If Open Carry ever comes to Texas, I hope everyone has.........

[Fisherman777]

It's amazing how folks will allow others to color their thoughts/perceptions. MOST cops I encounter are in their job because they DO want to "protect and serve". Unfortunately, they routinely deal with liars/thieves/worse - and it DOES influence their thought processes, as it would with most. I've worn their shoes, and let me tell you - it's an eye opener.
Very few jobs can cost you everything (including your freedom) if you screw up - but it can if you're a cop. Very few jobs require you to go about in public, absorbing abuse from anyone wanting to give it without you being able to even talk back - but it does if you're a cop. Very few jobs can require you to walk up to someone that will kill you simply because of what you do - but it does if you're a cop.
So ya'll go ahead - give 'em a hard time - make their lives as hard as you want. Because when you do, you tell me volumes about your own pettiness and lack of respect for others. Yes, I have boundaries. Yes - if a cop is abusive of me or others, I WANT him off the force (as do 99% of cops) - but if I were in an OC state and wanting to push limits, I'd still have no issue w/ID'ing myself to an LEO, because by doing so I'm not only letting him get his job done and on his way, I'm also more likely to gain an ALLY.

Excellent post. Especially the last paragraph.

 

[txinvestigator]

Not true. This is only illegal if you are already under arrest. A cop can't arrest you because he doesn't know who you are. There is a back-door way of enforcing this during a traffic stop by citing driving without a license laws, which you can be arrested for.

Actually most licensed activities require you to ID to LE upon demand. Driving, hunting, fishing, carrying a handgun under a CHL, working as a security guard, etc. It is not a "back door". A passenger in a car cannot be arrested for not telling a cop who he is unless there is some other cause. However, there is nothing unlawful for an officer to ask for the ID

 

[Kimber_me_timbers]

If I am not mistaken, his failure to provide his basic information (which would have been on his ID) could serve as cause for them to arrest him in Texas under PC 38.02 Failure to Identify (A person commits an offense if he intentionally refuses to give his name, residence address, or date of birth to a peace officer who has lawfully arrested the person and requested the information.). While it is not illegal in Texas to not carry ID, failure to provide the above information to a law enforcement officer can lead to an arrest so they can determine who you really are.

Yes, you are mistaken... Maybe you misread the law, it clearly says that if a person refuses to ID when he/she has been LAWFULLY ARRESTED... This guy had not been lawfully arrested, or even lawfully detained for that matter.

Make no mistake, I am not siding with this jackass(in the video), not at all, but failure to ID as an offense only applies if you have been lawfully arrested, or have committed a crime in the view of the officer(moving violation).

 

[majormadmax]

Yes, you are mistaken... Maybe you misread the law, it clearly says that if a person refuses to ID when he/she has been LAWFULLY ARRESTED... This guy had not been lawfully arrested, or even lawfully detained for that matter.

Make no mistake, I am not siding with this jackass(in the video), not at all, but failure to ID as an offense only applies if you have been lawfully arrested, or have committed a crime in the view of the officer(moving violation).

Maybe you ought to read my post a little more closely, especially that last sentence: failure to provide the above information to a law enforcement officer can lead to an arrest so they can determine who you really are. If a person refuses to give the information to the officer, then they can be arrested until such time as that information can be ascertained.

Actually, I don't understand why anyone of sound mind would allow themselves to be arrested for such an avoidable reason. It doesn't prove a point to anyone, and as I and many others on here have learned more progress can be made by cooperating with the police than fighting with them.

Consider the video in the original post, the subject had an excellent opportunity to educate the two officers on open carry had he only complied with their reasonable request for ID. Or he may have learned that they were well versed in the law, but wanted to first establish that he wasn't a threat. Instead, our wannabe-lawyer made a huge issue over identifying himself, therefore distracting from his original point.

But many of those blindly intent on one objective often lose the big picture in its execution. I don't consider this a textbook example of dealing with the police in such a situation. I would have much rather seen a more cooperative subject who resolved the matter in an adult and respectful manner; but in this instance we have someone intent on proving how much smarter he was than anyone else...

 

[M. Sage]

Maybe you ought to read my post a little more closely, especially that last sentence: failure to provide the above information to a law enforcement officer can lead to an arrest so they can determine who you really are. If a person refuses to give the information to the officer, then they can be arrested until such time as that information can be ascertained.

Outside of an activity where you have to have a license (like driving), you only have to identify yourself to a police officer in Texas if you're under arrest.

 

[txinvestigator]

Maybe you ought to read my post a little more closely, especially that last sentence: failure to provide the above information to a law enforcement officer can lead to an arrest so they can determine who you really are. If a person refuses to give the information to the officer, then they can be arrested until such time as that information can be ascertained.

No, a person cannot be arrested for that. A person csn only be arrested for an offense. It is not an office to refuse to tell an officer who you are unless under arrest or engaged in a licensed activity.

