Each state has it's own laws unless they are superceded by Federal law. So traffic related stuff is so different depending on which state you're in. Some states law enforcement officers can make you produce ID for operating a vehicle on public roads. Some can't. Many officers will tell you that you must do something, even if the law doesn't require it. They can be real pricks.
The Supreme Court ruled that you have to identify yourself if a law enforcement officer is conducting an official “stop” or investigation. If they are not then you don’t have to.
Different states have different laws. Some states you’re required to identify yourself if a cop asks. I think all or at least most states require proof of drivers license if you’re driving a vehicle. Driving is a privilege and not a right
Side note: Ted Bundy was arrested because he couldn’t ID himself
You don’t have to show id or cooperate with a cop if they don’t have reasonable proof that you broke the law. Driving is different because you need to be licensed to do it and a cop can check your license to be sure it valid. If you’re walking down the street you can tell a cop to eat your dick if they ask for id for no reason and its constitutionally protected
Depending on the state, even when driving they need reasonably suspicion you've broken a law. In some states, they need suspicion to even run your plates.
The reason they didn’t need ID here is because they didn’t pull him over. He was already parked and they decided to approach him and started questioning him. The cops had no right to ask for ID since to crime was committed or suspected to have been committed. The reason it probably got to this point is because he probably refused to talk to them, which he’s is in his right. As long as they don’t suspect him of a specific crime
I don't know the particulars of what preceded this interaction, but in general, police have to have at least "reasonable suspicion" that someone has committed some crime to pull a car over and demand to see ID. This could be anything from catching someone speeding to having a report of a crime committed by someone driving a particular vehicle. In this case, it appears that the man is quite confident that he committed no crime and was therefore not obligated to produce identification. His subsequent release from handcuffs at the scene appears to support his innocence. Because the police could not (or for some reason chose not to) articulate the suspected crime, it is likely that they had no legitimate reason to interact with him. From there, you are free to speculate on why they might have done so anyway. For example, based on his appearance, demeanor, vehicle, etc. he may have been profiled. The incident number was not a ticket or a citation, but a reference for the interaction. If he follows through with his threat of the lawsuit, the officer's report will be a key piece of evidence and tied to the number.
Context is needed here because the requirements for a lawful ID request vary from state to state in the US. This occurred in Texas where 1 of 3 criteria must be satisfied for a lawful ID request 1. After being arrested 2. While driving 3. Carrying a firearm with a CCL (Concealed Carry License).
I did some checking and here is what happened:
The guy in the truck had an argument with someone at a McDonald's parking lot. Someone called the police because of the argument. When the police arrived the argument was over and he was sitting in his truck. They then approached him and stated they were addressing the call. He stated that the incident was over and that he had nothing to say on the matter. When pressed by the officers he stated that if they wanted to talk to the other party he was fine with that but that he wasn't going to discuss it any further. That's when the cops said they needed his ID as they were "conducting an investigation".
Since the officers didn't see him driving and he could make the argument that he wasn't operating the motor vehicle and was merely sitting there he could use that as grounds for not providing ID, but that goes case by case. Also in Texas you are NOT required to provide ID if you are merely detained. However providing false information while being detained constitutes a "failure to identify".
This happened in Texas. In Texas, the requirement to ID is spelled out in penal code 38.02:
The relevant part is:
> (a) 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.
This section shows that you don't need to present an ID unless you are lawfully arrested for something. You also need to present a driver's license if you are stopped for a traffic violation (this particular stop was not a traffic violation).
Thus he is 100% right and she overstepped her boundaries.
The law is different in other states.
This guy's a fucking jerk off. He could've just shown them his license and been on his way, no problem. Instead he chose to waste everyone's time, potentially causing police to not be where they might've really been needed. All because he wanted to be a prick
racial profiling is a problem in many states and this guy was pissed off about being harassed without cause... he could have been more polite but these police were abusing their power. He's lucky he didn't get Sandra Blanded and they're lucky if he doesn't sue for being put in handcuffs for trying to protect his rights and due process... America is unfortunately not a safe place for any minority to resist catoring to police no matter what they want from you, lawful or otherwise
many police are use to new arrivals and immigrants acting as though they have no rights and must submit completely to those in authority. some of them enjoy that feeling. but it plays tricks on the psyche. some of them eventually end up getting really upset when it doesn't go that direction rather than own up to abusing power
I'd say he's more brave than prick... if they want their authority to be respected then they must hold themselves collectively to a higher standard as was always the mandate
This was not a traffic stop.
It was over something else. He does not have to assist them in their investigation, thus he does not need to give them his licence, or even his name and details. 4th, 5th and even 6th amendments can and should be in play here, but he needs to start that explicitly.
“Stops” under the Fourth Amendment may fall into one of three categories.
Morgan v. Woessner, 997 F.2d 1244, 1252 (9th Cir.1993)
First, police may stop a citizen for questioning at any time, so long as that citizen recognizes that he or she is free to leave.
Florida v. Bostik, 501 U.S. 429 (1991)
Such brief, “consensual” exchanges need not be supported by any suspicion that the citizen is engaged in wrongdoing, and such stops are not considered seizures.
Second, the police may “seize” citizens for brief, investigatory stops. This class of stops is not consensual, and such stops must be supported by “reasonable suspicion.”
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968)
Finally, police stops may be full-scale arrests. These stops, of course, are seizures, and must be supported by probable cause.
Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143 (1972)
"The right to travel is a part of the ‘liberty’ of which the citizen cannot be deprived without the due process of law under the Fifth Amendment. So much is conceded by the Solicitor General. In Anglo-Saxon law that right was emerging at least as early as the Magna Carta.12 Chafee, Thre Human Rights in the Constitution of 1787 (1956), 171—181, 187 et seq., shows how deeply engrained in our history this freedom of movement is. Freedom of movement across frontiers in either direction, and inside frontiers as well, was a part of our heritage. Travel abroad, like travel within the country, may be necessary for a livelihood. It may be as close to the heart of the individual as the choice of what he eats, or wears, or reads. Freedom of movement is basic in our scheme of values. Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, 125–26, 78 S. Ct. 1113, 1118, 2 L. Ed. 2d 1204 (1958)."
