Failure to ID

bigwheel,

Are you of the opinion that citizens can be forced to ID themselves by L.E. when they have committed no crimes, just because.....?

Or, do I misunderstand?

Mowingmaniac 24/7 said:

WW11

Click to expand...

World War Eleven, YIKES!

AustinN4 said:

World War Eleven, YIKES!

Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure I won't be around for that.

I just love this site.

'DOH" I meant world war 12 or maybe it was 2, you pick.......

bigwheel said:

Well filled out a lot of Field Interogation Contact cards over the years. Commonly used to establish the identity of hairballs who look like potential alleged perps but not currently doing any crimes. Never had one refuse to cough up the info but suspect it would not go well for that person. Can’t believe our old law breaker chief insist we break the rules like that. He could have used your advice.

Click to expand...

Did you have a hook book?

WT_Foxtrot said:

View attachment 166071

Click to expand...

Here’s an interesting rebuttal...assuming we aren’t retarded and nuke ourselves in a civil war.

I take no credit for writing this.



The US population is ~ 326 million.

Conservative estimates of the US gun-owning population is ~ 115 million.

The entire DOD, including civilian employees and non-combat military is ~2.8 million. Less than half of that number (1.2M) is active military. Less than half of the military is combat ratings, with support ratings/MOSes making up the majority.In a popular insurgency, the people themselves are the support for combat-units of the insurgency, which therefore means that active insurgents are combat units, not generally support units.

So lets do the math. You have, optimistically, 600,000 federal combat troops vs 1% (1.15 million) of exclusively the gun owning Americans actively engaged in an armed insurgency, with far larger numbers passively or actively supporting said insurgency.

The military is now outnumbered ~2:1 by a population with small-arms roughly comparable to their own and significant education to manufacture IEDs, hack or interfere with drones, and probably the best average marksmanship of a general population outside of maybe Switzerland. Additionally, this population will have a pool of 22 million veterans, including 1.3 million that have deployed overseas since 2002 that are potentially trainers, officers, or NCOs for this force.

The only major things the insurgents are lacking is armor and air power and proper anti-material weapons. Armor and Air aren't necessary, or even desirable, for an insurgency. Anti-material weapons can be imported or captured, with armored units simply not being engaged by any given unit until materials necessary to attack those units are acquired. Close-air like attack helicopters are vulnerable to sufficient volumes of small arms fire and .50 BMG rifles. All air power is vulnerable to sabotage or raids while on the ground for maintenance.

This is before even before we address the defection rate from the military, which will be >0, or how police and national guard units will respond to the military killing their friends, family, and neighbors.

Basically, a sufficiently large uprising could absolutely murder the military. Every bit of armament the population has necessarily reduces that threshold of "sufficiently large". With the raw amount of small arms and people that know how to use them in the US, "sufficiently large" isn't all that large in relative terms.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Hoji said:

nevermind

Click to expand...

That's wishful thinking right?

Mowingmaniac 24/7 said:

bigwheel,

Are you of the opinion that citizens can be forced to ID themselves by L.E. when they have committed no crimes, just because.....?

Or, do I misunderstand?

Click to expand...

Yes. Check out probable cause and/or reasonable suspicion.
https://fairlawpllc.com/texas-failure-to-id-laws-pt1/

bigwheel,

Can probable cause amount to: He/She is someone I'll demand I.D. just because I'm L.E. and they're not?

Hey, as an L.E. I can dream up whatever I care to force compliance and you mere weakling citizen must recognize my 'authoritie' cuz, um, I say so, so there....


Obey me or else..... I don't care if you've broken no laws, I'm da boss and you ain't.

I think most L.E. are good if not great at their jobs, but a tiny minority don't understand we don't live under marshal law, therefore L.E. can't simply decide on a trumped up P.C. to force I.D.ing wily nily. That's the kind of garbage performed in totalitarian countries.

Were such ever to happen to me, (it never has, but hypothetically speaking) I'd get a very good attorney to address such 'over the top'
strong arm tactics - my attitude being based on being innocent of law breaking......

