Man Arrested for Refusing to Show Drivers License

[StevieG]

[ QUOTE ]

I suppose I could have been like "[censored] YOU, THERE'S NO WAY I'M SHOWING YOU WHATS IN MY POCKET OR LETTING YOU EXAMINE MY BAG GO CHECK THE SECURITY CAMERA", but I really didn't want to create a dramatic situation where I know I'm in the clear. Sometimes you just have to suck it up and be polite.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you assume he would have acted the same way if the theft detection system went off while leaving?

Maybe he would have, but that's a big assumption.

[rjoefish]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
he broke the law

obstruction of justice
he deserves it

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought we had the right against self incrimination.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where is this right being violated in this story?

[mbillie1]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't really see how you can consider this a terry stop.

[/ QUOTE ]

It would be a clear cut Terry Stop if the store had called him. Him calling them himself makes it a little different, since he called them about being detained. But after he gets there and the store says he wouldn't let them check his bag he is suspicious a crime has been committed. Therefore it changes to a Terry Stop against the guy with the bag.

[/ QUOTE ]

This still doesn't change the fact that the law you linked in your own post says it's against the law to fail to identify oneself by name. It doesn't say anything about showing ID / driver's license / etc. Your own evidence is arguing against you lol.

[mindstatez]

[ QUOTE ]

So you assume he would have acted the same way if the theft detection system went off while leaving?

Maybe he would have, but that's a big assumption.

[/ QUOTE ]
Thats a good point, but he may have since it would have also went off as soon as he entered the store and no one seemed to notice that. I mean this is a guy who wouldn't even show ID to a police officer.

[mbillie1]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

So you assume he would have acted the same way if the theft detection system went off while leaving?

Maybe he would have, but that's a big assumption.

[/ QUOTE ]
Thats a good point, but he may have since it would have also went off as soon as he entered the store and no one seemed to notice that. I mean this is a guy who wouldn't even show ID to a police officer.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please stop before you seriously injure your own brain

[Fly]

The cop is a complete retard.

[rjoefish]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't really see how you can consider this a terry stop.

[/ QUOTE ]

It would be a clear cut Terry Stop if the store had called him. Him calling them himself makes it a little different, since he called them about being detained. But after he gets there and the store says he wouldn't let them check his bag he is suspicious a crime has been committed. Therefore it changes to a Terry Stop against the guy with the bag.

[/ QUOTE ]

This still doesn't change the fact that the law you linked in your own post says it's against the law to fail to identify oneself by name. It doesn't say anything about showing ID / driver's license / etc. Your own evidence is arguing against you lol.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again... I believe when the court is saying 'identify oneself' they mean hand over ID. I'm thinking that asking for identification and asking to identify oneself are the same thing in this ruling. I'm looking into it more, so if I'm wrong I'll get back to you. If you want to find something that says during a Terry Stop, or otherwise, identifying yourself to a cop just means saying 'Hi, I'm John Smith' please let me know.

[KotOD]

[ QUOTE ]
The employee for whatever reason thought the guy may have lifted something and basically questioned him just like I was,

[/ QUOTE ]

Not showing a receipt, which is not required by law unless you've signed a membership contract to do so, is not a reason to suspect someone of shoplifting, and the stores and security can't treat it as such.

[VoraciousReader]

[ QUOTE ]
Please stop before you seriously injure your own brain

[/ QUOTE ]

Good warning, but a little late, I think.

A sad case, very sad.

[Case Closed]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
he broke the law

obstruction of justice
he deserves it

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought we had the right against self incrimination.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where is this right being violated in this story?

[/ QUOTE ]

My bad I was confused there.

Seems like a pretty terrible law.