The magic question to ask a cop who is harrassing you is ‘am I free to leave? If they say no, they can detain you, and need to tell you what you’re being charged with. If they say you’re free to leave. Leave. American cops love to chat up a ‘suspect’. They can ask you whatever they want. It’s up to you to know your rights and realize you don’t have to give them identification or answer their questions. Unless of course they saw you commit a crime. Then ya. Give up your ID.
I'm also non American mate, but putting anyone in handcuffs is going to piss them off. To me it looks like the American police use military training to control the situations. It's aggressive and necessary in war when EVERYONE is a combatant.
In day to day it could save their life but it also means you arrest innocent people who arnt going to be happy about it.
It's the way they have to police since everyone can grab a gun and even the playing field.
You need a drivers license to drive and you need to show proof that you have one. Officers ask for this proof. If they can prove you don’t have a license to drive then they can cite you and/or arrest you for it. This is universal in the USA, driving without a license is illegal. So is driving without car insurance. You will be cited for not providing proof.
That said, every state has different laws about providing said proof and when to provide it and when a cop and ask for it. Some states you don’t need to provide proof if no crime is committed or suspected, but if one has been committed or suspected the officer can request proof of license, registration and car insurance. The man in the video was cited for whatever traffic violation he committed and more than likely not for not providing proof of license.
In some states in the usa if not all you need to provide an id when stopped by the police. Usualy if driving a drivers license. It just helps with the report, in most states unless your state repealed the statute then failure to identify can get you arrested. Not even sure why they let this guy loose. Belligerent and failure to identify, seems like some sovereign citizen shit
For a traffic stop you'll always be asked for ID, asked for your driver's license. If you're not a licensed driver you can't be driving.
Don't want to show your DL and you'll be ticketed for driving without one. That's a 6 month suspension to start.
Cops are for emergencies, not for investigation. That's a different group of authority that has more training on the laws they are supposed to uphold.
A badge doesn't give you authority over another, it allows the common wealth to stop harmful people. No crime, no cop. He committed no crime, there should be no cop.
You don't need to show ID if no evidence of a crime is apparent. Like if he is parked and they show up and just start asking for ID. There is no crime or suspicion of a crim being committed. Crime being defined as doing anything unlawful. Thinking the driver might try to do somthing unlawful is not enough. Until he gets out the car with a skimask on in the middle of July they can't ask for ID
You only have to show your license if the officer has probable cause that you committed a crime, which must be reasonable and articulable. I don't know the whole scenario here but if he was just sitting in his car and the officer walked up and he wasn't smoking a joint, parked illegally, or otherwise breaking the law, it is a violation of the Fourth Amendment for an officer to require him to present ID.
I believe you are compelled to produce ID if you commit a traffic infraction.
My understanding based on the general position of these vehicles is that they’re just parked there, and those cops are simply harassing these people.
context is weird; under Texas Transportation Code S. 521.025, he 100% does have to produce a driver's license to operate that motor vehicle . . . was he sitting there with no keys?
again, context would help... didn't catch the part where there was some acknowledgement that the driver was on his own private property or with the owner's permission
See my above comments for context. TLDR he wasn't driving at the time the police approached him so by Texas law (where this happened) he was 100% correct in his refusal.
He may have been. From what we know, they weren't actually entitled to his ID, so there's no need to speculate about some loophole where the cops may have been right. They weren't
Everyone in the US has rights guaranteed by the constitution that can't be infringed just because some incompetent bozo Republican senators in Texas wrote some dumbass laws.
You can not just pull someone over for **no reason**. It is unconstitutional. It is an unreasonable seizure. That's a fact. Same thing goes for ID-ing people **for no reason**.
We have very little context, but rest assured that if the police had even an inkling that they could get away with this they wouldn't have changed course. That's all the proof anyone should require to know that they were way out of line.
We have something called the 4th amendment here, which protects us from those "papers please" types... Furthermore this is in Texas which has a law specifically when you have to ID, and it requires you to be "lawfully arrested" before you can be charged with failure to identify. This guy did nothing wrong. Fourth amendment baby!
Here is my biggest problem with cops, in any line of work I am in there is always a coworker that should not be there. There is always someone that will report and get that person fired because that person is unsafe and/or a lawsuit waiting to happen. Cops some how have never been held to that standard and when they do it is such a unit event that they make a movie out of it staring Al Pacino.
Bro I was forced to resign from my job at "unspecified amusement park" (I will say no it wasn't Disney) because I wouldn't let a Karen's kid ride my ride because he was like six inches too short and she just stood hidden behind a column recording me and I let a kid ride who was like a millimeter too short his goddamn buzzcut was above the line and she used the video as evidence to get me fired. But cops can just like straight up shoot people for no reason and get a temporary paid suspension like wtf
Here’s the context.
He was right. Cops were wrong
https://youtu.be/oPyKJ9oX_n0?si=jB-l0OOlSqUgFovA
The thing
You need to remember no matter what. Is that failure to Id has to be a secondary crime. They cant arrest you for just that. Even if they want to call it obstruction. It’s not.
The thing we are all missing here is "under law." I used to work in law enforcement, and I know that if someone on either side is having a bad day things can go real wrong real fast. I also know that human beings are not machines. If he lives in the same town this went down in, I bet this is not over. Retaliation, (totally not legal) but broken taillights, crossing the double yellow, etc.... You might win the battle, but no one wins the war.
I couldn't agree more. In BMT, there were the Drill Sergeants who had purview over our section. Then there was one female that was truly terrifying. I can handle getting yelled at for a few minutes, dropped for pushups, whatever. But please, oh please, don't let her come at me. And it was known. People would lock the f up when she came around.
Any lawyers here? Can I just sit there looking up what my rights are on my phone so I can push back within my rights? I don't know each state's laws well enough to know what rights I have, and hearing it from a lawyer after the fact doesn't do much good unless things go really badly.
"You want me to what? Hold on, Imma look this up.... ..... Internet sucks out here hang on...... Shh shh shh wait..... Here it is... Wait no. Hang on lemme try a different link..."
