Walking in the morning while being black.

[Marener]

If you can point out anything unconstitutional in the policies/law described in that article go for it. Of course it would require reading comprehension to be able to do that.

The article says they can demand names during a stop or detention.

It was not a traffic stop.

He was not being detained because there was no grounds for detention. He asked if it was suspicious for him to be walking around and the officer said technically it wasn’t.

Therefore the law does not apply to him and arresting him for not providing his name was illegal.

 

[leftwinger]

Okay I'll give you that much but the guy didn't have his ID on him so how is that not complying with the officer?

No ID? Thats what they all say. Close to 100% of those with warrants. The Police know right then, what they are dealing with.

 

[Vastator]

The police were doing nothing unlawful in questioning the man. In that particular situation they would be derelict in their duty to serve and protect if they had NOT seen that as unusual and checked the guy out.

Checking him out was fine. Slamming him to the ground for not affording identification was illegal.

 

[leftwinger]

She doesn't know, and she doesn't care.

Apparently in the Land of the Free people can be arrested for no reason, without a cop articulating a crime, and if a person yells out that their rights are being violated, then by golly that person is a criminal.

Seen the video of ANTFA screaming in Police faces…..uhhuh. Is that OK too? They got rights? How bout disturbing the peace?

 

[leftwinger]

It was not a traffic stop.

Technically on a public alley? They give DUI on bicycle, lawnmower….how bout walking? Might be considered a stop. You people want to exist on technicalities?

 

[Foxfyre]

Okay I'll give you that much but the guy didn't have his ID on him so how is that not complying with the officer?

He explained he didn't have ID but any normal person would have said, it is at my house at (whatever address) near here. And he technically was not required to show ID under the law in that state, but any normal person having ID would have produced it just the same just to reassure the cop that you're on the up and up. And actually, once he became belligerent, defensive, uncooperative, that could produce enough suspicion to allow the cops to lawfully ask for ID.

But he was arrested for not providing his name, address and DOB which Oklahoma law DOES require he provide a law enforcement officer who asks for it. And he was taken down, fairly gently, because resisted arrest. If he had not done that, the cop would never have taken him down which is routine for people resisting arrest.

 

[Foxfyre]

The article says they can demand names during a stop or detention.

It was not a traffic stop.

He was not being detained because there was no grounds for detention. He asked if it was suspicious for him to be walking around and the officer said technically it wasn’t.

Therefore the law does not apply to him and arresting him for not providing his name was illegal.

Read the article if you're capable.

 

[Foxfyre]

Checking him out was fine. Slamming him to the ground for not affording identification was illegal.

He was not slammed to the ground. He was taken down fairly gently because he was resisting arrest which is illegal in all 50 states and DC.

 

[leftwinger]

OK, I’m done here. Somewhere between bring a lawyer BYOL with you and common sense America got losted. Also, If everyone is fired for every mistake? You would all have lost every job I would bet. Lighten up on the Police at least sometimes? They may be in the right.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

Again, see the Polly Klass story. Hope its not your daughter tied up in the trunk

The only trunk was the cops

 

[Vastator]

He was not slammed to the ground. He was taken down fairly gently because he was resisting arrest which is illegal in all 50 states and DC.

What was he being arrested for?

I'll cut to the chase. Not capitulating to an unlawful demand. Rendering the arrest and detainment unlawful.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

No ID? Thats what they all say. Close to 100% of those with warrants. The Police know right then, what they are dealing with.

This cop didn't know shit

 

[Marener]

Read the article if you're capable.

I already did.

Oklahoma does not require people to provide identifying information upon request without probable cause.

Stop and identify statutes - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[Foxfyre]

OK, im done her. Somewhere between bring a lawyer BYOL with you and common sense America got losted. Also, If everyone is fired for every mistake? You would all have lost every job I would bet. Lighten up on the Police at least sometimes? They may be in the right.

