This Guy Is The BOMB

[sr20s14zenki]

its a long clip but it is awsome


now my question is

Do I have to show my I.D. to Calgary Cops, if they ask me for no reason?


http://www.wimp.com/showingpolice/

sorry if this is a repost

[Alterac]

Yes.

If you dont, they can bring you downtown for ID / Detainment.
Just like if you dont have ID that means downtown for detainment and fingerprinting.

[JimmyJones]

skimmed through it, its pretty intresting. I also would like to know about the id thing.

On a side note when did the word "bomb" come back? I hear kids now saying " that car is so bomb". However i feel that you are older because you still say "the" on front. Get with the times!

[colsankey]

Yes they can ask you for ID, you can choose not to give it to them, but they can then take you for a ride downtown for ID.
When asked, fork it over.

[sr20s14zenki]

fuck that i have rights lol

[mushi_mushi]

I just listened to this clip and im sorry to say if you agree with this guy you are an idiot. The police officer was doing his job, he just asked to see some ID, and then the rollerblader goes on about how he will not divulge any information to agents of the government because that would infringe on his privacy. So what does this moron do instead, he refuses to give any info to an officer, tapes the whole ordeal, comes home and posts a video that divulges his name and address to millions of people, wow hes my hero. Actually his rants kind of remind me of a scene from "Good Will Hunting" when he's defending himself in a court of law.

[colsankey]

Originally posted by sr20s14zenki
fuck that i have rights lol

You sure do, have you actually read what those rights are?

[BigMass]

SHOW ME YOUR PAPERS!
http://ghostline.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/gestapo1.png

[Criticull]

You have to show your ID if they ask. Why is this kid pretending he's so intelligent by refusing the request. You do have to identify yourself.

[BigMass]

Originally posted by colsankey


You sure do, have you actually read what those rights are?

the most basic fundamental freedom is the freedom to be left alone. To be stopped and asked for identification without probable cause to believe a crime has been committed is the definition of a police state.

[BigMass]

Originally posted by Criticull
You have to show your ID if they ask. Why is this kid pretending he's so intelligent by refusing the request. You do have to identify yourself.

no you don't... But i don't expect school are teaching students about freedom much now adays. Only how to obey authority and be good little slaves.

[eglove]

fuck it's just id who cares?

[Enhance]

Seems to me like an attention whore. Bored kid wants some attention so he refuses to cooperate with a police officer:rolleyes:

[DayGlow]

A cop can ask any question they wish, people aren't compelled to comply unless the demand is lawful, ie confirm identification for the purpose of issuing a summons.

[Criticull]

Originally posted by BigMass


no you don't... But i don't expect school are teaching students about freedom much now adays. Only how to obey authority and be good little slaves.

You have to identify if you're breaking the law, and even on a Terry stop you must identify yourself in certain jurisdictions.

As of 2009, the following 24 states have “stop and identify” laws...In New York you do.

New York N. Y. Crim. Proc. Law (CPL) §140.50 (1)

I'm not in school anymore, but thanks.

And seriously, it's condescending to call people slaves because they wouldn't bother wasting 3 police officers time over this. It makes you a slave to cooperate with a reasonable request? Please fool.

If the cop had cuffed him or given him a hard time for no reason, or smacked him, way different story, but the kid was being a douche. Half an hour cuz he wouldn't up his identity? Wtf.

[sr20s14zenki]

wow you guys are real anal ... i put this up for shits and giggles.. and everybody wants to be Nancy Grace. relax.. all i was intending was, doing that to cops would be fun.

now everybody go have some fun, and relax..

[colsankey]

I was just trying to answer your question.. and for the record I laughed out loud the first 3 or 4 times I saw your cyanide siggy.

[Danny Meehan]

Originally posted by BigMass
SHOW ME YOUR PAPERS!
http://ghostline.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/gestapo1.png
Deine Papieren! Deine Papieren !!!

[homelessman]

^ nice car brah

[signature7]

Nice sig^

No like friendly neighbourhood moderator?

[TurboD]

you only need to show ID while driving a motorvehicle

walking down the street police need a reasonable suspicion to ask for ID


Life, liberty and security of person

7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.


Arrest or detention

10. Everyone has the right on arrest or detention

(a) to be informed promptly of the reasons therefor;

(b) to retain and instruct counsel without delay and to be informed of that right; and

(c) to have the validity of the detention determined by way of habeas corpus and to be released if the detention is not lawful.

You don't have to show the police your identification or tell them who you are. Canadian Law doesn't even require you to carry your ID papers with you. Protesters are advised not to bring their ID to the protest. It makes it difficult for the police to find any information that could be used against you. On top of that, you'll probably never see your ID again after the cops take it from you. But with most laws and rules, there are exceptions. If you are arrested by the police, then you have to tell them who you are. If you're driving a motor vehicle, you need your driver's license and vehicle registration, which you must present to the police if they ask you for it. If you are under 18 and the police find you in a bar, then you'll have to show your ID. Some municipalities have by-laws that require you to show ID if you are found at night in a public place (i.e. park, street, etc.). If you refuse, you could be charged with vagrancy.

[maxomilll]

:rofl:

[TurboD]

for the people that are fully willing to offer ID under no suspicion..... would you also allow for a search of your house or car with no reason.

if you assert that you would be more than happy to have your ID given up for no reason, you should be just as co-operative to an officer that asks for a search without grounds.

[phil98z24]

To answer the original question...

We need more than reasonable suspicion - we need reasonable and probable grounds to both detain AND identify you, which means an offence has been committed (criminal, bylaw, etc) or you are under arrest. Both of those compel you to identify yourself. However; should you chose to identify yourself in a circumstance where you are no lawfully compelled to do so, and lie about it, you are now obstructing justice and can be arrested for that - and now you will be compelled to ID yourself, and continuing to not do so will end up with you being placed under arrest until both the police and courts are satisfied that you are who you say you are.

As far as vehicles go, you need to have your drivers license on you, plain and simple, no two ways about it... and that can be demanded at any time for any reason, whether an offence has been committed or not. This does not necessarily apply to passengers, but they must somehow identify themselves in certain circumstances.