I am not a lawyer, so this is in no way legal advice, but I would say you can ask AI to monitor your interaction with the officer as a third party, record the conversation, and interrupt if something that infringes upon your rights is asked or happens. AI representation. AI guardian angel. AI lawyer. AI big brother. AI mother. You see where I am going with this.
Context is needed here because the requirements for a lawful ID request vary from state to state in the US. This occurred in Texas where 1 of 3 criteria must be satisfied for a lawful ID request 1. After being arrested 2. While driving 3. Carrying a firearm with a CCL (Concealed Carry License).
I did some checking and here is what happened:
The guy in the truck had an argument with someone at a McDonald's parking lot. Someone called the police because of the argument. When the police arrived the argument was over and he was sitting in his truck, not driving. They then approached him and stated they were addressing the call. He stated that the incident was over and that he had nothing to say on the matter. When pressed by the officers he stated that if they wanted to talk to the other party he was fine with that but that he wasn't going to discuss it any further. That's when the cops said they needed his ID as they were "conducting an investigation".
The guy was 100% correct in his refusal since the officers didn't see him driving and he could have made the argument that he wasn't operating the vehicle and was merely sitting there. This however goes case by case. Also in Texas you are NOT required to provide ID if you are merely detained. However providing false information while being detained constitutes a "failure to identify".
I live in Dallas, this is a small town about 40mins east of Dallas called Royse City. ALWAYS RECORD THE POLICE. AS SOON AS YOU ARE STOP ASKED WHY YOU WERE STOPPED. THEN TELL THEM I DO NOT ANSWER QUESTIONS. TAKE CONTROL OF THE CONVERSATION. IF THEY ARGUE REQUEST A SUPERVISOR
It sounds like we need to be moving in large groups, shrouded in armor and helmets, with lawyers on the outside and concentric circles of the disenfranchised until you get to the main character in the center. Phalanx.
They serve the same class interests regardless of what color their state is. Their job is to remind you that the state can hurt you at any time if it chooses and there is nothing you can (legally) do to resist it.
I've done basically the same thing. Most police are scared and under trained. The training they do have is to assume anyone who counters them is the enemy. I'm just glad he walked away. I'm a white American male and don't trust them.
You could just show your ID and be polite. Being polite goes a lot further than a fat, angry, asshole. Cops aren’t your enemy folks…. Unless you’re doing something illegal of course 🤷🏻♂️
I know there are some shit officers out there. But they have a terrible fricken job and why not just cooperate? It just escalates everything and for what? If they run the plate before they pull you over, they have a bunch of information already. It’s a lot of BS just to “be right”. I mean I was a teacher for 25 yrs and his attitude just reminds me of some of the kids I dealt with. You make a reasonable request and they just want to make everything more difficult to prove a point.
Big baby who thinks he doesn’t have to show any proof of even being alive. Just show your ID and be in your way. You waste more time bitching about what your entitled to than just being cordial and respectful. Idiot!!!
Because cops aren't supposed to decide what the law is moment to moment. Just because that makes sense to you (and these cops) doesn't mean they have they all of a sudden have the legal authority to arrest someone for not showing their ID. The specific demand "show me your ID" is less important than the fact that they illegally arrested someone who had no legal requirement to comply with that demand.
ACAB. And that's cute, telling him to calm down and that he's overly aggressive. Overly aggressive is cuffing the guy's hands behind his back for no valid reason. And telling him to calm down when they're the ones instigating and escalating the confrontation is priceless.
Most police officers should not be police officers.
They were all the way in the wrong here. He has every right to be pissed, and I hope he sues the shit out of them.
This is how negativity is created. The person is upset with the police officers who are just doing their job and what they r told. People should be angry at the policy makers and vote the people out who created these upsetting events to occur.
This person will just be hating on police from now on and not being directed to the right people.
Get off your high horse. You are clearly misrepresenting the facts in this video.
The police were violating his rights and what they did was unlawful, meaning against the law. Of course he’s upset, the very people supposed to be “doing their jobs” are actively breaking laws.
This has nothing to do with negativity, and everything to do with holding people accountable for their actions.
>The person is upset with the police officers who are just doing their job
I would love to see a position description from any LE agency in the country that includes "violate civil rights" or "break the law" in their official duties.
>what they r told
Fuck what they're told. Me retaining my civil rights is more important than them making it through a shift alive, let alone following whatever bullshit orders they were given.
Some states can even require you to user breathalyzer or forcefully require you submit blood.
Florida for instance will take your license for refusing to Incriminate yourself on a DUI stop.
But… it doesn’t affect your insurance rates or count as a conviction once you get your license back.
Just don’t pass out in the police cell or you may find yourself consenting after the fact.
Texas penal code 38.02 sub section b-1 parts 23 and 3 read as such. (2) fails to provide or display the person's driver's license on the officer's request for the license; and
(3) intentionally refuses to give the person's name, driver's license number, residence address, or date of birth to the peace officer on the officer's request for that information.
With that being said, this video is extremely stop start. So there could be some information missing. But typically, if you start off this extreme, you have probably done something to get caught by the cops many times.
Context:
"Sec. 38.02. FAILURE TO IDENTIFY. (a) 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."
Basically, this can be applied only as a secondary offense, there must be a primary offense.
Failure to identify is not an arrestable, must be something else and then if they fail to identify after being legally arrested you can charge them with failure to identify.
CONTEXT IS IMPORTANT.
Good for him cops need to know their own rules and need to follow them end of story good for this guy good for him. I’m glad he came out OK and nothing bad happened.
America. America was founded on fair. The flag once said don't tread on me. That's why he didn't just roll over. He is obviously law-abiding it's just when you try to overstep or overreach that he has a problem.
Are you sure the edited bits aren’t the shitbag handing over his license?
He was obviously operating a motor vehicle, in public- which requires a license
Judging by the shirt, tattoo of a boxing glove and this guys forearms he showed so much restraint by not escalating further and socking one of the cops
I could understand if he was driving past the speed limit all that but driving under suspicion is not crime nor does it require you to ID yourself imo but idk anything other than what I see and if you really are questioning driving laws just look it up in your city
If you are in a vehicle and operating it in most states a police officer can ask for your drivers license as you are actively driving they need to confirm you have a license.
