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.
who has lawfully stopped him.... is the key...
The comment I made about going to jail is because that's usually where they take a person to be fingerprinted. At least that's the case here in Texas, they may take you to a couthouse or some other place for identification. I was speaking on what I know to be true where I'm at.
Evidently, you aren't even aware of what is true, where you are.
You should read Brown vs. Texas.
Officers stopped a man leaving an alley where another man was standing. It was a known drug area and the police stopped and asked for ID. The man refused and was arrested on a Texas "stop and identify" statute. The Supreme Court held that the arrest for failing to identify himself was unconstitutional and vilolated the 4th ammendment.
Brown v. Texas
Two police officers, while cruising near noon in a patrol car, observed appellant and another man walking away from one another in an alley in an area with a high incidence of drug traffic. They stopped and asked appellant to identify himself and explain what he was doing. One officer testified that he stopped appellant because the situation "looked suspicious, and we had never seen that subject in that area before." The officers did not claim to suspect appellant of any specific misconduct, nor did they have any reason to believe that he was armed. When appellant refused to identify himself, he was arrested for violation of a Texas statute which makes it a criminal act for a person to refuse to give his name and address to an officer "who has lawfully stopped him and requested the information." Appellant's motion to set aside an information charging him with violation of the statute on the ground that the statute violated the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments was denied, and he was convicted and fined.
Held: The application of the Texas statute to detain appellant and require him to identify himself violated the Fourth Amendment because the officers lacked any reasonable suspicion to believe that appellant was engaged or had engaged in criminal conduct. Detaining appellant to require him to identify himself constituted a seizure of his person subject to the requirement of the Fourth Amendment that the seizure be "reasonable." Cf. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1; United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873. The Fourth Amendment requires that such a seizure be based on specific, objective facts indicating that society's legitimate interests require such action, or that the seizure be carried out pursuant to a plan embodying explicit, neutral limitations on the conduct of individual officers. Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648. Here, the State does not contend that appellant was stopped pursuant to a practice embodying neutral criteria, and the officers' actions were not justified on the ground that they had a reasonable suspicion, based on objective facts, that he was involved in criminal activity. Absent any basis for suspecting appellant of misconduct, the balance between the public interest in crime prevention and appellant's right to personal [p48] security and privacy tilts in favor of freedom from police interference.
What you think is the law does not = the law.
The Court has held, in several cases, that failure to state your name, in an of itself, is not a crime. They have only held that states may require you to state you name in the course of investigating a possible crime, if there is reasonable suspicion.
There is absolutley no way to legally punish anyone for not providing an ID card of any sort. The question has never even been presented to the court. It's common sense. Until we actually have a law requiring you to carry an ID, there is no way to legally penalize you for not producing something you are not required to have.
I know this is a little tougher than making a peanut butter and jelly sandwich but it is not rocket science.
You are an idiot.
The case you're citing states the police stopped the man for no other reason than to identify him, that action violated his 4th amendment rights. And I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing then when a police officer ask you for ID, reasonable cause having already been established that it's unlawful not to comply.
http://sobek.colorado.edu/~mciverj/2481_443US47.PDF
"(a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally refuses to report or gives a false report of his name and residence
address to a peace officer who has lawfully stopped him and requested the information."
[1] A police officer's stopping a person and requiring him to identify himself violates the Fourth Amendment where the
officer makes the stop and requires identification after observing the person walk away from another in an alley located
in a neighborhood which is frequented by drug users, but the officer conducts his stop merely to ascertain the person's
identity and has no reasonable suspicion to believe that the person was engaged or had engaged in criminal conduct;
thus, upon failing to comply with the officer's request for identification, the person cannot be punished under a state
law making it an offense not to comply with a police officer's request for identification after the officer has conducted a
lawful stop and requested identification.
who has lawfully stopped him.... is the key...
Exactly. In the case of Gates the police had the lawful right to question him and ask for ID.
Evidently, you aren't even aware of what is true, where you are.
You should read Brown vs. Texas.
Officers stopped a man leaving an alley where another man was standing. It was a known drug area and the police stopped and asked for ID. The man refused and was arrested on a Texas "stop and identify" statute. The Supreme Court held that the arrest for failing to identify himself was unconstitutional and vilolated the 4th ammendment.