When you are in a licensed premises, or in possession of alcohol, you are compelled to identify yourself... no matter what. Again, this is legislation under the Gaming and Liquor Act that as inspectors, police/peace officers can ask anyone at anytime for their identification under these circumstances.

There is no law stipulating that you have to carry your ID with you or show it to any old cop that asks for it.. that is what the Charter is for. We can ask for it, but you don't have to provide it as is where is for absolutely no reason. I would advise that in those circumstances that you are lawfully compelled to provide it, to have some piece of official government ID would be a good idea as it just makes things a whole lot easier.

There is my two bits... I hate the idea of being violated as much as anyone... hopefully that cleared up some stuff. :dunno:

[ZorroAMG]

Some of you have trouble hearing?

He was rollerblading on the street, the cop said it was against the ordinance and asked for ID.

Fucking attention whore D&D nerd.

[phil98z24]

Originally posted by TurboD
for the people that are fully willing to offer ID under no suspicion..... would you also allow for a search of your house or car with no reason.

if you assert that you would be more than happy to have your ID given up for no reason, you should be just as co-operative to an officer that asks for a search without grounds.

But there are people who are more than willing to help the police by providing ID and helping exclude themselves from the trouble makers... and then there is the whole idea of being unlawfully compelled to provide ID with no reason. It's lawful for police to ask, just sometimes there is no legal direction to actually hand it over.

However; I wouldn't start comparing searches of homes/cars with providing ID. That is a whole different kettle of fish, IMHO!

[colsankey]

Originally posted by TurboD
for the people that are fully willing to offer ID under no suspicion..... would you also allow for a search of your house or car with no reason.

if you assert that you would be more than happy to have your ID given up for no reason, you should be just as co-operative to an officer that asks for a search without grounds.

Speaking for myself: False - Providing my ID under most circumstances I can think of, would quickly resolve any situations that come to mind with the least amount of headache for myself.

If cops wanted to search my car, there's nothing in there, but I'd likely politely decline. If they wanted to search my house, again unless they had a real good reason, I'd politely direct them to a judge for a warrent.

Being a hard ass and and refusing to give ID isn't going to help me get to work/home any faster if I was for some reason stopped while walking around town. But that doesnt mean I'd allow my home to be searched without a good - to myself - reason.

[Criticull]

^+1 there's a difference between identification and property search, particularly if they have grounds to ask you for identification, but not necessarily search you, as was the case in the video.

[Wrinkly]

Originally posted by mushi_mushi
I just listened to this clip and im sorry to say if you agree with this guy you are an idiot. The police officer was doing his job, he just asked to see some ID, and then the rollerblader goes on about how he will not divulge any information to agents of the government because that would infringe on his privacy. So what does this moron do instead, he refuses to give any info to an officer, tapes the whole ordeal, comes home and posts a video that divulges his name and address to millions of people, wow hes my hero. Actually his rants kind of remind me of a scene from "Good Will Hunting" when he's defending himself in a court of law.

Did you watch the whole thing? The cop refused to cite the statute that he claimed he 'could' arrest him for because it apparently doesn't even EXIST - he made it up to intimidate the guy.



Originally posted by Criticull
You have to show your ID if they ask. Why is this kid pretending he's so intelligent by refusing the request. You do have to identify yourself.

Not under the circumstances in the video in the state in question (NEW YORK), you don't - unless they have good reason (ie about to arrest you), even then, you don't have to give ID if you haven't been informed exactly which law it is you're breaking first.

Good on him - I admire his courage to stand up to, not one, but three police officers (one of which was being a bit of a dick IMO).

[Wrinkly]

Originally posted by Criticull
^+1 there's a difference between identification and property search, particularly if they have grounds to ask you for identification, but not necessarily search you, as was the case in the video.

That's the whole point though, they didn't have grounds to ask for ID, see above (and they never got it).

[Wrinkly]

Originally posted by ZorroAMG
Some of you have trouble hearing?

He was rollerblading on the street, the cop said it was against the ordinance and asked for ID.

Fucking attention whore D&D nerd.

The cop LIED. There is no such 'ordinance', which is why the cop pretended to "be reasonable" and let it go.

[Twin_Cam_Turbo]

Thats guy has balls.

[ZorroAMG]

Originally posted by Wrinkly


The cop LIED. There is no such 'ordinance', which is why the cop pretended to "be reasonable" and let it go.

Why did he lie? Because some nerd claims in a subtitle in a shitty vid that he did? LOL! Until you post up that town bylaws and ordinances, you don't know any better than the kid in the video. He was asking for it and clearly stated before the vid and to the cops that he's a douche that yells out his opinions on a regular basis. Rollerblading with no reflections, in the street in the dark at 1am will probably get his attention. Act like a nerd, and well...you see how it turns out.

Twincan, no he doesn't. All he did was waste taxpayer money and wasted the cops time. You may need to get out more if you were impressed by that haha

[ZorroAMG]

double post.

[Twin_Cam_Turbo]

Originally posted by ZorroAMG


Why did he lie? Because some nerd claims in a subtitle in a shitty vid that he did? LOL! Until you post up that town bylaws and ordinances, you don't know any better than the kid in the video. He was asking for it and clearly stated before the vid and to the cops that he's a douche that yells out his opinions on a regular basis. Rollerblading with no reflections, in the street in the dark at 1am will probably get his attention. Act like a nerd, and well...you see how it turns out.

Twincan, no he doesn't. All he did was waste taxpayer money and wasted the cops time. You may need to get out more if you were impressed by that haha

Are you kidding me? Would you have the guts to lead the cops on like that? I certainly wouldnt and I dont think many others would either...

[ZorroAMG]

How does that take guts? Explain that to me. Yapping to the cops, wasting their time and videotaping it?

[Twin_Cam_Turbo]

Would you do it? Yap to cops when they continually ask for ID? Continue wasting their time, living your "values" and not co-operate?

[Alterac]

Off Topic from Video:

If a cop asks for my id (aka Drivers license), sure, take a look.
But house/car search, nope sorry not gonna let them do that.

Like stated above, its the difference of getting harassed for 2 hours, vs the 3 seconds to show id and leave.

If you are polite and just offer your ID to a cop, they tend to head on there mary way.

[TurboD]

its rare to find a police officer that follows this.
I'm not sure if they know the right and choose to ignore it or pretend not to know it, or if they actually don't realize its a right.

i think the point the person in the video was trying to make that he understands that the fast and less hassle way to go about it would be to just hand over your ID, but the point hes trying to make is that a patriot stands up for all their rights and not just when its convenient for them or the government, or the governments uniformed army.

[mx73someday]

Originally posted by ZorroAMG


Why did he lie? Because some nerd claims in a subtitle in a shitty vid that he did? LOL! Until you post up that town bylaws and ordinances, you don't know any better than the kid in the video. He was asking for it and clearly stated before the vid and to the cops that he's a douche that yells out his opinions on a regular basis. Rollerblading with no reflections, in the street in the dark at 1am will probably get his attention. Act like a nerd, and well...you see how it turns out.


It's not unusual for a cop to be spouting bullshit, it's next to impossible to memorize 6,000,000 statutes and I suspect there are very few who could claim to know a good majority of them. This is what judges are supposed to be for. That particular cop didn't seem that bright, looks like he convinced himself it was an ordinance and then spouted it as fact. I know I've seen cops make some stupid ass assertions in traffic stops before, like the Ponoka cop who insisted that you have to change your RHD to LHD two months after it arrives in Alberta.

Just because it's not a normal thing for citizens to act in this way doesn't mean it's wrong. We need more people to stand up for themselves rather than accept without question assertions made by those in power. People are already far too obedient and have ignorantly given up the few rights we were supposed to have when this country was started. Just because you don't value rights doesn't mean it's wrong for others to value them, even if they do it a nerdy and annoying way.

[TurboD]

without a camera this person runs the risk of being charged or detained and has to in court prove his innocence of his word against 4 police officers.

as police get worse more and more citizens will start to carry cameras everywhere.

that video was when you get a cop in a nice mood.

here is what happens when you get a corrupt cop in a bad mood.

Z2GQYiLH6dY

[TKRIS]

Originally posted by ZorroAMG
Some of you have trouble hearing?

He was rollerblading on the street, the cop said it was against the ordinance and asked for ID.

Fucking attention whore D&D nerd.

Presuming there actually is such an ordinance, that would constitute a traffic violation, not a criminal act. As such, no "Stop and Identify" laws would apply.
If the cop was going to give him a ticket for it, then he'd be able to demand either proof of identification, or detain him for failing to provide it. But since he wasn't giving him that ticket (possibly because no such ordinance exists), he doesn't get to demand ID.

Attention whore? Probably.


But that doesn't make him wrong.


EDIT: There's no fucking way cops are going to stand there and put up with you refusing to comply if they can legally demand compliance. If you're in a situation where the cops have the right to demand ID, and you refuse to give it to them, they will arrest you, not stand on the side of the road for a half an hour debating the subject.
The cops in the video either knew they couldn't legally demand that he show ID and were trying to force intimidate and coerce him into doing it anyway, or they have no fucking clue when they're actually allowed to request ID, and were doing their best to maintain their egos without actually committing to something (likely for fear of the consequences). Someone who knows when and why police can request ID aren't likely going to let it slide if the cops illegally detain them.
Like most other videos of this nature, this was the cops trying to protect their ego. Forgive the generalization, but if a cop tells you you need to show him ID, and you tell him "Well no, actually, I don't", he's not likely going to say "Oh, yeah, you're right. My bad. Have a great night."

EDIT EDIT: Also, blaming the guy for wasting the cops and taxpayers resources is fucking retarded. It was the police officers choice to drag the situation out, not the video-guy's. Regardless of who was actually right, the cop was the one responsible for the waste of everyone's time. Either arrest him, or don't, but don't get 3 cops all standing around trying to convince the guy that they could arrest him.

[ZorroAMG]

Originally posted by Twin_Cam_Turbo
Would you do it? Yap to cops when they continually ask for ID? Continue wasting their time, living your "values" and not co-operate?

No. Not for lack of guts, just possession of common sense.

I am still amazed that you are so impressed by this...

[Isaiah]

Unfortunately, few of those calling the kid an attention whore and siding with the cop are familiar with the work of John Locke and Social Contract theory. It's a pity the Board of Education doesn't see the value in covering it since it's one of the cornerstones of human rights.

[TurboD]

Originally posted by ZorroAMG


No. Not for lack of guts, just possession of common sense.

I am still amazed that you are so impressed by this...

what common sense are you meaning in this situation?

the common sense that your job as a citizen is to comply with any and all requests from the police?

or is it the common sense that police are never to be questioned because they are always right?

or is it the common sense that rights are not as serious as some people think?

or is it the common sense that you can never win a debate with a police officer?

[Wrinkly]

Originally posted by Twin_Cam_Turbo
Would you do it? Yap to cops when they continually ask for ID? Continue wasting their time, living your "values" and not co-operate?

Quite - in fact he was simply exercising his constitutional rights. Something most of us don't do - but should.

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty, or safety" - Benjamin Franklin

[Wrinkly]

Originally posted by ZorroAMG
Until you post up that town bylaws and ordinances, you don't know any better than the kid in the video.

Fair point - and I tried very hard to locate it. Either it's well hidden, or it doesn't exist. However - not that it means anything, but my gut feel is that the "kid" is telling the truth. (He is actually 27, so whilst not exactly 'old', he's certainly not a kid).

[sr20s14zenki]

this is to funny... what a deabte! lol

[Criticull]

Originally posted by Wrinkly


That's the whole point though, they didn't have grounds to ask for ID, see above (and they never got it).

That's the place where we disagree, is that under the laws of New York, the officer had a right to ask for ID as long as the kid was being detained. The Stop and Identify statute DOES apply because supposedly the kid was breaking the law by blading on the road. I don't know if it is illegal to blade on the road in that town. It is likely legal to blade on the sidewalk which is why the first cop, who I agree was a medium on the douche-scale, tried to drown out the kid at the end when the kid was asking if it was legal to blade on the sidewalk.

I think that since the kid was being detained, he would have to show his ID, period. If the officer didn't have a right to detain him, which is certainly debatable given the lack of clarity surrounding the rollerblading ordinance, then the kid should have debated whether or not he was being detained, and not simply telling the officers they were wrong, even though he didn't know, when under the rules of detainment, they were right.

I am not for giving police more power, but this kid doesn't even understand the law. He is right, ignorance is not a defense, but acknowledging that ignorance is not a defense is also not a defense.

I guess it comes down to whether or not rollerblading on the road can lead to a detainment by a law official. If not, the kid can play warhammer with a smile. If so, the kid can play warhammer with a smile. He loves warhammer.

Good debate y'all.

[BananaFob]

Found this, it's for "in-line skating" and not necessarily skateboarding but apparently in New York State you have the same duties and rights as an operator of a motor vehicle, so technically he DID have to show ID.

http://www.skatecity.com/nyc/law/

[ZorroAMG]

Originally posted by TurboD


what common sense are you meaning in this situation?

the common sense that your job as a citizen is to comply with any and all requests from the police?

or is it the common sense that police are never to be questioned because they are always right?

or is it the common sense that rights are not as serious as some people think?

or is it the common sense that you can never win a debate with a police officer?

Common sense that I have better things to do than waste my time and cops time arguing with them. They were suspicious of him and found it odd he was blading in the dark at 1am. WGAF...just show them the damn ID and move on.....it's not like the cop was trolling around going "show me your id, show me your id" to randoms walking down the street in the middle of the day.

That common sense. Got it? Stop being such a big brother hater, your fear is unwarranted here.

EDIT: see the post above me, he did break ordinance/law and was allowed to be stopped and ID'd.

[remarx-j]

move to canada if you don't like it here

AHHAHAHAHAHAH

[TKRIS]

Maybe we can get some clarification from Phil or Dayglow, but I think you're still wrong.
A traffic violation is not a criminal act. If it was, getting a speeding ticket would result in a criminal record.

"Stop and identify" laws only apply to criminal activity.

However, as Dayglow said, police can require that you present ID in order to serve a summons, etc.

So, like I said, "Stop and identify" statutes don't apply, because they guy wasn't committing a crime (only, at most, a traffic violation), and the cop couldn't require that he provide ID because he wasn't giving him a ticket.

Basically, the cops position was this (presuming, once again, they there is a bylaw against rollerblading in the street):
If the cop was going to issue a ticket, he could demand ID for the purposes of doing so. If he's not issuing a ticket, he has no legal grounds to demand ID.


And again, for reference:
Dayglow/Phil: If you had grounds to demand ID from me, and I refused to provide it, would you call for backup and spend the next half hour debating the issue with me on the side of the road, or would you haul my ass off to the cop shop?

If the cops are in a position to legally require that you produce ID, they're in a position to arrest you for failing to do so.

[ZorroAMG]

Originally posted by TKRIS
Maybe we can get some clarification from Phil or Dayglow, but I think you're still wrong.
A traffic violation is not a criminal act. If it was, getting a speeding ticket would result in a criminal record.

"Stop and identify" laws only apply to criminal activity.


Are you serious? What do you show when you are pulled over for speeding, a signal light or seat belt ticket? None of those are criminal activities but you still show ID.

[TKRIS]

Originally posted by ZorroAMG


Are you serious? What do you show when you are pulled over for speeding, a signal light or seat belt ticket? None of those are criminal activities but you still show ID.


Originally posted by phil98z24

As far as vehicles go, you need to have your drivers license on you, plain and simple, no two ways about it... and that can be demanded at any time for any reason, whether an offence has been committed or not. This does not necessarily apply to passengers, but they must somehow identify themselves in certain circumstances.

When you are in a licensed premises, or in possession of alcohol, you are compelled to identify yourself... no matter what. Again, this is legislation under the Gaming and Liquor Act that as inspectors, police/peace officers can ask anyone at anytime for their identification under these circumstances.



That was posted directly above the post where you asked if *we* had trouble hearing.

Which, of course, begs the question of where your deficiencies rest...

[Criticull]

Originally posted by TKRIS
Maybe we can get some clarification from Phil or Dayglow, but I think you're still wrong.
A traffic violation is not a criminal act. If it was, getting a speeding ticket would result in a criminal record.

"Stop and identify" laws only apply to criminal activity.

However, as Dayglow said, police can require that you present ID in order to serve a summons, etc.

So, like I said, "Stop and identify" statutes don't apply, because they guy wasn't committing a crime (only, at most, a traffic violation), and the cop couldn't require that he provide ID because he wasn't giving him a ticket.

Basically, the cops position was this (presuming, once again, they there is a bylaw against rollerblading in the street):
If the cop was going to issue a ticket, he could demand ID for the purposes of doing so. If he's not issuing a ticket, he has no legal grounds to demand ID.


And again, for reference:
Dayglow/Phil: If you had grounds to demand ID from me, and I refused to provide it, would you call for backup and spend the next half hour debating the issue with me on the side of the road, or would you haul my ass off to the cop shop?

If the cops are in a position to legally require that you produce ID, they're in a position to arrest you for failing to do so.

I see what you're saying about him not committing a crime vs. a traffic violation. I was trying to argue that the cop had a right to detain him and that if he had the right to detain him, he had the right to find out who the guy was. Now can you detain someone for a traffic violation and not a crime? I think so. Let's get Phil or Dayglow in on this. I am interested to find out.

[TKRIS]

Originally posted by Criticull


I see what you're saying about him not committing a crime vs. a traffic violation. I was trying to argue that the cop had a right to detain him
That's an assumption.
The cops probably have a right to detain you for the purposes of serving a summons, but they weren't issuing a summons.