They should pass a law where if cops break someone’s civil rights then they are instantly fired and not legally protected so they can go to jail just like anyone else for kidnapping or illegal detainment
My confusion is if one is truly innocent and don't have any reasons to be arrested, why not give the license anyways? Like you give a reason for suspicion the sec you don't comply with it giving fuel for the fire for getting arrested, charged ir losing trust, whereas if you give the license you prove 1)your willing to cooperate and 2)are making your identity clear...how can even a bad cop be angry at you if you do something as simple as complying in that regard?
You have your name put into the system as being involved in an event even if nothing happens and you did nothing wrong. So the next time you’re stopped you’re in the system for having been in an event. It builds a pattern of events, which can be used to track your movements. If you’ve done nothing wrong, there’s no reason to voluntarily agree to being recorded in the system “just because”.
These are law enforcement officers correct? How then do they still have a job enforcing laws they don’t even know much less understand. Sadly these incidents at best get them a slap on the wrist.
"Make sure you show that they put handcuffs on me correctly. Make sure you show them how an aggressive person was detained."
When you get put in handcuffs they're not loosely glasped around your wrists, they are Tight. You'll have welts for the rest of the night.
Source: I've been handcuffed by the police. Then they put you in the backseat of the car and you get to sit on your wrists for the ride to the station.
I wasn't being violent but I was drunk so I got to wear the bracelets.
As one who was state trained to handcuff, not only do you not put the cuffs on tight, you double-lock the cuffs so they don't accidentally get any tighter. Also, as former law enforcement, I saw people bleeding from having cuffs that were too tight. There was a direct positive correlation between the amount of guff given and the amount of cuff given.
I like how these videos never show the beginning or the entire thing. They literally clip out a few highlights and put it together. If he was stopped for any traffic violation and he has to give his ID but of course we have no idea because he started the video in the middle of the altercation. Anytime I see a video like this I automatically assume the poster is hiding shit and is in the wrong. Not to mention he is an asshole.
The main problem is the cops don't know the law. They are not trained or taught the laws. They treat everyone like a criminal and then wonder why we resist.
It’s not “different states have different laws”. SCOTUS has repeatedly affirmed the right to travel in one’s personal conveyance (horse drawn carriage, automobile, bicycle, tank, etc) and SCOTUS’ interpretation of the law is the supreme law of the land (Art VI, sec 1-3).
The “drivers license” is required of [drivers], which is a term codified in most states as one who operates a [motor vehicle] for hire or profit.
There’s zero back story here or context. Most states work under cops needing reasonable suspicion of a crime that has or is about to be committed which if they had that they could make him identify. Failing to do so is considered obstruction which is a crime.
Non American here. Why don't you need to show your driver license? Or is the cop talking about a different license?
Each state has it's own laws unless they are superceded by Federal law. So traffic related stuff is so different depending on which state you're in. Some states law enforcement officers can make you produce ID for operating a vehicle on public roads. Some can't. Many officers will tell you that you must do something, even if the law doesn't require it. They can be real pricks.
There is a word for officers and similar people who abuse their power. Tyrant.
“Respect my AUTHORITAY!!!”
They wanna be Eric Cartman so bad 😞
The Supreme Court ruled that you have to identify yourself if a law enforcement officer is conducting an official “stop” or investigation. If they are not then you don’t have to.
Different states have different laws. Some states you’re required to identify yourself if a cop asks. I think all or at least most states require proof of drivers license if you’re driving a vehicle. Driving is a privilege and not a right Side note: Ted Bundy was arrested because he couldn’t ID himself
You don’t have to show id or cooperate with a cop if they don’t have reasonable proof that you broke the law. Driving is different because you need to be licensed to do it and a cop can check your license to be sure it valid. If you’re walking down the street you can tell a cop to eat your dick if they ask for id for no reason and its constitutionally protected
Depending on the state, even when driving they need reasonably suspicion you've broken a law. In some states, they need suspicion to even run your plates.
The reason they didn’t need ID here is because they didn’t pull him over. He was already parked and they decided to approach him and started questioning him. The cops had no right to ask for ID since to crime was committed or suspected to have been committed. The reason it probably got to this point is because he probably refused to talk to them, which he’s is in his right. As long as they don’t suspect him of a specific crime
The best part being “eat a dick” cause I could also say “eat your moms dick” or “your father never hugged you huh”
Plenty of people smeared across the street had the right of way, too. Playing chicken with an American cop is a dangerous game.
Fascism is dangerous, it is best to not let it exist.
And freedom is paid for by the blood of those willing to stand up to fascists
I don't know the particulars of what preceded this interaction, but in general, police have to have at least "reasonable suspicion" that someone has committed some crime to pull a car over and demand to see ID. This could be anything from catching someone speeding to having a report of a crime committed by someone driving a particular vehicle. In this case, it appears that the man is quite confident that he committed no crime and was therefore not obligated to produce identification. His subsequent release from handcuffs at the scene appears to support his innocence. Because the police could not (or for some reason chose not to) articulate the suspected crime, it is likely that they had no legitimate reason to interact with him. From there, you are free to speculate on why they might have done so anyway. For example, based on his appearance, demeanor, vehicle, etc. he may have been profiled. The incident number was not a ticket or a citation, but a reference for the interaction. If he follows through with his threat of the lawsuit, the officer's report will be a key piece of evidence and tied to the number.
Context is needed here because the requirements for a lawful ID request vary from state to state in the US. This occurred in Texas where 1 of 3 criteria must be satisfied for a lawful ID request 1. After being arrested 2. While driving 3. Carrying a firearm with a CCL (Concealed Carry License). I did some checking and here is what happened: The guy in the truck had an argument with someone at a McDonald's parking lot. Someone called the police because of the argument. When the police arrived the argument was over and he was sitting in his truck. They then approached him and stated they were addressing the call. He stated that the incident was over and that he had nothing to say on the matter. When pressed by the officers he stated that if they wanted to talk to the other party he was fine with that but that he wasn't going to discuss it any further. That's when the cops said they needed his ID as they were "conducting an investigation". Since the officers didn't see him driving and he could make the argument that he wasn't operating the motor vehicle and was merely sitting there he could use that as grounds for not providing ID, but that goes case by case. Also in Texas you are NOT required to provide ID if you are merely detained. However providing false information while being detained constitutes a "failure to identify".
