getting the spanking you so richly deserve but I'll just add you might want to google Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada.
    See, it's mumbo jumbo like that and skinny little lizards like you thinking they the last dragon that gives Kung Fu a bad name.
    http://www.gunrightsmedia.com/ Internet forum dedicated to second amendment

  2.   
  3. Quote Originally Posted by Oldgrunt View Post
    From some of the information I have garnered, even the state of Washington can impose a fine of up to $500, up to 30 days in jail and up to 6 months probation for failure to identify.
    Post the RCW! Here, let me post it for you just to so easily show how, ummmm.... erroneous your information is:

    RCW 7.80.060: Person receiving notice

    RCW 7.80.060
    Person receiving notice Identification and detention.


    A person who is to receive a notice of civil infraction under RCW 7.80.050 is required to identify himself or herself to the enforcement officer by giving his or her name, address, and date of birth. Upon the request of the officer, the person shall produce reasonable identification, including a driver's license or identicard.

    A person who is unable or unwilling to reasonably identify himself or herself to an enforcement officer may be detained for a period of time not longer than is reasonably necessary to identify the person for purposes of issuing a civil infraction.

    Each agency authorized to issue civil infractions shall adopt rules on identification and detention of persons committing civil infractions.
    Now, just where is the jail sentence and fine?
    Anyone who says, "I support the 2nd amendment, BUT"... doesn't. Element of Surprise: a mythical element that many believe has the same affect upon criminals that Kryptonite has upon Superman.

  4. #13
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Tallahassee Florida
    Posts
    1,877
    Quote Originally Posted by BC1 View Post
    The police have the right to ask anyone for ID. If you don't provide it you may be taken into custody to determine if you have any warrants. Refusal to provide an ID is proper grounds regardless of the gun issue. He can be detained for obstruction. This a$$hat has been told six or seven times to produce ID and he can go. My head hurts from shaking it in disbelief.
    Complete and total BS. It's very irresponsible of you to be spreading such misinformation around.

    "It's easier to avoid conflict than it is to survive it" - SGB

  5. This is what we, the people, need to start doing:

    Anyone who says, "I support the 2nd amendment, BUT"... doesn't. Element of Surprise: a mythical element that many believe has the same affect upon criminals that Kryptonite has upon Superman.

  6. #15
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Tacoma, Washington
    Posts
    475
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLT View Post
    This is what we, the people, need to start doing:

    LOL, NavyLT now only if I had the balls to do that. Some of the police in Washington drive in the carpool lane without any passengers in the car with them but since they are the police they get a free pass to break the law.

  7. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by Treo View Post
    That's what I thought but all the comments say it's in Dade County which is about as deep into FLA as you can get. But those don't look like FLA Sheriff's Dept. uniforms



    Clearly, you're already getting the spanking you so richly deserve but I'll just add you might want to google Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada.
    I was just going to mention Hiibel v Sixth Judicial. :) The final decision was that in Nevada one is not required to present ID unless there is reasonable suspicion that he has or is about to commit a crime (the requirement for being detained Terry stop). Even when detained a person in Nevada is only required to verbally give his name and not required to give ID to verify it. I'm no lawyer but that's what I remember from the case.
    A man's life, liberty, and property are only safe when the legislature is NOT in session. Will Rogers

  8. #17
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    State of Confusion
    Posts
    7,733
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLT View Post
    Here we go again. Please don't make generic statements that are completely 100% erroneous in most of the states in the rest of America.

    For example, in Washington, a person is only required to identify themselves to a police officer if they are actually going to receive a citation or upon demand by an officer when operating a motor vehicle. If the person is in possession of a Concealed Pistol License, they are required to present it to an officer if demanded, but not required to produce any identification to go with it. Other than those three times, in Washington a person is free to refuse to identify themselves to police.

    Why is it that everyone who stands up for their rights is an a$$hat to you?!? Please keep your New York attitude in New York. Once again you are showing your incredible desire for America to become Amerika, the police state.

    Sources:
    RCW 7.80.060
    RCW 7.80.060: Person receiving notice — Identification and detention.

    RCW 9.41.050
    RCW 9.41.050: Carrying firearms.

    RCW 46.20.017
    RCW 46.20.017: Immediate possession and displayed on demand.

    There is no lawful authority, in Washington, for a police officer to stop a person and require them to identify themselves without there being probable cause for the officer to write that person a citation.



    Mine too.



    Told you so.
    Why so insulting? Read your statute closely.

    "A person who is unable or unwilling to reasonably identify himself or herself to an enforcement officer may be detained for a period of time not longer than is reasonably necessary to identify the person for purposes of issuing a civil infraction. Each agency authorized to issue civil infractions shall adopt rules on identification and detention of persons committing civil infractions." Check your case law on this one.

    This statute allows a police oficer to request identification for any civil infraction or during the course of an investigation to determine if a civil infraction has occured. If the guy is possibly intoxicated in public, mentally disturbed, matches the description of a perp or any number of other reasons he may be required to produce ID. Check your state's case law on the enforcement of this statute. The issue has been reviewed in state appellate and federal courts by persons claiming they were harassed due to race or profiling. The rulings were upheld even when no citation was issued. Written law is not absolute. It is interpreted based on the specifics and merits of each case. At PPA we have an attorney on staff. I asked him to check this earlier today. He contacted the Washington State Attorney General's Office and was just now given the information I posted above. Take up the argument with them.

