Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The article says they can demand names during a stop or detention.If you can point out anything unconstitutional in the policies/law described in that article go for it. Of course it would require reading comprehension to be able to do that.
Okay I'll give you that much but the guy didn't have his ID on him so how is that not complying with the officer?
Checking him out was fine. Slamming him to the ground for not affording identification was illegal.The police were doing nothing unlawful in questioning the man. In that particular situation they would be derelict in their duty to serve and protect if they had NOT seen that as unusual and checked the guy out.
She doesn't know, and she doesn't care.
Apparently in the Land of the Free people can be arrested for no reason, without a cop articulating a crime, and if a person yells out that their rights are being violated, then by golly that person is a criminal.
It was not a traffic stop.
He explained he didn't have ID but any normal person would have said, it is at my house at (whatever address) near here. And he technically was not required to show ID under the law in that state, but any normal person having ID would have produced it just the same just to reassure the cop that you're on the up and up. And actually, once he became belligerent, defensive, uncooperative, that could produce enough suspicion to allow the cops to lawfully ask for ID.Okay I'll give you that much but the guy didn't have his ID on him so how is that not complying with the officer?
Read the article if you're capable.The article says they can demand names during a stop or detention.
It was not a traffic stop.
He was not being detained because there was no grounds for detention. He asked if it was suspicious for him to be walking around and the officer said technically it wasn’t.
Therefore the law does not apply to him and arresting him for not providing his name was illegal.
He was not slammed to the ground. He was taken down fairly gently because he was resisting arrest which is illegal in all 50 states and DC.Checking him out was fine. Slamming him to the ground for not affording identification was illegal.
The only trunk was the copsAgain, see the Polly Klass story. Hope its not your daughter tied up in the trunk
What was he being arrested for?He was not slammed to the ground. He was taken down fairly gently because he was resisting arrest which is illegal in all 50 states and DC.
This cop didn't know shitNo ID? Thats what they all say. Close to 100% of those with warrants. The Police know right then, what they are dealing with.
I already did.Read the article if you're capable.
Yes me too. The clueless left are unwilling to read the actual law and what the officers are legally allowed to do and/or what the citizen's responsibility is. They automatically condemn and demonize the police officers and assume they were the ones in the wrong here and the guy had no accountability at all in the situation.OK, im done her. Somewhere between bring a lawyer BYOL with you and common sense America got losted. Also, If everyone is fired for every mistake? You would all have lost every job I would bet. Lighten up on the Police at least sometimes? They may be in the right.
Again that remedial reading comprehension course could do wonders for you. But I've made my argument/case here and so far nobody has offered a single shred of documentation to refute it. Everybody have a nice day.I already did.
Oklahoma does not require people to provide identifying information upon request without probable cause.
Stop and identify statutes - Wikipedia
en.m.wikipedia.org
Again it is so unusual for somebody to be walking with a young kid in a secluded area in the early dawn, I would EXPECT the police to check something like that out.
I am not "left." Buttercup is not left. Westwall is not left.Yes me too. The clueless left are unwilling to read the actual law and what the officers are legally allowed to do and/or what the citizen's responsibility is. They automatically condemn and demonize the police officers and assume they were the ones in the wrong here and the guy had no accountability at all in the situation.
Which is why we have rampant crime in this country, most especially in horrible crimes done to kids. When cops have to juggle their desire to do their jobs to serve and protect, which necessitates checking out unusual or suspicious situations against being censored, fired, sued or whatever before leftist judges who hate cops too, it's no wonder the country is going to hell in a handbasket.
Ohhh, that poor cop being forced to break the law, and assault some man in front of his kid... oh the humanity...Yes me too. The clueless left are unwilling to read the actual law and what the officers are legally allowed to do and/or what the citizen's responsibility is. They automatically condemn and demonize the police officers and assume they were the ones in the wrong here and the guy had no accountability at all in the situation.
No, he did not have to show ID.
Yes, he did have to provide his name, address and DOB when requested by the cops.
Which is why we have rampant crime in this country, most especially in horrible crimes done to kids. When cops have to juggle their desire to do their jobs to serve and protect, which necessitates checking out unusual or suspicious situations against being censored, fired, sued or whatever before leftist judges who hate cops too, it's no wonder the country is going to hell in a handbasket.
Nope. OK is not a "stop and identify" state. He was not required to identify himself.He explained he didn't have ID but any normal person would have said, it is at my house at (whatever address) near here. And he technically was not required to show ID under the law in that state, but any normal person having ID would have produced it just the same just to reassure the cop that you're on the up and up. And actually, once he became belligerent, defensive, uncooperative, that could produce enough suspicion to allow the cops to lawfully ask for ID.
But he was arrested for not providing his name, address and DOB which Oklahoma law DOES require he provide a law enforcement officer who asks for it. And he was taken down, fairly gently, because resisted arrest. If he had not done that, the cop would never have taken him down which is routine for people resisting arrest.
The only trunk was the cops