Yes me too. The clueless left are unwilling to read the actual law and what the officers are legally allowed to do and/or what the citizen's responsibility is. They automatically condemn and demonize the police officers and assume they were the ones in the wrong here and the guy had no accountability at all in the situation.

No, he did not have to show ID.
Yes, he did have to provide his name, address and DOB when requested by the cops.
The clueless left focuses on the first point but every single one of them has ignored the second point.

Which is why we have rampant crime in this country, most especially in horrible crimes done to kids. When cops have to juggle their desire to do their jobs to serve and protect, which necessitates checking out unusual or suspicious situations against being censored, fired, sued or whatever before leftist judges who hate cops too, it's no wonder the country is going to hell in a handbasket.

 

[Foxfyre]

I already did.

Oklahoma does not require people to provide identifying information upon request without probable cause.

Stop and identify statutes - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Again that remedial reading comprehension course could do wonders for you. But I've made my argument/case here and so far nobody has offered a single shred of documentation to refute it. Everybody have a nice day.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Again it is so unusual for somebody to be walking with a young kid in a secluded area in the early dawn, I would EXPECT the police to check something like that out.

Pft. We used to walk down unfamiliar streets with kids carrying baseball bats at five in the morning, after a couple hours drive. For years. And pretty much every weekend.

You quislings would have had every parent of every kid on the whole darned team swatted with a boot on their necks if you had your way, observably, and by your own model.

I dunno why you self-professed normies (which is really just short-speak for rabid collectivists) seem to think that every other Individual in the free world has to conform to your personal notion of what surmises ''normal'' daytime or even night time activities, else get shaken down by armed agents of the State.

Well...I'll take that back. I actually do know why you think that.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

Yes me too. The clueless left are unwilling to read the actual law and what the officers are legally allowed to do and/or what the citizen's responsibility is. They automatically condemn and demonize the police officers and assume they were the ones in the wrong here and the guy had no accountability at all in the situation.

Which is why we have rampant crime in this country, most especially in horrible crimes done to kids. When cops have to juggle their desire to do their jobs to serve and protect, which necessitates checking out unusual or suspicious situations against being censored, fired, sued or whatever before leftist judges who hate cops too, it's no wonder the country is going to hell in a handbasket.

I am not "left." Buttercup is not left. Westwall is not left.

 

[Vastator]

Yes me too. The clueless left are unwilling to read the actual law and what the officers are legally allowed to do and/or what the citizen's responsibility is. They automatically condemn and demonize the police officers and assume they were the ones in the wrong here and the guy had no accountability at all in the situation.

No, he did not have to show ID.
Yes, he did have to provide his name, address and DOB when requested by the cops.

Which is why we have rampant crime in this country, most especially in horrible crimes done to kids. When cops have to juggle their desire to do their jobs to serve and protect, which necessitates checking out unusual or suspicious situations against being censored, fired, sued or whatever before leftist judges who hate cops too, it's no wonder the country is going to hell in a handbasket.

Ohhh, that poor cop being forced to break the law, and assault some man in front of his kid... oh the humanity...

 

[Burgermeister]

He explained he didn't have ID but any normal person would have said, it is at my house at (whatever address) near here. And he technically was not required to show ID under the law in that state, but any normal person having ID would have produced it just the same just to reassure the cop that you're on the up and up. And actually, once he became belligerent, defensive, uncooperative, that could produce enough suspicion to allow the cops to lawfully ask for ID.

But he was arrested for not providing his name, address and DOB which Oklahoma law DOES require he provide a law enforcement officer who asks for it. And he was taken down, fairly gently, because resisted arrest. If he had not done that, the cop would never have taken him down which is routine for people resisting arrest.

Nope. OK is not a "stop and identify" state. He was not required to identify himself.

 

[leftwinger]

The only trunk was the cops

CA cops had the guy stopped, stuck in ditch late at night in way out NORCAL roads. They didnt use any common sense, let the animal go. CA goes overboard not to violate rights. WTH?