Thread: Nazi America.

It's real simple. You have to KEEP it simple when dealing with this kind of thing.

Cop: I need to see your ID.
You: No, sir. My name is Eric Stout.

You do not want to go deeper than that if you are choosing lawful disobedience.

Cop: I need to see your ID.
You: No. I wasn't doing anything wrong.
Cop: Show me your ID.
You: What was I doing wrong?
blah blah blah on and on back and forth doing nothing but pissing off the officer and asking for trouble.

The latter scenario is more likely to get you in deep shit. You say no, state your name and if he presses, offer to allow him to arrest you. You'll get your day in court if that's what you are looking for. Charges will be dropped and if you want, sue them for false arrest.

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

Your statement was you have to identify yourself if asked or you can be detained. The question being asked is the detainment. Even by the law you posted. Maybe you meant being arrested because the two are not the same.

Semantics, but you are right. But really... if you are stopped and asked for your ID, you are, at that point, detained. At least *I* wouldn't want to walk away without saying anything. A terry stop is detainment for all intents and purposes.

It's sad that people feel the need to record like this. Not sad for the people; sad for the country..

Originally Posted by Kanati8869

But it's this kind of mentality that leads to the heavy handed bullshit that we see every day now. Cops beating people in the streets for no reason other than they can get away with it. Cops with full riot gear, dog, beanbag shotguns, tazers, and pepper spray shooting a homeless guy in the back with an AR. The law says you don't HAVE to show your ID. You don't even have to carry ID. So why should we allow them to harass us by doing so voluntarily?

Ninety-nine percent of the time, if a cop asks to see my ID more than likely I'm going to go "sure" just like you say. But if I decide I don't WANT to show him... that's my lawful choice to do so.

You're not seeing the other half, its theres two sides of extremes: Officers abusing the law and citizens abusing the law. Government try's to aim for a happy medium but errors on the side of caution (the side that has strict regulations about behavior, appointment, performence reviews, etc). Does the line get fuzzy sure, thats a problem with regulations. It's no different than how TPG admins, admin on tpg servers... A varying degree of variance perhaps related to personal interpretation of the law that the enforcer holds.

Before focusing so much on the "I have the right to ___" and take a few to examine the why's and look at the situation from both sides. Look at what they are trying to accomplish.

I find it hard to believe that someone makes their career about helping people, just to for the sake of abusing their allotted power. Give law enforcement the benefit of the doubt. Cooperate because for their dedication to helping society, they get paid far too poorly, are generally not liked too much by society (face it, when was the last time you were cheerful to see a law enforcement officer), and are under GREAT scrutiny ALL THE TIME.



I do find it comical about what things society goes up in arms about... Lets consider how extreme this could get... Getting stopped every 30 miles for a checkpoint (would be extremely large distribution of active officers to checkpoints, i.e. full allocation of on-call officers to go to man checkpoints). Would this be that bad?

Personally, Hell no, PLEASE do this. I commute a great deal every day, and let me tell you, the stupid (extremely dangerious) shit i see drivers doing that could be kept in better check than currently. I'm not talking about speeding, for example today I encounter a driver, to whom for a while I believe to be quite drunk off their rocker. I am seeing apathy, delayed response, blindness to change in environment, response intensity unequal to stimuli, ... everything someone inebriated would demonstrate AND doing 90mph+ in medium traffic... Swerving on the road (car half way off into side /fire lane), sharp-aggressive merging with no signals or lane checks, out of lane what ever it was (in a lane that ended, kept driving through the lane boundary into and off shoulder and into an on-ramp), cutting people off nearly running two cars off the road (by ignoring cars in the lane being merged into), AND has a kid in the back of the car (can see the small hands through the rear window)... I'm debating whether or not to call the non-emergancy line and report for 15-20 minutes... The driver gets over to get into an off-ramp, turns out to be a woman on a cell phone... Holy fuck. Wheres a checkpoint when you need one!?

Back to my point, superficially I be up in arms about HOW and WHY law enforcement enforces speed limits. I could easily argue that its no longer about reckless driving or endangering others. It's simply about going over the speed limit gets you a ticket (up to the officer), location is irrelevant, weather is irrelevant, traffic density is irrelevant, visibility is irrelevant. Few years ago I got a ticket for speeding on a 3 lane highway, with nearly 2 miles of visibilty each way (save the concrete pillar the Officer hide behind), cloudless day, ZERO TRAFFIC, yet i was charged more than a women speeding on a rainy day, in front of a school DURING the caution times (I spoke with her before we went into the courtroom)!!?!