    BTW, OldGrunt has it correct. This applies in every state in one form or another and appeals all the way to the federal level have stood. Don't get mad at me over these facts.

    As far as the NYS comment? It shows you have a clear prejudice and bias against certain classes of people. Never confuse NYS with NYC. Two completely different countries.
    GOD, GUNS and GUITARS

  9. #18
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    State of Confusion
    Posts
    7,733
    Quote Originally Posted by Oldgrunt View Post
    BC1: I am one of those people NavyLT was talking about but we have been around this racetrack before. I believe this individual acted like a horse's rear end when he didn't have to. I have looked up requirements to ID yourself to the police and, contrary to what others have said, EVERY state has penalties for failing to identify yourself to a LEO. From some of the information I have garnered, even the state of Washington can impose a fine of up to $500, up to 30 days in jail and up to 6 months probation for failure to identify. This may or may not apply when carrying. Another item said the offender can refuse to identify himself if he feels he is violating his rights under the 5th Amendment.That would indicate he may be guilty of some other offense and you know where that would lead. In this instance, the police gave the person every opportunity to ID himself and everything would have stopped. He chose not to do that. A person like that can cause others that OC to possibly have a hard time with LEOs. To me, being confrontational is unnecessary but there are those (many) who disagree. Anyway, grab a steel helmet and flak jacket and hunker down. There will be lots of incoming fire!
    Grunt. You are absolutely corect. Our attorney checked this today and found the exact same information from the state attorney general's office.

    I don't get some posters. They don't seem to understand how the law actually works. The statutes are interpreted in light of the facts and merits surrounding an investigation.

    Got my helmet on. They can lob all the crap they want. It doesn't change what the attorney general advised this morning. Showed the thread to our attorney. He got a good chuckle.

    I'm relatively new here but I'm fast finding out that certain posters are always angry and insulting. They can be more effective getting their point across if they weren't so prejudiced or mean spirited. There's NEVER a reason for such attacks.

    Thick skinned as always,
    BC
    GOD, GUNS and GUITARS

  10. Quote Originally Posted by BC1 View Post
    Why so insulting? Read your statute closely.

    "A person who is unable or unwilling to reasonably identify himself or herself to an enforcement officer may be detained for a period of time not longer than is reasonably necessary to identify the person for purposes of issuing a civil infraction. Each agency authorized to issue civil infractions shall adopt rules on identification and detention of persons committing civil infractions." Check your case law on this one.

    This statute allows a police oficer to request identification for any civil infraction or during the course of an investigation to determine if a civil infraction has occured.
    You are absolutely correct. Because the statute does not PROHIBIT the officer from REQUESTING anything. However, the portion of the statute that you conveniently left out of your quote clearly defines when a person is REQUIRED to comply with a request:
    RCW 7.80.060: Person receiving notice

    RCW 7.80.060
    Person receiving notice — Identification and detention.

    A person who is to receive a notice of civil infraction under RCW 7.80.050 is required to identify himself or herself to the enforcement officer by giving his or her name, address, and date of birth. Upon the request of the officer, the person shall produce reasonable identification, including a driver's license or identicard.
    You are NOT required, in Washington, to identify yourself to a police for investigative purposes. Do you see the word "investigate" or any form thereof in the above statute? NO. An officer can request anything he wants to. And I will politely deny his requests and ask if I am free to leave. If I am not free to leave, then, "Game On". He better have RAS that he can prove in court for a reason to detain me. Up until the point that the officer is actually going to write me a citation for a law he thinks he can prove that I have broken, I am under no obligation to provide him with any identification, I don't care what he is investigating.

    Like I said, keep your New York attitudes in New York. We don't want them in free America.
    Anyone who says, "I support the 2nd amendment, BUT"... doesn't. Element of Surprise: a mythical element that many believe has the same affect upon criminals that Kryptonite has upon Superman.

  11. #20
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    State of Confusion
    Posts
    7,733
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLT View Post
    You are absolutely correct. Because the statute does not PROHIBIT the officer from REQUESTING anything. However, the portion of the statute that you conveniently left out of your quote clearly defines when a person is REQUIRED to comply with a request:
    RCW 7.80.060: Person receiving notice



    You are NOT required, in Washington, to identify yourself to a police for investigative purposes. Do you see the word "investigate" or any form thereof in the above statute? NO. An officer can request anything he wants to. And I will politely deny his requests and ask if I am free to leave. If I am not free to leave, then, "Game On". He better have RAS that he can prove in court for a reason to detain me. Up until the point that the officer is actually going to write me a citation for a law he thinks he can prove that I have broken, I am under no obligation to provide him with any identification, I don't care what he is investigating.

    Like I said, keep your New York attitudes in New York. We don't want them in free America.
    Who is "we?" What's your record for insulting other posters? Do you keep count? I'm only curious because other posters seem to warn us about you. Perhaps you can enlighten everyone by explaining a NY attitude. What exactly is a NY attitude? Are you referring to NYC or all 18 million of us in beautiful rural gun-friendly upstate? How is it that a single attitide can apply to nearly 18 million people? I'm waiting for an answer that is hopefully backed up by some facts, a study or other substance. You'll get your message across by being nice, not insulting. BTW, I'm not from NY. It's just where the money is right now. Lighten up Frances, it's only a chat board.

    Frances, I'll leave you to have the last word on the subject. Then call the state attorney general and get his response on this issue.
    GOD, GUNS and GUITARS

Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast