Posted on 04/20/2009 7:53:50 AM PDT by BGHater
“This article is a hit peace, full of either incompetence or intentional lies, from the very first sentence.”
I agree.
“or neighborhood watch members”
And how long before (ACORN) a community (ACORN) organizer (ACORN) can demand to see your ID? If security guards and neighborhood associations are commissioned to require it, is it a long leap to imagine zer0’s little Red Guards having the same power?
"F*ck you. Get a warrant..."
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
This bill is about as "unreasonable" as it gets IMO.
Some of us have been saying that for a while now. Maybe more folks will wise up.
This bill does NOT require you to provide papers.
That’s a strawman argument.
All it does is require persons ‘under reasonable suspicion’ to tell the cops on the scene who the heck they are.
“If security guards and neighborhood associations are commissioned to require it, is it a long leap to imagine zer0’s little Red Guards having the same power?”
Maybe you misread my post. The writer of the article is the moron who thinks security guards or neighborhood watch members are peace officers.
“Peace officer” is the term that the Texas statutes use to describe law enforcement officers.
No thanks...
You are being played by a left wing article.
Did you read the actual bill? I provided a link for your convenience. How about giving Dan Patrick at least that much benefit of the doubt.
“With no definition for “reasonable suspicion”, it lower the bar for Probable Cause.”
The term reasonable suspicion is a well defined legal term. See Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968).
Down the slippery slope we go....
Supporters of the bill, like State Sen. Juan Hinojosa (D-McAllen) says there are safeguards... The bill is sponsored by State Sen. Dan Patrick (R-Houston), who is a strong supporter of individual rights. "It is illegal for them to falsely identify themselves, but it is not illegal for them not to tell you who they are," Patrick said. "In this era of national security issues, if we have a police officer detaining someone at a high profile target, it is in the best interests of the safety of that officer and this community to be able to quickly determine who that person is."
It still stinks on ice. It devolves the PC standard to a self re-enforcing logic circle. A cop could stop someone and demand ID if another could would have reasonably done the same thing? That refusal to do so constitutes a crime?
(sarc)Yeah... That won't be abused at all...(/sarc)
“’Peace officer’ is the term that the Texas statutes use to describe law enforcement officers.”
I get that. I’m thinking beyond Texas here.
Oh wth... This Country is sinking into a Third World sh*thole faster than Meghan McCain's waistline is expanding. May as well just be able to arrest anyone for any reason at any time.
“Hinojosa said the officer would have to have a ‘good reason’ to demand identification.”
I don’t trust a single LEO to use that properly.
Circular logic...
A bit like flushing our Justice system down the toilet one chunk at a time.
OK
I can understand if you have objections to Terry v Ohio or Hiibel.
I agree with your description of Dan Patrick.
Is this (as another FReeper already posted) a misguided attempt to control illegals?
ping
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.