 

[M. Sage]

Ok, time out.

Watching the video, yes the OCer was a bit of a dick. But the police officer's approach was wrong, too. Instead of detaining the guy and demanding ID, this could have (probably should have) been handled with a simple consensual contact.

Whatever happened to "hey, how's it going? So, what's with the gun?" If the response is "I'm carrying it because it's legal and I can", then what would be the point in bothering him more?

 

[majormadmax]

No, a person cannot be arrested for that. A person csn only be arrested for an offense. It is not an office to refuse to tell an officer who you are unless under arrest or engaged in a licensed activity.

I stand corrected. I was under the impression that Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) allowed the police to detain persons reasonably suspected of involvement in a crime and require persons so detained to identify themselves to the police. The US Supreme Court upheld that ruling based on the fact that the identification requirement did not violate a person's Fourth Amendment rights/protections.

But I see where Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47 (1979) the Texas stop-and-identify statute was found to be unconstitutionally vague because it permitted stops that were not based on the constitutionally mandated standard of reasonable suspicion. It is the same reasoning behind why DWI checkpoints are not allowed in this state.

And I guess it's be discussed before...

TexasCHLforum.com • View topic - Stop and Identify laws in Texas

But I still find it ridiculous, there should be no reason a law-abiding citizen would have an issue with showing ID to a law enforcement officer if requested. And don't give me some cock-and-bull argument about a police state, because it is far from being that. Those comparisons are from the over-active imaginations of the tin-hat wearing crowd...

 

[Texan2]

People that call the United States a "police state" have never lived in an actual police state.

 

[Bithabus]

But I still find it ridiculous, there should be no reason a law-abiding citizen would have an issue with showing ID to a law enforcement officer if requested. And don't give me some cock-and-bull argument about a police state, because it is far from being that. Those comparisons are from the over-active imaginations of the tin-hat wearing crowd...

I don't share my ID with strangers unless I have a reason to do so.

 

[jocat54]

I don't share my ID with strangers unless I have a reason to do so.

Have you ever been asked for your ID when using a credit card? If so, do you show it? Personally I like it when a store asks to see my ID, feel like they are covering my ass.(name on credit card matches ID)

 

[Charlie]

Have you ever been asked for your ID when using a credit card? If so, do you show it? Personally I like it when a store asks to see my ID, feel like they are covering my ass.(name on credit card matches ID)

I don't show my ID unless I need to................my decision. But I have also written on all my credit cards "CHECK I.D." but only about half the cashiers ever do.

 

[jocat54]

I don't show my ID unless I need to................my decision. But I have also written on all my credit cards "CHECK I.D." but only about half the cashiers ever do.

I like that idea--your a smart guy!

 

[Bithabus]

Have you ever been asked for your ID when using a credit card? If so, do you show it? Personally I like it when a store asks to see my ID, feel like they are covering my ass.(name on credit card matches ID)

"Reason to do so".

 

[majormadmax]

I don't show my ID unless I need to................my decision. But I have also written on all my credit cards "CHECK I.D." but only about half the cashiers ever do.

Actually, that's an old wives' tale; you are actually required to sign the card to validate the agreement between you and the issuing bank; and a knowledable cashier can confiscate the card because it is unsigned! Technically, the are actually obligated to do so; although many are not aware of it.

At a minimum, a clerk can refuse such a card, as without the signature there is no recourse for to the store if the charge is refuted.

Read more here...

Should you sign your credit card or write 'See ID' on it?

And there are numerous other web sites out there with the same info.

So if you think that tactic is a good countermeasure towards credit and/or identity theft, you're sadly mistaken...

Cheers! M2

 

[jocat54]

Actually, that's an old wives' tale; you are actually required to sign the card to validate the agreement between you and the issuing bank; and a knowledable cashier can confiscate the card because it is unsigned! Technically, the are actually obligated to do so; although many are not aware of it.

At a minimum, a clerk can refuse such a card, as without the signature there is no recourse for to the store if the charge is refuted.

Read more here...

Should you sign your credit card or write 'See ID' on it?

And there are numerous other web sites out there with the same info.

So if you think that tactic is a good countermeasure towards credit and/or identity theft, you're sadly mistaken...

Cheers! M2

Guess I was thinking more along the lines of having "check ID" written some where else other than the signature line.

 

[TexasRedneck]

I know what the card issuers say to do....but don't. I use a card at least daily, have for many, many years - have never had one refused OR taken away because of no signature. There's just no stinkin' way I'm gonna give a crook a handwriting sample!

 

[Tejano Scott]

I always personally laugh when the minimum wage employee takes my ID and credit card and examines the signature like they're some sort of FBI handwriting expert. I generally take my receipt and hold it to the light and examine it just to be a smart ass.

 

[just jk]

from open carry to credit card tips! +1!

 

[Dawico]

from open carry to credit card tips! +1!

After 180 posts, I am surprised we are even that close to staying on topic.