Originally posted by Criticull
and that if he had the right to detain him, he had the right to find out who the guy was.
That's another assumption, built on top of the first one. The cop has the right to demand ID for the purposes of issuing a summons, but that doesn't mean he has the right to demand ID from anyone he stops. He wasn't issuing a summons, so he can't demand ID on the grounds of needing it to issue a summons.


Originally posted by Criticull
Now can you detain someone for a traffic violation and not a crime? I think so. Let's get Phil or Dayglow in on this. I am interested to find out.

So there's the problem, you're position relies on 2 assumptions: First, you're assuming the police can detain you for a traffic violation without citing you for a traffic violation. Second, you're assuming that the cops can demand you provide ID anytime they detain you.
I'm pretty sure you're wrong on both counts here. Dayglow's post seems to agree with me.

There are 2 reasons for the cops would have for demanding ID that I can see:
1.) If they suspected he was committing, or involved in, a criminal activity. This was not the case.
2.) For the purposes of issuing a summons for the possible ordinance infraction. This was not the case either.

[mushi_mushi]

I did in fact watch the video and these are my interpretation of the events. Justin (the rollerblader) claims to be well known to police, he says he usually skates and yells anti drug/racism slogans or carry's signs. Well he certainly does have the right to do this, but I think there are much more powerful ways to voice your opinions and make a difference, to me such acts scream "attention whore".

Justin wasnt stopped randomly for no apparent reason. He was stopped rollerblading at 1am and the officer claims that he said something to him as he passed him by. To me it doesnt matter if there is an ordinance that prohibits rollerblading on the road or not. Im not psychic but my guess is had the rollerblader just given the police officer his ID and explained the situation politely without the use of his camera, he would have been on his way home within a minute. The officer doesnt care where this guy lives, hes not going to go and torch his house, he simply asked for his name as its part of his job.

Justin then goes on to make a huge deal when one of the police officers asked him who he was going to vote for. Is this a personal question, sure, but the officer was just making conversation, she wasnt going to beat him with a lead pipe if he said Obama. If I was stopped by a police officer and was asked for my ID I would give it to them granted there was some reason for it being asked in the first place.

To answer the final question, does this guy have balls? Yes he does. It also takes ball to hijack a plane with bombs strapped on to your chest, it takes balls to ride a motorcycle 120km in a 60 zone, it takes balls to kill your g/f and evade police. Even though these things take balls I dont see anyone on beyond praising such actions even though they might "take balls". There are different types of balls, there are brave balls and there are stupid balls, in my opinion this guy isnt brave, hes just stupid.

[Criticull]

Originally posted by TKRIS

That's an assumption.
The cops probably have a right to detain you for the purposes of serving a summons, but they weren't issuing a summons.


That's another assumption, built on top of the first one. The cop has the right to demand ID for the purposes of issuing a summons, but that doesn't mean he has the right to demand ID from anyone he stops. He wasn't issuing a summons, so he can't demand ID on the grounds of needing it to issue a summons.



So there's the problem, you're position relies on 2 assumptions: First, you're assuming the police can detain you for a traffic violation without citing you for a traffic violation. Second, you're assuming that the cops can demand you provide ID anytime they detain you.
I'm pretty sure you're wrong on both counts here. Dayglow's post seems to agree with me.

There are 2 reasons for the cops would have for demanding ID that I can see:
1.) If they suspected he was committing, or involved in, a criminal activity. This was not the case.
2.) For the purposes of issuing a summons for the possible ordinance infraction. This was not the case either.

I don't see Dayglow's post as being complete enough to resolve the matter.

Is the guy being detained?

If no, no ID necessary.

If yes, you must ID yourself upon request (this is not an assumption).

So really there is one assumption. I assume he is being "detained." The officer told him he was being detained. That's what I'm going off of. It seems reasonable to detain someone for that. Maybe it isn't.

[Sugarphreak]

..

[Twin_Cam_Turbo]

Originally posted by ZorroAMG


No. Not for lack of guts, just possession of common sense.

I am still amazed that you are so impressed by this...

No no I totally agree the guy is a retard. Im just saying if you got to that position, would you continue wasting the cops time with your bs? Im not impressed with the guy's values and way of doing business, im impressed he had the balls to keep it going that long, even as the officers get more and more agitated, im sure if you did that here after 1-2 mins you would be in the car. The kids a retard, but he sticks with it.

[phil98z24]

As requested, I will clarify what constitutes detention and when we can compel someone to identify themselves (as far as Canadian laws go, of course!):

If I observe someone commit an offence, whether bylaw, provincial or traffic and I stop them as a result of that it is considered a minor detention... not arrest, just detention. However, it has the same general powers as arrest in so far as you MUST identify yourself even if that officer has no intention of issuing a summons, because you have already committed an offence and the law compels you to identify yourself as a result of that. We have discretion as to whether we want to lay a charge or not, but someone who is detained in this manner does not have discretion about identifying themselves.

There are other types of detention when it comes to criminal activity but I won't get into those because they are confusing and irrelevant at this point. That said, the USA has Terry stops and fleeing felon laws and all sorts of broad sweeping powers that we don't, so it's hard to say with 100% certainty what went down in that video and whether he actually had committed an offence or not.

Beyond that, I do know that they are similar in their powers of discretion, so if he HAD committed an offence or that officer has reasonable and probable grounds (or probable cause as they like to call it down there) he could stop him and demand ID, ticket or not.

To address the final point, there are situations when you do call for back up and argue it because the courts would rather see us try to find solutions to these situations that don't require further deprivation of people's liberty and unnecessary interaction with the state. That follows my own personal beliefs and as such I conduct business that way, but sometimes circumstances force your hand and you have to do it.

My take on this video is two things 1) it all boils down to which mountain you want to die on and I think certain things aren't worth it... especially some schmuck rollerblading down the sidewalk, or 2) these guys had no grounds for latching on to this guy or even demanding ID and pursued it erroneously and were not willing to admit it. Who knows?

One things for sure is that egos are egos and when both sides aren't willing to give an inch it can result in Youtube videos. :)

[TKRIS]

Originally posted by Criticull


I don't see Dayglow's post as being complete enough to resolve the matter.

Is the guy being detained?

