That was my first thought too! Then again she could be a caring mother that did the right thing. Not sure if it was my kid I'd want a cop from that police force touching him.
.png)
Failure to ID.......
- Thread starter Frank59
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Texas
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
I would think that would provide for some additional cash award when the case is settled. For all intents and purposes, since he was illegally arrested and removed, the kid might technically have been kidnapped by the police. That would probably be my position going in anyway.
Don't get me wrong, I had no problem with the Walmart employee herself, just seems like the officers should have taken possession of the minor out of abundance of caution. Especially seeing as there were plenty on the scene.
Child endangerment at the very least
Well at least this did not get past the sgt.
I have seen many of these cases where cops think you are legally required to show ID when asked. Not sure where they are getting this.
I really wanna support the police, but lately they seem to be on the wrong side of everything.
I have seen many of these cases where cops think you are legally required to show ID when asked. Not sure where they are getting this.
I really wanna support the police, but lately they seem to be on the wrong side of everything.
Yeah, that officer cannot seem to distinguish between "detained" and "arrested" - you can be detained without being arrested, but you can't be arrested without being detained. The law seems pretty clear, you don't have to ID until under arrest, not simple detention.
I caught that also. He could not properly articulate what the actual law was.
Also notice that the third officer in who got aggressive was shocked when he found out later that they didn't even determine the guy was intoxicated?
I'd be the type to just hand over my ID typically but this situation was pretty badly mishandled by the three officers. They're lucky they had a supervisor who had a clue. Looks like they need more in-service training on what the law actually is.
Yes.
Driving is a licensed activity and you need to show your DL.
This was a guy who no officer had seen violating any laws. He is not required to show ID. In fact, he does not have to show ID even after arrested, he is only require to tell them name/address/DOB.
eta
I am guessing someone with TDS called him in.
Generally, a traffic stop is due to probable cause (I clocked you going 10 MPH over speed limit, no turn signal weaving around etc). cops just walking into a store with no description of an offender, no personal knowledge (remember this was supposedly a misdemeanor - Public intox since the officers did not find the guy drunk and in a vehicle or attempting to drive) no valid probable cause, so yes major difference
Last edited:
Aus_Schwaben
First to know - Last to care!
If the individual the Police approached in this situation had been a different ethnic group, this would have blown up.
Worse than DUI, what if they decide to call in that someone was brandishing a firearm? Swatting is popular loser gamer circles and this would be easier, especially if they know the person they are "turning in" is prone to carry a firearm. Add a little drama of "shots fired" and the police will be hopped up worse than Tuco on Walter Whites' finest!
ZX,
No not a stupid question, but one L.E. should have a firm grasp regarding the laws that U.S. citizens aren't to be treated as criminals when they've not committed a crime and are under no obligation to provide I.D.
We don't have to immediately I.D. ourselves just because...
I applaud the guy for standing up for himself. He was not going to be intimidated because a whole slew of cops decided it was his turn in the barrel...
We don't live in WW2 Germany where L.E. can simply demand your papers and you must meekly comply when you've committed no crime.
Just because they're L.E. and you're not doesn't give them utter/complete rule over U.S. citizens...just because.
I hope he sues their ass off and wins BIG!
No not a stupid question, but one L.E. should have a firm grasp regarding the laws that U.S. citizens aren't to be treated as criminals when they've not committed a crime and are under no obligation to provide I.D.
We don't have to immediately I.D. ourselves just because...
I applaud the guy for standing up for himself. He was not going to be intimidated because a whole slew of cops decided it was his turn in the barrel...
We don't live in WW2 Germany where L.E. can simply demand your papers and you must meekly comply when you've committed no crime.
Just because they're L.E. and you're not doesn't give them utter/complete rule over U.S. citizens...just because.
I hope he sues their ass off and wins BIG!
