Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Members
Registered members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Welcome to SportTrac.Org
Off Topic Discussion
OT: Standing Up For What's Right - Against Circuit City and the local Police
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Help Support Ford SportTrac Forum:
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Thomas Rogers" data-source="post: 731270" data-attributes="member: 60724"><p>Mike H...</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Regarding "lawful reason", I think (and hope) that if we were to debate it and look into it that we would find that "lawful reason" for demanding "proof of identification" would have to hinge on the police having probable cause that the person being questioned committed some illegal activity.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>So if someone were to fit a description in an APB, that could be probable cause.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>However, consider this scenario. As I said earlier, I witnessed a vehicle vs pedestrian accident. The police responded and I was a witness so I was questioned. I was asked my identity, but never asked for proof of identification.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>The policeman on the seen clearly had a lawful duty to perform, but I think he had no lawful reason in which to prove my identity; and clearly no lawful reason to detain me (if that were needed) in order to prove my identity.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I cite my example because I think it is like Righi's. If Righi's account of the incident is true, then he did nothing legally wrong, was being accused of no wrong-doing, and being charged with no wrong-doing. He was a witness (or a plaintiff of sorts) to wrong-doing. He shouldn't be compelled, or detained, to show proof of his identity in such a scenario.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>TJR</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Thomas Rogers, post: 731270, member: 60724"] Mike H... Regarding "lawful reason", I think (and hope) that if we were to debate it and look into it that we would find that "lawful reason" for demanding "proof of identification" would have to hinge on the police having probable cause that the person being questioned committed some illegal activity. So if someone were to fit a description in an APB, that could be probable cause. However, consider this scenario. As I said earlier, I witnessed a vehicle vs pedestrian accident. The police responded and I was a witness so I was questioned. I was asked my identity, but never asked for proof of identification. The policeman on the seen clearly had a lawful duty to perform, but I think he had no lawful reason in which to prove my identity; and clearly no lawful reason to detain me (if that were needed) in order to prove my identity. I cite my example because I think it is like Righi's. If Righi's account of the incident is true, then he did nothing legally wrong, was being accused of no wrong-doing, and being charged with no wrong-doing. He was a witness (or a plaintiff of sorts) to wrong-doing. He shouldn't be compelled, or detained, to show proof of his identity in such a scenario. TJR [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Welcome to SportTrac.Org
Off Topic Discussion
OT: Standing Up For What's Right - Against Circuit City and the local Police
Top