If no, no ID necessary.

If yes, you must ID yourself upon request (this is not an assumption).
So really there is one assumption. I assume he is being "detained." The officer told him he was being detained. That's what I'm going off of. It seems reasonable to detain someone for that. Maybe it isn't.

We'll have to wait for clarification, but you could be right.

However, you're still making assumptions.

The guy did identify himself. He told the police his name.

"Stop and Identify" laws do not require that you produce identification, only that you identify yourself. So even if the "Stop and Identify" statute applies (and after some research, it looks like I may well have misinterpreted it, and it does), the individual did meet it's requirements.

A big part of the problem here is that there is no regulated form of government identification (fortunately, although i'm sure it's coming...).
As such, the government can not require that you be able to produce written identification.

That is to say, there is no form of standard written identification for everyone, and even if there was, there's no law saying you must always carry it with you, so it's impossible to require that anyone detained by the police produce written identification.

Of course, there are exceptions to this, as have been mentioned.
In order to operate a vehicle, you need a driver's license. In order to be in a bar, you need to be able to prove you're old enough to legally be there.

You don't need to have or carry any sort of identification to rollerblade, or walk, down the street.



Originally posted by phil98z24
As requested, I will clarify what constitutes detention and when we can compel someone to identify themselves (as far as Canadian laws go, of course!):

If I observe someone commit an offence, whether bylaw, provincial or traffic and I stop them as a result of that it is considered a minor detention... not arrest, just detention. However, it has the same general powers as arrest in so far as you MUST identify yourself even if that officer has no intention of issuing a summons, because you have already committed an offence and the law compels you to identify yourself as a result of that.

Fair enough. After some reading, I realize I was wrong on that count. However...



Originally posted by phil98z24
Beyond that, I do know that they are similar in their powers of discretion, so if he HAD committed an offence or that officer has reasonable and probable grounds (or probable cause as they like to call it down there) he could stop him and demand ID, ticket or not.

There's a nuance point here: What constitutes ID?
I'll keep digging, but I can't find ANY reference to you being required to produce any and all types identification available to you, only that you provide identification.

The guy in the video did provide identification, and from everything I've been able to find (given that he wasn't doing anything that requires a form of ID like driving a car), that is good enough for the Supreme Court.


Great to get insight from those in your position.

[TurboD]

Originally posted by ZorroAMG


Common sense that I have better things to do than waste my time and cops time arguing with them. They were suspicious of him and found it odd he was blading in the dark at 1am. WGAF...just show them the damn ID and move on.....it's not like the cop was trolling around going "show me your id, show me your id" to randoms walking down the street in the middle of the day.

That common sense. Got it? Stop being such a big brother hater, your fear is unwarranted here.

EDIT: see the post above me, he did break ordinance/law and was allowed to be stopped and ID'd.

so i'm interested to know, if you are taking a walk late at night and the police stop you and request a quick pat down search, would you use the same common sense, so that you don't waste both your time and the cops time arguing about who has what rights?

what if you were taking a walk late at night and a cop stopped you and requested that you surrender your cell phone for no reason so that they could copy the info and review it.

edit: and you keep mentioning the violation that was never cited or layed against him. if he in fact was stopped at random for no reason, would you then change your opinion and say that its good to waste your time and the cops time for something so simple?

[ZorroAMG]

Originally posted by TKRIS


That was posted directly above the post where you asked if *we* had trouble hearing.



And? It's a post that does nothing to discredit what I've said...

Jesus dude, you aren't getting it. The cop didn't just walk up to the guy for no reason and ask for id. He was breaking ordinance according to the cop at the time and therefore was asked for ID. Yes, you don't HAVE to have ID on you to walk or rollerblade but in a circumstance like this, he asked. If he had ID on him, he should give it to the cop, not be a fucktard.

:rolleyes:


Originally posted by TurboD


so i'm interested to know, if you are taking a walk late at night and the police stop you and request a quick pat down search, would you use the same common sense, so that you don't waste both your time and the cops time arguing about who has what rights?

what if you were taking a walk late at night and a cop stopped you and requested that you surrender your cell phone for no reason so that they could copy the info and review it.

I would have asked why, just like the guy in the video. If he gave me a good reason, yes. If I looked suspicious and he explained why, yes. If I did something wrong, like the guy in the video, yes. I look at it as aiding them in finding criminals, not as a "woe is me the world is watching" conspiracy worry wart.

As for the cell phone, what does that have to do with anything? That info is more than just who I am and is private.

Don't reach too far, buddy. :facepalm:

[phil98z24]

Originally posted by TKRIS


We'll have to wait for clarification, but you could be right.

However, you're still making assumptions.

The guy did identify himself. He told the police his name.

"Stop and Identify" laws do not require that you produce identification, only that you identify yourself. So even if the "Stop and Identify" statute applies (and after some research, it looks like I may well have misinterpreted it, and it does), the individual did meet it's requirements.

A big part of the problem here is that there is no regulated form of government identification (fortunately, although i'm sure it's coming...).
As such, the government can not require that you be able to produce written identification.

That is to say, there is no form of standard written identification for everyone, and even if there was, there's no law saying you must always carry it with you, so it's impossible to require that anyone detained by the police produce written identification.

Of course, there are exceptions to this, as have been mentioned.
In order to operate a vehicle, you need a driver's license. In order to be in a bar, you need to be able to prove you're old enough to legally be there.

You don't need to have or carry any sort of identification to rollerblade, or walk, down the street.

And my apologies if I missed that part of your question! You don't have to produce actual ID, just ID yourself and they must be satisfied you are who you say you are before that detention ends.

As you mentioned, you must produce actual government issued ID when driving or for GLA purposes, such as casinos and licensed premises. Otherwise, you don't have to have any sort of ID on you.

[Wrinkly]

Some are STILL missing the point here; even IF he was breaking a law - the FACT is he DOES NOT have to produce ID until AFTER he has been informed exactly which law he is breaking/why he is being detained AND THAT LAW CITED; not just 'mentioned' by the officer as in "there's a law/ordinance against that, because I say there is and you have to believe me", he has to cite it. Which he didn't.