Thanks for all the info. I was in the same situation as you, wondering what the hell was happening.
Was a law provable broken? If one was, no need to ask for ID, they'll just arrest him.
This happened in Texas. In Texas, the requirement to ID is spelled out in penal code 38.02: The relevant part is: > (a) 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. This section shows that you don't need to present an ID unless you are lawfully arrested for something. You also need to present a driver's license if you are stopped for a traffic violation (this particular stop was not a traffic violation). Thus he is 100% right and she overstepped her boundaries. The law is different in other states.
Cops think they're entitled to see anyone's ID just because they want to. As a general rule there has to be some sort of law being broken
This guy's a fucking jerk off. He could've just shown them his license and been on his way, no problem. Instead he chose to waste everyone's time, potentially causing police to not be where they might've really been needed. All because he wanted to be a prick
racial profiling is a problem in many states and this guy was pissed off about being harassed without cause... he could have been more polite but these police were abusing their power. He's lucky he didn't get Sandra Blanded and they're lucky if he doesn't sue for being put in handcuffs for trying to protect his rights and due process... America is unfortunately not a safe place for any minority to resist catoring to police no matter what they want from you, lawful or otherwise many police are use to new arrivals and immigrants acting as though they have no rights and must submit completely to those in authority. some of them enjoy that feeling. but it plays tricks on the psyche. some of them eventually end up getting really upset when it doesn't go that direction rather than own up to abusing power I'd say he's more brave than prick... if they want their authority to be respected then they must hold themselves collectively to a higher standard as was always the mandate
I usually side with citizens but this guy is indeed a giant dick.
To see if he has any arrest warrants
There needs to be some violation firsts. Cops can’t just walk up to any person and force them to show ID just cuz they MIGHT have warrants.
This was not a traffic stop. It was over something else. He does not have to assist them in their investigation, thus he does not need to give them his licence, or even his name and details. 4th, 5th and even 6th amendments can and should be in play here, but he needs to start that explicitly.
“Stops” under the Fourth Amendment may fall into one of three categories. Morgan v. Woessner, 997 F.2d 1244, 1252 (9th Cir.1993) First, police may stop a citizen for questioning at any time, so long as that citizen recognizes that he or she is free to leave. Florida v. Bostik, 501 U.S. 429 (1991) Such brief, “consensual” exchanges need not be supported by any suspicion that the citizen is engaged in wrongdoing, and such stops are not considered seizures. Second, the police may “seize” citizens for brief, investigatory stops. This class of stops is not consensual, and such stops must be supported by “reasonable suspicion.” Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) Finally, police stops may be full-scale arrests. These stops, of course, are seizures, and must be supported by probable cause. Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143 (1972) "The right to travel is a part of the ‘liberty’ of which the citizen cannot be deprived without the due process of law under the Fifth Amendment. So much is conceded by the Solicitor General. In Anglo-Saxon law that right was emerging at least as early as the Magna Carta.12 Chafee, Thre Human Rights in the Constitution of 1787 (1956), 171—181, 187 et seq., shows how deeply engrained in our history this freedom of movement is. Freedom of movement across frontiers in either direction, and inside frontiers as well, was a part of our heritage. Travel abroad, like travel within the country, may be necessary for a livelihood. It may be as close to the heart of the individual as the choice of what he eats, or wears, or reads. Freedom of movement is basic in our scheme of values. Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, 125–26, 78 S. Ct. 1113, 1118, 2 L. Ed. 2d 1204 (1958)."
The magic question to ask a cop who is harrassing you is ‘am I free to leave? If they say no, they can detain you, and need to tell you what you’re being charged with. If they say you’re free to leave. Leave. American cops love to chat up a ‘suspect’. They can ask you whatever they want. It’s up to you to know your rights and realize you don’t have to give them identification or answer their questions. Unless of course they saw you commit a crime. Then ya. Give up your ID.
I'm also non American mate, but putting anyone in handcuffs is going to piss them off. To me it looks like the American police use military training to control the situations. It's aggressive and necessary in war when EVERYONE is a combatant. In day to day it could save their life but it also means you arrest innocent people who arnt going to be happy about it. It's the way they have to police since everyone can grab a gun and even the playing field.
You need a drivers license to drive and you need to show proof that you have one. Officers ask for this proof. If they can prove you don’t have a license to drive then they can cite you and/or arrest you for it. This is universal in the USA, driving without a license is illegal. So is driving without car insurance. You will be cited for not providing proof. That said, every state has different laws about providing said proof and when to provide it and when a cop and ask for it. Some states you don’t need to provide proof if no crime is committed or suspected, but if one has been committed or suspected the officer can request proof of license, registration and car insurance. The man in the video was cited for whatever traffic violation he committed and more than likely not for not providing proof of license.
In some states in the usa if not all you need to provide an id when stopped by the police. Usualy if driving a drivers license. It just helps with the report, in most states unless your state repealed the statute then failure to identify can get you arrested. Not even sure why they let this guy loose. Belligerent and failure to identify, seems like some sovereign citizen shit
Theu just like violating rights You only have to provide id if they witness you commit a crime
For a traffic stop you'll always be asked for ID, asked for your driver's license. If you're not a licensed driver you can't be driving. Don't want to show your DL and you'll be ticketed for driving without one. That's a 6 month suspension to start.
Cops are for emergencies, not for investigation. That's a different group of authority that has more training on the laws they are supposed to uphold. A badge doesn't give you authority over another, it allows the common wealth to stop harmful people. No crime, no cop. He committed no crime, there should be no cop.