Though I suppose if you're obviously poor and have no ability to afford a good attorney, you must knuckle under, innocent of wrong doing or not - but, be aware not all of us are this hapless.....and can legally take this kind of crap to court.

In the U.S. you aren't 'required' to carry 'your papers' that you must immediately produce if demanded by L.E. You can walk down the street without papers - there's no law that says otherwise.

Mowingmaniac 24/7 said:

bigwheel,

Can probable cause amount to: He/She is someone I'll demand I.D. just because I'm L.E. and they're not?

Hey, as an L.E. I can dream up whatever I care to force compliance and you mere weakling citizen must recognize my 'authoritie' cuz, um, I say so, so there....


Obey me or else..... I don't care if you've broken no laws, I'm da boss and you ain't.

I think most L.E. are good if not great at their jobs, but a tiny minority don't understand we don't live under marshal law, therefore L.E. can't simply decide on a trumped up P.C. to force I.D.ing wily nily. That's the kind of garbage performed in totalitarian countries.

Were such ever to happen to me, (it never has, but hypothetically speaking) I'd get a very good attorney to address such 'over the top'
strong arm tactics - my attitude being based on being innocent of law breaking......

Though I suppose if you're obviously poor and have no ability to afford a good attorney, you must knuckle under, innocent of wrong doing or not - but, be aware not all of us are this hapless.....and can legally take this kind of crap to court.

In the U.S. you aren't 'required' to carry 'your papers' that you must immediately produce if demanded by L.E. You can walk down the street without papers - there's no law that says otherwise.

Click to expand...

You forgot “pick up that can”

bigwheel said:

Yes. Check out probable cause and/or reasonable suspicion.
https://fairlawpllc.com/texas-failure-to-id-laws-pt1/

Click to expand...

It is really sad how poorly you comprehend that which you post, thinking it supports your ill-advised point of view when it does not.

Y’all watch too much CNN. Real cops are nice. All I ever knew were like a mama lion guarding her cubs when it came to treating citizens with the utmost care and respect. Now the pesky old wolves and hyenas could be in a heap o twoble sometimes. More aptly they are Sheep Dogs.
http://www.sheepdogministries.com/

And what does any of that have to do with failure to ID?

vmax said:

And what does any of that have to do with failure to ID?

Click to expand...

Through my studies, cops are human and have all the same foibles of being human.

easy rider said:

Through my studies, cops are human and have all the same foibles of being human.

Click to expand...

I was referring to Big Wheels reply above

It's called a TGT twist. Think long enough and anything can apply to everything.

I’m a sovereign citizen.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

vmax said:

And what does any of that have to do with failure to ID?

Click to expand...

It’s a cautionary note for cop haters who are under the mistaken impression they can refuse to identify themselves to the police. It seems pretty simple.

https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/docs/TN/htm/TN.545.htm

Sec. 545.051. DRIVING ON RIGHT SIDE OF ROADWAY. (a) An operator on a roadway of sufficient width shall drive on the right half of the roadway, unless:

(1) the operator is passing another vehicle;

(2) an obstruction necessitates moving the vehicle left of the center of the roadway and the operator yields the right-of-way to a vehicle that:

(A) is moving in the proper direction on the unobstructed portion of the roadway; and

(B) is an immediate hazard;

(3) the operator is on a roadway divided into three marked lanes for traffic; or

(4) the operator is on a roadway restricted to one-way traffic.

(b) An operator of a vehicle on a roadway moving more slowly than the normal speed of other vehicles at the time and place under the existing conditions shall drive in the right-hand lane available for vehicles, or as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway, unless the operator is:

(1) passing another vehicle; or

(2) preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway.

(c) An operator on a roadway having four or more lanes for moving vehicles and providing for two-way movement of vehicles may not drive left of the center line of the roadway except:

(1) as authorized by an official traffic-control device designating a specified lane to the left side of the center of the roadway for use by a vehicle not otherwise permitted to use the lane;

(2) under the conditions described by Subsection (a)(2); or

(3) in crossing the center line to make a left turn into or out of an alley, private road, or driveway.

Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 165, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.