The cop DID NOT CITE THE LAW. Hence the "kid" did not have to produce ID.

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

It's quite simple really - whether any of us agree with it or not, isn't the point and doesn't change that :rolleyes:

It's the law, and it's about constitutional rights (which the police are employed to uphold). It amazes me how many have such a hard time grasping this.

:closed:

[TurboD]

Originally posted by ZorroAMG

I would have asked why, just like the guy in the video. If he gave me a good reason, yes. If I looked suspicious and he explained why, yes. If I did something wrong, like the guy in the video, yes. I look at it as aiding them in finding criminals, not as a "woe is me the world is watching" conspiracy worry wart.

"looking suspicious" is not a valid reason for asking for ID.
they would then have to tell you what makes someone look suspicious, otherwise anyone could be labeled suspicious for any reason

the person in the video was not given a valid reason for being suspicious.
being outside late at night is not reasonable claim for suspicion

if you feel such a need to aid the police, next time there is theft on your street, offer your place up for a search so that the cops can be aided in knowing the theft was no comited by you.

[Legless_Marine2]

Originally posted by mx73someday


It's not unusual for a cop to be spouting bullshit, it's next to impossible to memorize 6,000,000 statutes

The police shouldn't have to memorize all 6,000,000 statutes, but they should be intimately familiar with the laws pertaining to the exercise of their powers.

[TKRIS]

Originally posted by ZorroAMG


And? It's a post that does nothing to discredit what I've said...


Yes, it does.
As Phil clearly states in his post directly above your first one, and directly below this one, you have to show your identification because you're driving your car, and driving a car requires that you carry a license and produce it upon request. In this guy's case, he did not need to show his identification, because he wasn't doing something that required he carried it, or that he produce it.


Originally posted by ZorroAMG

Jesus dude, you aren't getting it. The cop didn't just walk up to the guy for no reason and ask for id. He was breaking ordinance according to the cop at the time and therefore was asked for ID. Yes, you don't HAVE to have ID on you to walk or rollerblade but in a circumstance like this, he asked. If he had ID on him, he should give it to the cop, not be a fucktard.

:rolleyes:



And that's completely beside the point.
What you feel he "should" have done it completely irrelevant.
This is about what he's required to do. And he's not required to show the cops any ID.

Like I said: attention whore? Probably.
But he didn't have to show the cops jack shit.

[ZorroAMG]

No, I am making reference to the ny state laws posted that said he was breaking the law. That's why phil's post supports mine. You break the law you get ID'd.

He is a douche though haha

[BananaFob]

Originally posted by TurboD


"looking suspicious" is not a valid reason for asking for ID.
they would then have to tell you what makes someone look suspicious, otherwise anyone could be labeled suspicious for any reason

the person in the video was not given a valid reason for being suspicious.
being outside late at night is not reasonable claim for suspicion

if you feel such a need to aid the police, next time there is theft on your street, offer your place up for a search so that the cops can be aided in knowing the theft was no comited by you.

That wasn't the reason that he got stopped.

Taken from the link above that I posted about NY state laws on rollerblading:
1239. Reflective material and devices for in-line skating.
S 1234. Riding on roadways, shoulders, bicycle or in-line skate lanes
and bicycle or in-line skate paths. (a) Upon all roadways, any bicycle
or in-line skate shall be driven either on a usable bicycle or in-line
skate lane or, if a usable bicycle or in-line skate lane has not been
provided, near the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway or upon a
usable right-hand shoulder in such a manner as to prevent undue inter-
ference with the flow of traffic except when preparing for a left turn
or when reasonably necessary to avoid conditions that would make it
unsafe to continue along near the right-hand curb or edge. Conditions to
be taken into consideration include, but are not limited to, fixed or
moving objects, vehicles, bicycles, in-line skates, pedestrians,
animals, surface hazards or traffic lanes too narrow for a bicycle or
person on in-line skates and a vehicle to travel safely side-by-side
within the lane.

The reflective issue was mentioned by the cops if you watched the whole video.

[Legless_Marine2]

Here's what I believe the law in Calgary is:

You are not obligated to produce ID to a police officer, unless:

a) You're being charged with a crime.

b) It's after dark.

c) You're driving.


That being said, the police can ALWAYS find something to charge you with, so if you're going to play streetcorner lawyer, you had better do so respectfully.

Similar thing goes for interrogation... If you want to be all tough and beak off about your rights, you may end up getting the phone book[1].... OTOH, one may have better success with "Officer, I appreciate you have a job to do, but I must respectfully wait until a lawyer arrives"[2].



[1] Not that the fine police of the city of Calgary would do such a thing.

[2] At least that's what I read on the internet.

[Wrinkly]

Originally posted by BananaFob
Found this, it's for "in-line skating" and not necessarily skateboarding but apparently in New York State you have the same duties and rights as an operator of a motor vehicle, so technically he DID have to show ID.

http://www.skatecity.com/nyc/law/

Thank you for that - I had been focusing on the "village ordinance", as that was what the cop said he had violated.

But why do you say he did have to show ID? (I didn't read the whole thing, so maybe you saw something I didn't. I did however; find the following from that link).

"Upon all roadways, any bicycle
or in-line skate shall be driven either on a usable bicycle or in-line
skate lane or, if a usable bicycle or in-line skate lane has not been
provided, near the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway or upon a
usable right-hand shoulder in such a manner as to prevent undue inter-
ference with the flow of traffic except when preparing for a left turn
or when reasonably necessary to avoid conditions that would make it
unsafe to continue along near the right-hand curb or edge. Conditions to
be taken into consideration include, but are not limited to, fixed or
moving objects, vehicles, bicycles, in-line skates, pedestrians,
animals, surface hazards or traffic lanes too narrow for a bicycle or
person on in-line skates and a vehicle to travel safely side-by-side
within the lane."