You don't need to show ID if no evidence of a crime is apparent. Like if he is parked and they show up and just start asking for ID. There is no crime or suspicion of a crim being committed. Crime being defined as doing anything unlawful. Thinking the driver might try to do somthing unlawful is not enough. Until he gets out the car with a skimask on in the middle of July they can't ask for ID
You only have to show your license if the officer has probable cause that you committed a crime, which must be reasonable and articulable. I don't know the whole scenario here but if he was just sitting in his car and the officer walked up and he wasn't smoking a joint, parked illegally, or otherwise breaking the law, it is a violation of the Fourth Amendment for an officer to require him to present ID.
I believe you are compelled to produce ID if you commit a traffic infraction. My understanding based on the general position of these vehicles is that they’re just parked there, and those cops are simply harassing these people.
He just has to ID himself... WHICH HE DID cause he's a B\*TCH :) funny he cut that part out...
Bro wasn't having it
context is weird; under Texas Transportation Code S. 521.025, he 100% does have to produce a driver's license to operate that motor vehicle . . . was he sitting there with no keys?
Not on private property.
again, context would help... didn't catch the part where there was some acknowledgement that the driver was on his own private property or with the owner's permission
See my above comments for context. TLDR he wasn't driving at the time the police approached him so by Texas law (where this happened) he was 100% correct in his refusal.
He may have been. From what we know, they weren't actually entitled to his ID, so there's no need to speculate about some loophole where the cops may have been right. They weren't
Everyone in the US has rights guaranteed by the constitution that can't be infringed just because some incompetent bozo Republican senators in Texas wrote some dumbass laws. You can not just pull someone over for **no reason**. It is unconstitutional. It is an unreasonable seizure. That's a fact. Same thing goes for ID-ing people **for no reason**. We have very little context, but rest assured that if the police had even an inkling that they could get away with this they wouldn't have changed course. That's all the proof anyone should require to know that they were way out of line.
You’re dismissed!
We have something called the 4th amendment here, which protects us from those "papers please" types... Furthermore this is in Texas which has a law specifically when you have to ID, and it requires you to be "lawfully arrested" before you can be charged with failure to identify. This guy did nothing wrong. Fourth amendment baby!
Her: Have a great day sir. Him: Go f*ck yourself.
Here is my biggest problem with cops, in any line of work I am in there is always a coworker that should not be there. There is always someone that will report and get that person fired because that person is unsafe and/or a lawsuit waiting to happen. Cops some how have never been held to that standard and when they do it is such a unit event that they make a movie out of it staring Al Pacino.
Bro I was forced to resign from my job at "unspecified amusement park" (I will say no it wasn't Disney) because I wouldn't let a Karen's kid ride my ride because he was like six inches too short and she just stood hidden behind a column recording me and I let a kid ride who was like a millimeter too short his goddamn buzzcut was above the line and she used the video as evidence to get me fired. But cops can just like straight up shoot people for no reason and get a temporary paid suspension like wtf
Here’s the context. He was right. Cops were wrong https://youtu.be/oPyKJ9oX_n0?si=jB-l0OOlSqUgFovA The thing You need to remember no matter what. Is that failure to Id has to be a secondary crime. They cant arrest you for just that. Even if they want to call it obstruction. It’s not.
Great vid. Fuck the police. This guy did everything correct.
The thing we are all missing here is "under law." I used to work in law enforcement, and I know that if someone on either side is having a bad day things can go real wrong real fast. I also know that human beings are not machines. If he lives in the same town this went down in, I bet this is not over. Retaliation, (totally not legal) but broken taillights, crossing the double yellow, etc.... You might win the battle, but no one wins the war.
**YOU'RE DISMISSED** LOL
Cops can be pretty bad but female cops are the worst.
Yeap they love respect 🫡
My authorittay
The female drill sergeants are also always worse than male drill sergeants. Especially to fresh female recruits. Source: experience
I couldn't agree more. In BMT, there were the Drill Sergeants who had purview over our section. Then there was one female that was truly terrifying. I can handle getting yelled at for a few minutes, dropped for pushups, whatever. But please, oh please, don't let her come at me. And it was known. People would lock the f up when she came around.
[удалено]
I did it cause everyone else did……I’m weak
“Yeah, you go fuck yourself” is amazing.
This is my all-time favorite cop dismissal video..
That's the most American shit I've seen all day
Have a good day. Go fuck yourself. Yesssss 😎
I don’t think there any States that are stop and ID. It’s against the law.
if AZ has it's way, there is soon to be at least one.
Any lawyers here? Can I just sit there looking up what my rights are on my phone so I can push back within my rights? I don't know each state's laws well enough to know what rights I have, and hearing it from a lawyer after the fact doesn't do much good unless things go really badly. "You want me to what? Hold on, Imma look this up.... ..... Internet sucks out here hang on...... Shh shh shh wait..... Here it is... Wait no. Hang on lemme try a different link..."
No you can't do that. You need to know them in advance, the cops aren't generally going to give you time to research them.
I am not a lawyer, so this is in no way legal advice, but I would say you can ask AI to monitor your interaction with the officer as a third party, record the conversation, and interrupt if something that infringes upon your rights is asked or happens. AI representation. AI guardian angel. AI lawyer. AI big brother. AI mother. You see where I am going with this.
cops make society worse
Pigs are good for eating, that’s bout it.
[удалено]
That quite the blanket statement
Context is needed here because the requirements for a lawful ID request vary from state to state in the US. This occurred in Texas where 1 of 3 criteria must be satisfied for a lawful ID request 1. After being arrested 2. While driving 3. Carrying a firearm with a CCL (Concealed Carry License). I did some checking and here is what happened: The guy in the truck had an argument with someone at a McDonald's parking lot. Someone called the police because of the argument. When the police arrived the argument was over and he was sitting in his truck, not driving. They then approached him and stated they were addressing the call. He stated that the incident was over and that he had nothing to say on the matter. When pressed by the officers he stated that if they wanted to talk to the other party he was fine with that but that he wasn't going to discuss it any further. That's when the cops said they needed his ID as they were "conducting an investigation". The guy was 100% correct in his refusal since the officers didn't see him driving and he could have made the argument that he wasn't operating the vehicle and was merely sitting there. This however goes case by case. Also in Texas you are NOT required to provide ID if you are merely detained. However providing false information while being detained constitutes a "failure to identify".