What really annoys me though, is that the officers setup speed traps in my area that blatantly target students (north side of my commute), never in 4 years of driving twice a day, do I see a speed trap on the south side (far away from campus). Yet, some of the crazist fuck drivers I've seen ... are on the south side. Furthermore, the speedtraps seem to fly up during the between-class times (I leave at variable times since I used work in my lab for a bit till I head home).

Furthermore, the situations when the officer usually witnesses more than 1 offender (e.g. a group of cars speeding), then selects one vehicle to pursue (or perhaps is forced to, any law enforcement here that can verify?), while ignoring the others. In an extreme analogy, witnesses a series of simultaneous murders, but chooses to pursue only 1 killer while letting the rest go free. Effectively discriminating and choosing 1 offender to use to make an example out of... Its a very ineffective approach.


Again, I have no problems with speed limits, merely how and why the speed limit is enforced, but if i stop to examine both sides.... This could be misinterpretation on my part... Could be that officers are being instructed where to setup speedtraps, that they only have a certain amount of time to stake out for a trap and want to maximize their effectiveness and image of enforcement, that they can only pursue the vehicle they initially tag with their radar gun, etc... As for the how's I get some of it, how do you define variable laws like 'its ok to speed when ____' that can't be abused and argued in court. On the other hand there are many, many ways that the speed limit can be far more effectively and more importantly, less discriminatorily enforced (e.g. gps chips in cars, automated speed traffic cams, so on). Furthermore, it's hard for an Officer to witness crazy shit driving I see daily, when everyone is on their best behavior when an officer is around (even undercover / unmarked vehicles are easily spotted).


Bottom line, two sides to every story, look at both sides, look at alternatives, and look at what's trying to be accomplished. Is Officers asking for your ID abuse? No, personally, though an inconvenience, would if anything make me feel safer.

Originally Posted by Kanati8869

Especially the ones that THINK they know their rights and have no clue.

What's the harm in them asking? No harm at all. It's also no harm for me to say "sorry... you don't need to see my ID." Because it's my right to do so. In some states it's my right to carry a sidearm in open sight as well without having a cop harass me over it....

That kind of smart alic stuff, i could totally understand and support an Officer losing their temper. Such analogous actions on TPG servers earn insta-bans which we as a community support. So what's the difference? Though I wager there is probably, sadly a delayed expression of aggravation (ie. they are on sore temper because of the two guys before you and are taking it out on you). If you make their job more difficult, expect an equivalent response.

As for carrying a weapon, heh, how any ANYONE but the carrier feel anything but uneasy seeing you carrying a firearm, especially in today's day and age of so many horrific firearm related misuses being milked by social media? What do you expect? Futheremore, given statistics no one here should honestly ask me to pull, if there is a fire fight, who's going to get targeted first? THOSE who pose RISK to the shooter, aka those who can return fire. So yeah, that Officer is sweating seeing you carring that 9mm because if you start shooting, you'll very likely be aiming at him first.





Look at both sides.

class is ending, I'll post this before this thread gets locked .

Originally Posted by Bunni

You're not seeing the other half, its theres two sides of extremes: Officers abusing the law and citizens abusing the law.

Pretty much irrelevant. The only side that must be maintained according to the laws and rights of this country is the civilian side. Burden is always on the government to provide while operating inside the laws and conditions of this country. If the government acted inside the parameters of their actual power they would have far less to worry about from citizens acting within their rights or pushing those rights to their limit. Of which is completely legal where the flip side is a much darker line in terms of power.

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

Pretty much irrelevant. The only side that must be maintained according to the laws and rights of this country is the civilian side. Burden is always on the government to provide while operating inside the laws and conditions of this country. If the government acted inside the parameters of their actual power they would have far less to worry about from citizens acting within their rights or pushing those rights to their limit. Of which is completely legal where the flip side is a much darker line in terms of power.

Yeah except that those who enforces it are people, people have opinions, people have interpretations, people are not unbiased, people are not robots therefore there are two sides. You breeze over major points of how things are enforced, who enforces them, the laws that govern and how to balance them between empowering the citizens and keeping them incheck. Sure there is corruption, but its on both sides. Keep in mind, that prisions are filled and personally I'd take a corrupt politician over a murdering criminal in my neighborhood everyday.


It should be irrelevant, but it's far from it.You can have your cake and eat it too (i think this applies), you can't write off how and who's behind 'governement'

Also keep in mind that my all of my post was not referring to the op