Man Arrested for Refusing to Show Drivers License - Page 3

FlyWf · #21 09-06-2007, 11:46 PM

Nobody is blaming him. You're so up on your high horse that you're missing the point. Being right doesn't preclude being a toolbox.

And in your haste to defend Ghandi Mk. II here, you've accidentally wandered into saying some pretty stupid things. Your last post(restated) alleges that stores do not have the right to attempt to prevent shoplifting, if they see someone they believe is shoplifting they should check the security tape and then call the police rather than detaining them and investigating the shoplifting in person.

The Circuit City guy could've "won" this situation by accusing the douchebag of stealing. There's nothing illegal about being wrong, his mistake was admitting that he had no reason to detain the douche.

mason55 · #22 09-06-2007, 11:47 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Sometimes being right doesn't make you less of a douche.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're not wrong Walter, you're just an a-hole

niss · #23 09-06-2007, 11:50 PM

After reading the posts here I was prepared to hate this guy when I read the article, but after reading it, good for him.

Los Feliz Slim · #24 09-06-2007, 11:51 PM

mbillie1,

Everything you're saying about this guy's rights etc etc etc is absolutely correct. I've made the judgment that this guy is a douche based on the fact that he's flipping out about something relatively innocuous. Choosing this kind of situation to make your stand against the man just seems absurd to me. Further, he's chosen to do so in as dramatic a way as possible so as to draw as much attention to himself as possible. You think while all this was happening he wasn't thinking "Man, this is going to look so sweet on my blog and sound so awesome to chicks right before I whip out my acoustic guitar and sing "Ohio"."? It's just annoying, and I bet he's really annoying, too.

mbillie1 · #25 09-06-2007, 11:53 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Nobody is blaming him. You're so up on your high horse that you're missing the point. Being right doesn't preclude being a toolbox.

And in your haste to defend Ghandi Mk. II here, you've accidentally wandered into saying some pretty stupid things. Your last post(restated) alleges that stores do not have the right to attempt to prevent shoplifting, if they see someone they believe is shoplifting they should check the security tape and then call the police rather than detaining them and investigating the shoplifting in person.

The Circuit City guy could've "won" this situation by accusing the douchebag of stealing. There's nothing illegal about being wrong, his mistake was admitting that he had no reason to detain the douche.

[/ QUOTE ]

I fail to see whatsoever how it's a "tool" move to exercise your rights. My bad.

And FWIW most stores policies are not to physically detain shoplifters; I'm not claiming to know what the laws concerning that type of thing are. I would be a little surprised if "suspected thieves" could be physically detained by store security, but not stunned. The mistake the employees made was overstepping their bounds. The mistake the cop made was being a typical ego-tripping a-hole cop. The mistake the dude made was what? Being a stickler about his rights as a citizen?

High horse or not, I fail to see how you can side against this guy / fault this guy / whatever.

mbillie1 · #26 09-06-2007, 11:55 PM

[ QUOTE ]
You think while all this was happening he wasn't thinking "Man, this is going to look so sweet on my blog and sound so awesome to chicks right before I whip out my acoustic guitar and sing "Ohio"."? It's just annoying, and I bet he's really annoying, too.

[/ QUOTE ]

But how could this guy have known that it would have transpired this way? I mean, as this guy is refusing to show the employees his receipt, how does he know they aren't just going to let it go? How does he know the cop isn't going to show up and say "well, everything's fine here, have a nice day" ? I mean, yeah the guy is being a nit about it... but it IS about his rights, that's sort of acceptable nit-ground. I'm not buying that this guy is so psychic that he saw this through from the beginning...

edit for clarity: it's unlawful for him to be arrested for refusing to show his ID. If you're claiming he did this just to make a scene, you're essentially claiming that either 1) he knew somehow that this cop would arrest him unlawfully or 2) unlawful arrests of this nature are more common than the correct procedure. In either case, isn't that more the more bothersome aspect of this story, and not this guy being a nit? I mean if I am pulled over and say "I do not consent to any searches of my vehicle" and I am arrested unlawfully, does it make me some sort of punk making a cheap stand against the man? No, it just means I expected the lawful behavior to have been followed, which would have resulted in my never having been arrested in the first place, which in turn would have lead to my never having been e-famous for it, etc.

and edit: I'm sure I'd hate this dude if I met him. I hate pretty much everyone with a blog about him or her self. But I just don't get how out of the entire story, 3/4 of the forum seems to have "hmm, this guy's a d-bag" as the first thing that comes to mind. Why not "wow, don't the police know the laws they're supposedly enforcing?" or something... I dunno.

I may also just be being a huge tool about this myself. lol.

rjoefish · #27 09-07-2007, 12:10 AM

Seems like the cop was in the right based upon the guys timeline and how the supreme court ruled a few years ago. During a Terry Stop, it is illegal (not sure about all the states, but Nevada for sure, where the Supreme Court case was initiated) to not show your ID. In this case the man was also charged with obstruction. If the officer is asking you to show him your ID because he suspects a crime has/is/or is going to be commited, you have to show him. I'm not saying I think this is right or wrong, or our rights are or are not being violated, but by the letter of the law and the rulings of the Supreme Court, this officer acted correctly, if I'm reading this all right.

According to his blog, the cop asked for ID before going through his bag to verify that no crime had been committed. Its a bit odd since he called the cops himself, but for the people saying he was wrongfully arrested, I don't think he really was.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-5554.ZS.html

mbillie1 · #28 09-07-2007, 12:15 AM

[ QUOTE ]
The Court is now of the view that Terry principles permit a State to require a suspect to disclose his name in the course of a Terry stop.

[/ QUOTE ]

...still not seeing any mention of having to present identification, only to identify oneself.

StevieG · #29 09-07-2007, 12:17 AM

[ QUOTE ]

According to his blog, the cop asked for ID before going through his bag to verify that no crime had been committed. Its a bit odd since he called the cops himself, but for the people saying he was wrongfully arrested, I don't think he really was.

[/ QUOTE ]

On his blog, Righi quotes from the Ohio stop and identify law

2921.29 (C) Nothing in this section requires a person to answer any questions beyond that person’s name, address, or date of birth. Nothing in this section authorizes a law enforcement officer to arrest a person for not providing any information beyond that person’s name, address, or date of birth or for refusing to describe the offense observed.

Cubswin · #30 09-07-2007, 12:17 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Petitioner Hiibel was arrested and convicted in a Nevada court for refusing to identify himself to a police officer during an investigative stop involving a reported assault.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't read beyond this as the legal speak gives me head aches. Is this case about failure to identify one's self or is it about failure to show ID?