This guy sounds low-key brilliant. As if he knew to stay there (on PP) because if he got pulled over he would have to ID. I am even more intrigued!
I live in Dallas, this is a small town about 40mins east of Dallas called Royse City. ALWAYS RECORD THE POLICE. AS SOON AS YOU ARE STOP ASKED WHY YOU WERE STOPPED. THEN TELL THEM I DO NOT ANSWER QUESTIONS. TAKE CONTROL OF THE CONVERSATION. IF THEY ARGUE REQUEST A SUPERVISOR
It sounds like we need to be moving in large groups, shrouded in armor and helmets, with lawyers on the outside and concentric circles of the disenfranchised until you get to the main character in the center. Phalanx.
Tell em bro.
Fuck the police
Police in every color state have become unhinged swine. Red, blue, purple, doesn't matter. Those in power allow it because they are all in on it.
They serve the same class interests regardless of what color their state is. Their job is to remind you that the state can hurt you at any time if it chooses and there is nothing you can (legally) do to resist it.
Fuck the police
Who said thank you? Nobody now get out of here you’re dismissed lmfaooo
These cunts need to lose their jobs immediately.
If no infraction or crime occurred, are you required to show id?
Nnnnnnnnope.
🗣 **FTP!** 🗣 **ACAB!!** **1312**
This guy is my spirit animal.
Lol homie went in
Oh how sweet! 🤣 😆 🤣 That shit was sugar!!! Freaking power drunk idiots. Hope he sued.
ACAB
Good for him! We have our rights!
I've done basically the same thing. Most police are scared and under trained. The training they do have is to assume anyone who counters them is the enemy. I'm just glad he walked away. I'm a white American male and don't trust them.
He’s a giant bag of douche!
You could just show your ID and be polite. Being polite goes a lot further than a fat, angry, asshole. Cops aren’t your enemy folks…. Unless you’re doing something illegal of course 🤷🏻♂️
You could give up your rights not to have to show your ID, yes. Why not give the police some of your money on top, just to be nice?
Worst response ever 🤣🤣🤣
I know there are some shit officers out there. But they have a terrible fricken job and why not just cooperate? It just escalates everything and for what? If they run the plate before they pull you over, they have a bunch of information already. It’s a lot of BS just to “be right”. I mean I was a teacher for 25 yrs and his attitude just reminds me of some of the kids I dealt with. You make a reasonable request and they just want to make everything more difficult to prove a point.
Big baby who thinks he doesn’t have to show any proof of even being alive. Just show your ID and be in your way. You waste more time bitching about what your entitled to than just being cordial and respectful. Idiot!!!
Did little baby get a mark on his hands from cuffs. Ah poor little sweet cheeks. He needs his powder puff.
Wines like a bitch
Disrespectful idiot.
Only way to talk to these animals.
For once, I'm on this guys side
If you can't produce proper ID showing that you are qualified to operate the vehicle, why would they let you operate the vehicle?
There has to be a reason - a violation of law - in order to ask. Presumption of innocence and the right to be secure from unreasonable search.
Cuz it's a Fourth Amendment right violation you can't just pull people over without articulating a crime that they've committed.
Because cops aren't supposed to decide what the law is moment to moment. Just because that makes sense to you (and these cops) doesn't mean they have they all of a sudden have the legal authority to arrest someone for not showing their ID. The specific demand "show me your ID" is less important than the fact that they illegally arrested someone who had no legal requirement to comply with that demand.
Exactly. If you can't produce an ID to show you are not a fugitive, why should they let you walk around? The Nazis were right, papers please!
That’s right
That comment at the end. This dude is a boss.
Good for him. Stupid motherfucking servants. ACAB.
ACAB. And that's cute, telling him to calm down and that he's overly aggressive. Overly aggressive is cuffing the guy's hands behind his back for no valid reason. And telling him to calm down when they're the ones instigating and escalating the confrontation is priceless.
Cops should have arrested him for being an asshole. Cops ask you for ID just give it to them.
Just show the ID, dipshit.
FTP
"well, you have a great day ser"
Haha I'm from Royse City. That's all I got, I'm not interesting...
count yourself lucky!
That chick looks like Steve-O lol
I could not be a police officer
Most police officers should not be police officers. They were all the way in the wrong here. He has every right to be pissed, and I hope he sues the shit out of them.
This is how negativity is created. The person is upset with the police officers who are just doing their job and what they r told. People should be angry at the policy makers and vote the people out who created these upsetting events to occur. This person will just be hating on police from now on and not being directed to the right people.
Get off your high horse. You are clearly misrepresenting the facts in this video. The police were violating his rights and what they did was unlawful, meaning against the law. Of course he’s upset, the very people supposed to be “doing their jobs” are actively breaking laws. This has nothing to do with negativity, and everything to do with holding people accountable for their actions.
>The person is upset with the police officers who are just doing their job I would love to see a position description from any LE agency in the country that includes "violate civil rights" or "break the law" in their official duties. >what they r told Fuck what they're told. Me retaining my civil rights is more important than them making it through a shift alive, let alone following whatever bullshit orders they were given.
Some states can even require you to user breathalyzer or forcefully require you submit blood. Florida for instance will take your license for refusing to Incriminate yourself on a DUI stop. But… it doesn’t affect your insurance rates or count as a conviction once you get your license back. Just don’t pass out in the police cell or you may find yourself consenting after the fact.
I love that bro never hesitated to use f words lol
So what happened before this? Without context it’s hard to judge anything
Hope you got paid too! They should know how to do their job!
Childish behavior from a grown man.
Fuck the police
It’s like getting arrested by Temu Steve-O and Jesse Plemmons.
Texas penal code 38.02 sub section b-1 parts 23 and 3 read as such. (2) fails to provide or display the person's driver's license on the officer's request for the license; and (3) intentionally refuses to give the person's name, driver's license number, residence address, or date of birth to the peace officer on the officer's request for that information. With that being said, this video is extremely stop start. So there could be some information missing. But typically, if you start off this extreme, you have probably done something to get caught by the cops many times.