Brown v. Texas
What you think is the law does not = the law.
The Court has held, in several cases, that failure to state your name, in an of itself, is not a crime. They have only held that states may require you to state you name in the course of investigating a possible crime, if there is reasonable suspicion.
There is absolutley no way to legally punish anyone for not providing an ID card of any sort. The question has never even been presented to the court. It's common sense. Until we actually have a law requiring you to carry an ID, there is no way to legally penalize you for not producing something you are not required to have.
I know this is a little tougher than making a peanut butter and jelly sandwich but it is not rocket science.
You are an idiot.
The case you're citing states the police stopped the man for no other reason than to identify him, that action violated his 4th amendment rights. And I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing then when a police officer ask you for ID, reasonable cause having already been established that it's unlawful not to comply.
http://sobek.colorado.edu/~mciverj/2481_443US47.PDF
"(a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally refuses to report or gives a false report of his name and residence
address to a peace officer who has lawfully stopped him and requested the information."
And I whole heartedly agree with you on that.
If reasonable suspicion has been established, officers may require you to give your name, in some states, your address. 21 states prescribe a penalty for not doing so.
Nowhere is it legal to penalize anyone for not having an ID card, of any sort. If the officer decides to detain you to confirm that you aren't lying, he must once again satisfy reasonable cause to believe so. He doesn't get to just be generrally suspicious that you have given him a false name and detain you to confirm your identity. He must first have a reason.
First you need reasonable suspicion to ask for a name. No ID card is required, anywhere. Once the name is given, you must have reasonable suspicion to doubt it if you intend to now detain a body under suspicion of giving false information. An officer does not have the right to detain you for the purpose of confirming your name, just as a course of business. He must have reason to believe otherwise. If you say "Santa Clause", I'd say that gives reasonable suspicion. If you have a tattoo that say "James" but you tell the cop your name is "Steve", that is reasonable suspicion. If he hears your buddy call you by a different name than the one you gave....etc.
No on has to show an ID and there is no penalty for not doing so.
THere is a penalty for giving false information. It doesn't mean that you are allowed to lie about who you are.
[1] A police officer's stopping a person and requiring him to identify himself violates the Fourth Amendment where the
officer makes the stop and requires identification after observing the person walk away from another in an alley located
in a neighborhood which is frequented by drug users, but the officer conducts his stop merely to ascertain the person's
identity and has no reasonable suspicion to believe that the person was engaged or had engaged in criminal conduct;
thus, upon failing to comply with the officer's request for identification, the person cannot be punished under a state
law making it an offense not to comply with a police officer's request for identification after the officer has conducted a
lawful stop and requested identification.
Why highlight just one part? Why not highlight the preceding sentence. Oh but then that would put it all in context huh?
You are an idiot.
The case you're citing states the police stopped the man for no other reason than to identify him, that action violated his 4th amendment rights. And I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing then when a police officer ask you for ID, reasonable cause having already been established that it's unlawful not to comply.
http://sobek.colorado.edu/~mciverj/2481_443US47.PDF
"(a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally refuses to report or gives a false report of his name and residence
address to a peace officer who has lawfully stopped him and requested the information."
And I whole heartedly agree with you on that.
If reasonable suspicion has been established, officers may require you to give your name, in some states, your address. 21 states prescribe a penalty for not doing so.
Nowhere is it legal to penalize anyone for not having an ID card, of any sort. If the officer decides to detain you to confirm that you aren't lying, he must once again satisfy reasonable cause to believe so. He doesn't get to just be generrally suspicious that you have given him a false name and detain you to confirm your identity. He must first have a reason.
First you need reasonable suspicion to ask for a name. No ID card is required, anywhere. Once the name is given, you must have reasonable suspicion to doubt it if you intend to now detain a body under suspicion of giving false information. An officer does not have the right to detain you for the purpose of confirming your name, just as a course of business. He must have reason to believe otherwise. If you say "Santa Clause", I'd say that gives reasonable suspicion. If you have a tattoo that say "James" but you tell the cop your name is "Steve", that is reasonable suspicion. If he hears your buddy call you by a different name than the one you gave....etc.
No on has to show an ID and there is no penalty for not doing so.
THere is a penalty for giving false information. It doesn't mean that you are allowed to lie about who you are.
Finally we're in agreement. Honestly I believe we were arguing two completely different arguments. I know that an officer has to have cause to stop and question an individual. I was coming from the stand point that cause had already been established. And you're correct an ID is not required,(unless operating a motor vehicle) but I'd argue that most adults have some form of ID.
thanksAnd I whole heartedly agree with you on that.
If reasonable suspicion has been established, officers may require you to give your name, in some states, your address. 21 states prescribe a penalty for not doing so.
Nowhere is it legal to penalize anyone for not having an ID card, of any sort. If the officer decides to detain you to confirm that you aren't lying, he must once again satisfy reasonable cause to believe so. He doesn't get to just be generrally suspicious that you have given him a false name and detain you to confirm your identity. He must first have a reason.
First you need reasonable suspicion to ask for a name. No ID card is required, anywhere. Once the name is given, you must have reasonable suspicion to doubt it if you intend to now detain a body under suspicion of giving false information. An officer does not have the right to detain you for the purpose of confirming your name, just as a course of business. He must have reason to believe otherwise. If you say "Santa Clause", I'd say that gives reasonable suspicion. If you have a tattoo that say "James" but you tell the cop your name is "Steve", that is reasonable suspicion. If he hears your buddy call you by a different name than the one you gave....etc.
No on has to show an ID and there is no penalty for not doing so.
THere is a penalty for giving false information. It doesn't mean that you are allowed to lie about who you are.
Finally we're in agreement. Honestly I believe we were arguing two completely different arguments. I know that an officer has to have cause to stop and question an individual. I was coming from the stand point that cause had already been established. And you're correct an ID is not required,(unless operating a motor vehicle) but I'd argue that most adults have some form of ID.
And I would agree too that we are arguing in the most extreme of circumstances. Most people have an ID and don't mind showing it. It is kind of strange though that when we demonstrate that you DO NOT have to proiduce and ID by law, many immediately make the jump that it means you can lie about your identity. THAT IS A CRIME. Just because I am not required to carry proof of my identity does not mean I can lie about it.
This is really about the very foundations of our belief system and our constitution. It isn't really about ID at all. We believe in the presumption of innocence. If you take that away, at any level, the consequences will resound across the nation. There are plenty of people who think that we should presume nothing. Not even that anyone is telling the truth about who they are. Instead, they believe that we should err on the side that EVERYONE is lying. We must make everyone PROVE they are telling the truth. In this case, by showing an ID card, and not taking a persons word at face value.
It is an amazing disconnect from the fundamentals of what we stand for.
Do you keep the deed to your home handy? How often do we have to prove that we own our home? If a cop can ask for ID, how far is he from asking to see the deed to your home?
Is that your dog? Do we have to keep some kind of verification of ownership handy, just in case there is a stolen dog in town and EVERYONE with a dog gets to be a suspect?
Is that your child? Do you keep a BC handy for your infants? They don't have an ID card yet. Maybe the cops should just detain your baby, just for safety, until they can verify who that baby is. You didn't have a birth certificate or photgraphic proof it was your baby after all. And how can the cops be expected to protect us from kidnappers if they can't demand proof that the baby you have is actually yours? They're just doing their job. They have to take your baby. You should have provided proof it was yours. ANARCHIST! YOU HAVE NO RESPECT FOR COPS JUST TRYING TO PROTECT YOUR BABY BY TAKING IT AWAY FROM YOU!
thanksFinally we're in agreement. Honestly I believe we were arguing two completely different arguments. I know that an officer has to have cause to stop and question an individual. I was coming from the stand point that cause had already been established. And you're correct an ID is not required,(unless operating a motor vehicle) but I'd argue that most adults have some form of ID.
And I would agree too that we are arguing in the most extreme of circumstances. Most people have an ID and don't mind showing it. It is kind of strange though that when we demonstrate that you DO NOT have to proiduce and ID by law, many immediately make the jump that it means you can lie about your identity. THAT IS A CRIME. Just because I am not required to carry proof of my identity does not mean I can lie about it.
This is really about the very foundations of our belief system and our constitution. It isn't really about ID at all. We believe in the presumption of innocence. If you take that away, at any level, the consequences will resound across the nation. There are plenty of people who think that we should presume nothing. Not even that anyone is telling the truth about who they are. Instead, they believe that we should err on the side that EVERYONE is lying. We must make everyone PROVE they are telling the truth. In this case, by showing an ID card, and not taking a persons word at face value.
It is an amazing disconnect from the fundamentals of what we stand for.
Do you keep the deed to your home handy? How often do we have to prove that we own our home? If a cop can ask for ID, how far is he from asking to see the deed to your home?
Is that your dog? Do we have to keep some kind of verification of ownership handy, just in case there is a stolen dog in town and EVERYONE with a dog gets to be a suspect?
Is that your child? Do you keep a BC handy for your infants? They don't have an ID card yet. Maybe the cops should just detain your baby, just for safety, until they can verify who that baby is. You didn't have a birth certificate or photgraphic proof it was your baby after all. And how can the cops be expected to protect us from kidnappers if they can't demand proof that the baby you have is actually yours? They're just doing their job. They have to take your baby. You should have provided proof it was yours. ANARCHIST! YOU HAVE NO RESPECT FOR COPS JUST TRYING TO PROTECT YOUR BABY BY TAKING IT AWAY FROM YOU!
pretty much the angle i am arguing from....
thanksFinally we're in agreement. Honestly I believe we were arguing two completely different arguments. I know that an officer has to have cause to stop and question an individual. I was coming from the stand point that cause had already been established. And you're correct an ID is not required,(unless operating a motor vehicle) but I'd argue that most adults have some form of ID.
And I would agree too that we are arguing in the most extreme of circumstances. Most people have an ID and don't mind showing it. It is kind of strange though that when we demonstrate that you DO NOT have to proiduce and ID by law, many immediately make the jump that it means you can lie about your identity. THAT IS A CRIME. Just because I am not required to carry proof of my identity does not mean I can lie about it.
This is really about the very foundations of our belief system and our constitution. It isn't really about ID at all. We believe in the presumption of innocence. If you take that away, at any level, the consequences will resound across the nation. There are plenty of people who think that we should presume nothing. Not even that anyone is telling the truth about who they are. Instead, they believe that we should err on the side that EVERYONE is lying. We must make everyone PROVE they are telling the truth. In this case, by showing an ID card, and not taking a persons word at face value.
It is an amazing disconnect from the fundamentals of what we stand for.
Do you keep the deed to your home handy? How often do we have to prove that we own our home? If a cop can ask for ID, how far is he from asking to see the deed to your home?
Is that your dog? Do we have to keep some kind of verification of ownership handy, just in case there is a stolen dog in town and EVERYONE with a dog gets to be a suspect?
Is that your child? Do you keep a BC handy for your infants? They don't have an ID card yet. Maybe the cops should just detain your baby, just for safety, until they can verify who that baby is. You didn't have a birth certificate or photgraphic proof it was your baby after all. And how can the cops be expected to protect us from kidnappers if they can't demand proof that the baby you have is actually yours? They're just doing their job. They have to take your baby. You should have provided proof it was yours. ANARCHIST! YOU HAVE NO RESPECT FOR COPS JUST TRYING TO PROTECT YOUR BABY BY TAKING IT AWAY FROM YOU!
pretty much the angle i am arguing from....
Hey stupid, I never said it was a requirement to posses an ID. I stated that when an officer asked to see your ID you are required to comply or you risk further inconvienience or even worse a trip to jail. If you do not have an ID then you may be subject to fingerprinting or other methods in proving you who you say you are. A cop isn't just going to take your word for it.
No no NO. Arresting someone for not providing an ID is unconstitutional. And a cop is not allowed to fingerprint or detain you after giving your name UNLESS he can establish REASONALBE SUSPICION that you are being untruthful. An officer is bound to believe that what he sees and hears is true, UNLESS he can provide reasonable suspicion otherwise. A cop absolutely does not get to detain me, finger print me or anything else just because he wants to be sure. He must be able to provide a reasonable suspicion NOT TO BELIEVE ME.
This really amazes me. No wonder this kind of shit happens. You folks are laying down for the gestapo.
Now you're just making shit up. Where did I ever say that you would be arrested for not showing ID?!?!?
You're a fucking moron. I wish the hell you'd come to Texas and try that bullshit and see how you fare. When a police officer asks for an ID, he's already established reasonable suspicion. You are so full of shit. You're saying a cop must take your word and everyone elses word that they are who they say they are unless he can prove reasonable suspicion?
I guess it's a good thing that we are all honest people.
Hey stupid, I never said it was a requirement to posses an ID. I stated that when an officer asked to see your ID you are required to comply or you risk further inconvienience or even worse a trip to jail. If you do not have an ID then you may be subject to fingerprinting or other methods in proving you who you say you are. A cop isn't just going to take your word for it.
No no NO. Arresting someone for not providing an ID is unconstitutional. And a cop is not allowed to fingerprint or detain you after giving your name UNLESS he can establish REASONALBE SUSPICION that you are being untruthful. An officer is bound to believe that what he sees and hears is true, UNLESS he can provide reasonable suspicion otherwise. A cop absolutely does not get to detain me, finger print me or anything else just because he wants to be sure. He must be able to provide a reasonable suspicion NOT TO BELIEVE ME.
This really amazes me. No wonder this kind of shit happens. You folks are laying down for the gestapo.
Now you're just making shit up. Where did I ever say that you would be arrested for not showing ID?!?!?
You're a fucking moron. I wish the hell you'd come to Texas and try that bullshit and see how you fare. When a police officer asks for an ID, he's already established reasonable suspicion. You are so full of shit. You're saying a cop must take your word and everyone elses word that they are who they say they are unless he can prove reasonable suspicion?
I guess it's a good thing that we are all honest people.
you said it RIGHT HERE, POST 65, lonestar?
Hey stupid, I never said it was a requirement to posses an ID. I stated that when an officer asked to see your ID you are required to comply or you risk further inconvienience or even worse a trip to jail. If you do not have an ID then you may be subject to fingerprinting or other methods in proving you who you say you are. A cop isn't just going to take your word for it.
Now you're just making shit up. Where did I ever say that you would be arrested for not showing ID?!?!?
You're a fucking moron. I wish the hell you'd come to Texas and try that bullshit and see how you fare. When a police officer asks for an ID, he's already established reasonable suspicion. You are so full of shit. You're saying a cop must take your word and everyone elses word that they are who they say they are unless he can prove reasonable suspicion?
I guess it's a good thing that we are all honest people.
you said it RIGHT HERE, POST 65, lonestar?
Hey stupid, I never said it was a requirement to posses an ID. I stated that when an officer asked to see your ID you are required to comply or you risk further inconvienience or even worse a trip to jail. If you do not have an ID then you may be subject to fingerprinting or other methods in proving you who you say you are. A cop isn't just going to take your word for it.
Hey stupid, I've already explained this, but I'll explain it once more for you slower types. If you refuse an officers request for proper ID, he has the option of running a fingerprint check on you, that usually takes place at the jail. Now, I never said you would be arrested, but it is certainly an option the officer can use. It's my understanding in the state of Texas, it is unlawful to refuse to comply with an officers request. Keep in mind I'm speaking from a stand point where just cause had been established. Unlike Brown v Texas, where the officer had no legal grounds to question or detain the subject. Therefore you may be detained, transported to jail or whatever facility exist in order to confirm or establish your identity.
Now you're just making shit up. Where did I ever say that you would be arrested for not showing ID?!?!?
You're a fucking moron. I wish the hell you'd come to Texas and try that bullshit and see how you fare. When a police officer asks for an ID, he's already established reasonable suspicion. You are so full of shit. You're saying a cop must take your word and everyone elses word that they are who they say they are unless he can prove reasonable suspicion?
I guess it's a good thing that we are all honest people.
you said it RIGHT HERE, POST 65, lonestar?
Hey stupid, I never said it was a requirement to posses an ID. I stated that when an officer asked to see your ID you are required to comply or you risk further inconvienience or even worse a trip to jail. If you do not have an ID then you may be subject to fingerprinting or other methods in proving you who you say you are. A cop isn't just going to take your word for it.
Hey stupid, I've already explained this, but I'll explain it once more for you slower types. If you refuse an officers request for proper ID, he has the option of running a fingerprint check on you, that usually takes place at the jail. Now, I never said you would be arrested, but it is certainly an option the officer can use. It's my understanding in the state of Texas, it is unlawful to refuse to comply with an officers request. Keep in mind I'm speaking from a stand point where just cause had been established. Unlike Brown v Texas, where the officer had no legal grounds to question or detain the subject. Therefore you may be detained, transported to jail or whatever facility exist in order to confirm or establish your identity.