So - unless there was a bike/skate lane that he should have been using , he was not breaking the law. The cop stated that there was a "village ordinance" against skating in the street - which is what I was looking for, but cannot find. The state law above supports the skater. The reflective clothing etc, whilst fair comment is not what the cop spoke of potentially charging him with. The fact STILL remains that the cop never cited any law to him, so therefore no production of ID was required (by law)

Edit: New York state law in this case.

My previous post stands. :closed:

[BananaFob]

Originally posted by Wrinkly


Thank you for that - I had been focusing on the "village ordinance", as that was what the cop said he had violated.

But why do you say he did have to show ID? (I didn't read the whole thing, so maybe you saw something I didn't. I did however; find the following from that link).



I said he should show ID because the state law also considers rollerbladers to have all the rights and duties of a person operating a motor vehicle. That means if a cop can pull you over and ask for you ID for an infraction while you're driving, he should be able to do it to a rollerblader.

[TKRIS]

Originally posted by ZorroAMG
No, I am making reference to the ny state laws posted that said he was breaking the law. That's why phil's post supports mine. You break the law you get ID'd.

He is a douche though haha


Originally posted by phil98z24
You don't have to produce actual ID, just ID yourself


Again: Read, then post.
He doesn't have to show the cops jack shit.

[ragu]

lmao....that was quite funny.

Its not by any means a waste of money. Just over the issue of a fucking ID you've got 3 units there. If you want to stop wasting money then maybe cops should know who to stop and who not to stop.

There is no way a cop can stop and ask you for ID. If there's a huge bank robbery at 2am in the morning and you are jogging right in the area wearing all black clothes and a mask then there you go, now cops have a right to ask you for ID.

"you still live with your mom"
"move to Canada"
wow so much about professionalism.

[Criticull]

This turned out to be a pretty educational thread. :thumbsup:

[homelessman]

zorro runs home with his tail between his legs

owned

[sr20s14zenki]

hahahahhahahahahahahhahah this thread is too fucking awsome..

[ZorroAMG]

Originally posted by homelessman
zorro runs home with his tail between his legs

owned Or perhaps I didn't sit trolling this thread all day.

TKRIS I don't care enough to argue with you. You know all. You are the man, but tell me this:

If someone breaks the law, how are they supposed to be written up or charged if they don't prove who they are? Are they supposed to just take your word that you are Tom Cruise when they catch you taking a shit on the sidewalk tomorrow?

:rofl: :rofl:

Now go make your own nerd video and post it up, let's see how that goes, antiestablishmentman.

[TurboD]

your mindset is wrong, you think the process is Identify yourself then be charged.

walking down the street not breaking any criminal laws the process is first Charged and Detained and Law Cited.

then ID

again



Life, liberty and security of person

7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.


Arrest or detention

10. Everyone has the right on arrest or detention

(a) to be informed promptly of the reasons therefor;

and an un-cited traffic act law does not count.

[ZorroAMG]

Did he not say why he was being detained in the vid? I only watched it once and thought he said I stopped you cause "ordinance yada yada...rollerblading" then he asked for ID.

I never said ID before being charged, did I?

[Wrinkly]

Originally posted by ZorroAMG
Did he not say why he was being detained in the vid? I only watched it once and thought he said I stopped you cause "ordinance yada yada...rollerblading" then he asked for ID.

I never said ID before being charged, did I?

:facepalm:

[ZorroAMG]

:facepalm: yourself.

[TurboD]

Originally posted by ZorroAMG
I never said ID before being charged, did I?


If someone breaks the law, how are they supposed to be written up or charged if they don't prove who they are?

first you tell me im breaking the law and tell me what law im breaking, then i will provide you with identification info.

[TKRIS]

Originally posted by ZorroAMG
Or perhaps I didn't sit trolling this thread all day.

TKRIS I don't care enough to argue with you. You know all. You are the man, but tell me this:

If someone breaks the law, how are they supposed to be written up or charged if they don't prove who they are? Are they supposed to just take your word that you are Tom Cruise when they catch you taking a shit on the sidewalk tomorrow?

:rofl: :rofl:


I'll try to be as clear as possible:
"Stop and Identify" laws do NOT require you to produce written identification. They can't. It's an impossible requirement.

Things may change if, as mentioned by Phil and Dayglow, they were going to write him a ticket, or if they had reasonable grounds to suspect he was lying, but neither of these were the case.

Stop and identify was the only grounds they had (and they may not have even had that) to request identification, and he complied with that statute by giving them his name.


Originally posted by ZorroAMG
Now go make your own nerd video and post it up, let's see how that goes, antiestablishmentman.

Do you imagine that ad hom reflects poorly on anyone except yourself.

[ZorroAMG]

Ahh, see I thought because he was saying the rollerblader was breaking ordinance that it gave him the reason and obligation to ask for ID.

Clearly I know nothing of the law haha....

PS there wasn't really a personal attack there, just a little ribbing...

All good? :D

[Horatio]

without the camera there, that would've gone quite differently

cop #1 "..gotta do this the hard way..." ...nice.

[Horatio]

and if you took a shit on the sidewalk and claimed you're Tom Cruise....they might just believe you

[TKRIS]

Originally posted by ZorroAMG
Ahh, see I thought because he was saying the rollerblader was breaking ordinance that it gave him the reason and obligation to ask for ID.

Glad to help clear that up for you. I'm content that you now grasp the difference between when a cop can require you identify yourself vs. when a cop can require that you show him written/corroborative identification.


Originally posted by ZorroAMG
Clearly I know nothing of the law haha....

PS there wasn't really a personal attack there, just a little ribbing...

All good? :D

Don't be so hard on yourself.

And don't worry, you certainly didn't offend. I was simply drawing attention to how ironic it was that you'd imply *my* position was based on my own personal beliefs instead of what the law actually states.

;)

[dirtsniffer]

did you guys just share an e-hug? :poosie:

on topic. that guy got away with it. good on him, but who the fuck rollerblades?

[homelessman]

Originally posted by dirtsniffer
did you guys just share an e-hug? :poosie:

if zorro could be pulled from his movie star trailer + throngs of security guards, he would do it. but would quickly be called back to set.

[ZorroAMG]

Hey homelessgirl:

Fuck you.

" :) "