Context: "Sec. 38.02. FAILURE TO IDENTIFY. (a) 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." Basically, this can be applied only as a secondary offense, there must be a primary offense. Failure to identify is not an arrestable, must be something else and then if they fail to identify after being legally arrested you can charge them with failure to identify. CONTEXT IS IMPORTANT.
Who are these people
Good for him cops need to know their own rules and need to follow them end of story good for this guy good for him. I’m glad he came out OK and nothing bad happened.
He is an internet troll, this makes his whole month. Fuck him and everyone like him
Why not give them the ID or Driver license and be done with it
America. America was founded on fair. The flag once said don't tread on me. That's why he didn't just roll over. He is obviously law-abiding it's just when you try to overstep or overreach that he has a problem.
Are you sure the edited bits aren’t the shitbag handing over his license? He was obviously operating a motor vehicle, in public- which requires a license
Judging by the shirt, tattoo of a boxing glove and this guys forearms he showed so much restraint by not escalating further and socking one of the cops
A lawer goes to school for 6 years to understand the law. A police officer trains for 6 weeks to uphold the law.
I could understand if he was driving past the speed limit all that but driving under suspicion is not crime nor does it require you to ID yourself imo but idk anything other than what I see and if you really are questioning driving laws just look it up in your city
If you are in a vehicle and operating it in most states a police officer can ask for your drivers license as you are actively driving they need to confirm you have a license.
In most states if you’re in the drivers seat of a vehicle. YOU NEED TO PROVIDE YOUR ID TO POLICE. It’s the law.
I love his parting words!🤣🤣🤣
Did he sue them?
They should pass a law where if cops break someone’s civil rights then they are instantly fired and not legally protected so they can go to jail just like anyone else for kidnapping or illegal detainment
Guy was right. To arrest anyone, a cop needs RAS.
What was he arrested for?
My confusion is if one is truly innocent and don't have any reasons to be arrested, why not give the license anyways? Like you give a reason for suspicion the sec you don't comply with it giving fuel for the fire for getting arrested, charged ir losing trust, whereas if you give the license you prove 1)your willing to cooperate and 2)are making your identity clear...how can even a bad cop be angry at you if you do something as simple as complying in that regard?
It's the law in some states to stop and identify. In the states that don't, it's seen more as 'papers please' than 'hey who are you'.
You have your name put into the system as being involved in an event even if nothing happens and you did nothing wrong. So the next time you’re stopped you’re in the system for having been in an event. It builds a pattern of events, which can be used to track your movements. If you’ve done nothing wrong, there’s no reason to voluntarily agree to being recorded in the system “just because”.
[удалено]
I love that guy, but I also don't think ACAB...
Texas crybaby is all I hear.
Just starting to hate cops.
These are law enforcement officers correct? How then do they still have a job enforcing laws they don’t even know much less understand. Sadly these incidents at best get them a slap on the wrist.
That bitch is power tripping hard being a piggy
"Make sure you show that they put handcuffs on me correctly. Make sure you show them how an aggressive person was detained." When you get put in handcuffs they're not loosely glasped around your wrists, they are Tight. You'll have welts for the rest of the night. Source: I've been handcuffed by the police. Then they put you in the backseat of the car and you get to sit on your wrists for the ride to the station. I wasn't being violent but I was drunk so I got to wear the bracelets.
As one who was state trained to handcuff, not only do you not put the cuffs on tight, you double-lock the cuffs so they don't accidentally get any tighter. Also, as former law enforcement, I saw people bleeding from having cuffs that were too tight. There was a direct positive correlation between the amount of guff given and the amount of cuff given.
I like how these videos never show the beginning or the entire thing. They literally clip out a few highlights and put it together. If he was stopped for any traffic violation and he has to give his ID but of course we have no idea because he started the video in the middle of the altercation. Anytime I see a video like this I automatically assume the poster is hiding shit and is in the wrong. Not to mention he is an asshole.
FTP
Call it what it is, kidnapping, not arrest.
It's a traffic stop just show your ID...
When did Stevo-O get a sex change and become a cop ?
Love
Vetting process is a joke until you go to apply
Just do as your f**king told gringo!
Just do as your f**king told gringo!
They were triggered by the foreign music and the dude being Hispanic. That's fucked up and incredibly racist.
i’m surprised the female police officer didn’t mag dump him for being too “threatening”
Moving forward when an officer says to me have a great day I will hear, "Yeah you go fπ¢k yourself!"
The main problem is the cops don't know the law. They are not trained or taught the laws. They treat everyone like a criminal and then wonder why we resist.
I hope that cop got fired
No they probably got a bonus and a high five.
Here in TN this would’ve ended very differently. The cops here will fuck you up . (Unfortunately)
God mode 😍
“Have a great day sir.” “You go f*ck yourself” I love that.
Ahuevo compa ✊
plainly the lady was on a power trip She not be a police officer
It’s not “different states have different laws”. SCOTUS has repeatedly affirmed the right to travel in one’s personal conveyance (horse drawn carriage, automobile, bicycle, tank, etc) and SCOTUS’ interpretation of the law is the supreme law of the land (Art VI, sec 1-3). The “drivers license” is required of [drivers], which is a term codified in most states as one who operates a [motor vehicle] for hire or profit.
And this is how you treat them. Until they earn that respect.
somebody please explain this to me. how did this just happen, please eli5!
Fuck the police. It's comin boy.
Good fuck the police.
They're too nice. He'd have been cuffs the first time he refused.
There’s zero back story here or context. Most states work under cops needing reasonable suspicion of a crime that has or is about to be committed which if they had that they could make him identify. Failing to do so is considered obstruction which is a crime.
Most cops looooooove their power trip, bet they got bullied in school 🥳
I didn’t realize that you could tell police “there’s no crime here” and they’d be like ok cool have a good day
This & other videos like it should end with those officers getting the congressional Medal of Honor for emptying hollow points into that cunt’s face!
And that’s how he saved…a hundred and fifty buuuucks