I know this is an old thread, just reading some back ones.
Believe it or not I was at the SC building the day Hiibel was argued, the man next to me called it the "cowboy case".
I did not check the docket before I left on the trip, so was unfamiliar with the Question presented when granting Certiorari. I already knew about Brown v. Texas, so I was curious what the case was about.
Shorty after Hiibel my state passed thier version of the "stop and identify" law.
Courts lean towards granting leeway when a Terry stop is made, as in a Terry frisk also, but an officer better be able to articulate a reason/s which will pass Constitutional muster.
I took criminal law in College, and one of the 1st cases we learned about was Terry v. Ohio, as it was a fairly recent decision.
My state, also Ohio, mirrors the federal constitution as far as search & seizure is concerned, BUT there are a few exceptions.
We permit, as the federal does, Driver's license checkpoints and sobriety checkpoints.
As far as Terry, it was a Cleveland case, so it is of course controlling precedent in Ohio, since the SC upheld it.
Not providing information, and indicating a non desire to so so, even under subpeona, in rare cases, very rare, can have one arrested under the Material witness statutes.
The crux of Hiibel is one MUST be "under investigation" to trigger any stop and identify law.
Is it possible he was baiting the police?
Yeah, that's possible, I suppose.
Is it even more possible that two egos clashed in the night?
That one cop, who is used to people becoming compliant and obsequious, clashed with one academic, who is used to people being compliant and obsequious, met under circumstances where each felt offended by the other's lack of obsequious reactions?
Let's use our imaginations shall we?
A man broke into his own house and the cops were called by a neighbor.
The cops came in not knowing what was going on and acted like cops typically do.
They DEMANDED proof that the man standing in his own home was who he said he was.
That proof was provided, but done so by a professor who was unused to be spoken to harshly.
He responded (probably overreacting to the cop's tone of voice) arrogantly.
The cop took unbrage that the man wasn't passive and thankful. The cop probably wasn't polite
The professor took umbrage that the cop didn't immediately take his word for who he was. He was probably not polite.
The cop arrrested the professor.
The professor was outraged.
Two fucking hardons clash in the night.
Had the professor been a nobody we'd have never heard about it.
But the professor was a somebody.
Is it about race?
Certainly that might have been part of it.
But what it really was about was egos and expectations and arrogance and pride and how people react when confront with police power.
Jesus, I can't believe this event isn't obvious to each and every one of us.
Is it possible he was baiting the police?
Yeah, that's possible, I suppose.
Is it even more possible that two egos clashed in the night?
That one cop, who is used to people becoming compliant and obsequious, clashed with one academic, who is used to people being compliant and obsequious, met under circumstances where each felt offended by the other's lack of obsequious reactions?
Let's use our imaginations shall we?
A man broke into his own house and the cops were called by a neighbor.
The cops came in not knowing what was going on and acted like cops typically do.
They DEMANDED proof that the man standing in his own home was who he said he was.
That proof was provided, but done so by a professor who was unused to be spoken to harshly.
He responded (probably overreacting to the cop's tone of voice) arrogantly.
The cop took unbrage that the man wasn't passive and thankful. The cop probably wasn't polite
The professor took umbrage that the cop didn't immediately take his word for who he was. He was probably not polite.
The cop arrrested the professor.
The professor was outraged.
Two fucking hardons clash in the night.
Had the professor been a nobody we'd have never heard about it.
But the professor was a somebody.
Is it about race?
Certainly that might have been part of it.
But what it really was about was egos and expectations and arrogance and pride and how people react when confront with police power.
Jesus, I can't believe this event isn't obvious to each and every one of us.
I loved the way you explained this.. Really love it.
Of course, racist or not- people are allowed by the First to speak their minds about other people, government, or institutions.. To an extent anyways.
All in all, I say that the cops and this professor (and his peers) need to get through it, and try to at least ACT like the mature role models of our country, rather than all this grandstanding, making a spectacle of themselves, and putting on shows of narcissism and what can easily be interpreted as the self inflicted desecration of their own character.