You are just trolling now, you keep going in the same circles with nothing new to say. You are disappointed over something you made up, good for you. You keep twisting what I posted to fit your own agument which confirms you don't actually have one. Get over it.
You're the one who asked for a reason why someone who has done no wrong would refuse to ID if requested. The simple fact is they wouldn't need to provide you one as they got a good enough reason, the Charter of Rights. The fact that you've explicitly said that isn't a valid reason and explicitly said that a person simply exercising his right is reason enough for you to believe they have "something to hide" is not only disappointing to hear coming from a police officer but down right scary.
And of course you parrot the "nothing to hide" argument. But where does that end? If we have nothing to hide we should let you go through our car? House? Body cavities? Internet history? Text messages? It's the same tiresome excuse everytime someone like the NSA wants to take away privacy and legal rights. Of course you followed that up by talking about how somehow not giving a name would lead to deaths, nothing but fear mongering.
If you want a reason for someone not giving their information to an officer if requested, you're the reason. A cop who will assume someone simply exercising their rights has something to hide or is doing it for legal reasons is the reason a citizen should be wary of the police, you're clearly not on their side.
And Bent Wookie, we've established that the officer has simply requested ID. In this scenario the citizen, as decided in court, has every right to refuse the request. Request being keyword.
You're the one who asked for a reason why someone who has done no wrong would refuse to ID if requested. The simple fact is they wouldn't need to provide you one as they got a good enough reason, the Charter of Rights. The fact that you've explicitly said that isn't a valid reason and explicitly said that a person simply exercising his right is reason enough for you to believe they have "something to hide" is not only disappointing to hear coming from a police officer but down right scary.
And of course you parrot the "nothing to hide" argument. But where does that end? If we have nothing to hide we should let you go through our car? House? Body cavities? Internet history? Text messages? It's the same tiresome excuse everytime someone like the NSA wants to take away privacy and legal rights. Of course you followed that up by talking about how somehow not giving a name would lead to deaths, nothing but fear mongering.
If you want a reason for someone not giving their information to an officer if requested, you're the reason. A cop who will assume someone simply exercising their rights has something to hide or is doing it for legal reasons is the reason a citizen should be wary of the police, you're clearly not on their side.
And Bent Wookie, we've established that the officer has simply requested ID. In this scenario the citizen, as decided in court, has every right to refuse the request. Request being keyword.
Sorry, which scenario? There have been several put forth.
I believe the scenario that started this mess was when an officer requests to see ID for reasons other than the officer suspects the person has done something wrong. Pick any scenario within that constraint.
I believe the scenario that started this mess was when an officer requests to see ID for reasons other than the officer suspects the person has done something wrong. Pick any scenario within that constraint.
Got it.
There isn't a reason to ask for ID. Correction, police can ask, but you don't need to provide it. But we are arguing that fact, that just because you don't believe you have nothing wrong, doesn't make it so.
I believe the scenario that started this mess was when an officer requests to see ID for reasons other than the officer suspects the person has done something wrong. Pick any scenario within that constraint.
Correct, and you and Oling made it clear that rather than cooperate with an officer who has given a reason that may be to keep the public safe or to find a missing person you would refuse because it is your Charter right. That is your opinion and you are entitled to it, my opinion is that makes you a pretty crappy person.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to dissentowner For This Useful Post:
There isn't a reason to ask for ID. Correction, police can ask, but you don't need to provide it. But we are arguing that fact, that just because you don't believe you have nothing wrong, doesn't make it so.
That's how I understand the conversation anyway.
My discussion stems from dissentowner asking why someone with nothing to hide, who has done no wrong would not give police ID if requested. His view, which he has made clear, is that despite the legal right to deny the police ID he would assume anyone doing so is up to no good, has something to hide or is doing it for legal reasons. He's made it clear that the legal rights someone has isn't a valid reason to him to deny the police officer request and wants some other reason. (Not insinuating he would break any laws, just that he doesn't see the Charter of Rights and court decisions to be a good reason). The simple fact is a person doesn't need to have any other reason, you said it yourself.
While I'll agree 99% of situations like that should end with a grown up argument, an explanation from the cop and the showing of ID from the citizen, the simple fact is the citizen does not have to show ID. If for whatever reason they don't that's not a reason by itself to believe they are guilty of something, dissentowner disagrees and believes that someone who doesn't comply with an officer's requests has something to hide. Pretty much he wants us to jump when he says jump and if we don't we either did something wrong or somehow it will lead to people dying painful deaths. It's his very attitude that is the core reason most people who would refuse to show ID if asked are doing so.
Correct, and you and Oling made it clear that rather than cooperate with an officer who has given a reason that may be to keep the public safe or to find a missing person you would refuse because it is your Charter right. That is your opinion and you are entitled to it, my opinion is that makes you a pretty crappy person.
That's fine, despite saying I probably would cooperate with the officer... My opinion of you is that you're one of the officers trying to relive the glory days of high schools where you went around picking on people. Now you get to tell people what to do and they have to do it because of the badge. Who cares about their actual rights, just as long as they respect your authority.
That's fine, despite saying I probably would cooperate with the officer... My opinion of you is that you're one of the officers trying to relive the glory days of high schools where you went around picking on people. Now you get to tell people what to do and they have to do it because of the badge. Who cares about their actual rights, just as long as they respect your authority.
And there's the agenda.
But I do agree, just because you aren't producing ID doesn't mean you are hiding something. I guess what he is saying is that in HIS experience, the vast majority that do that are hiding something. So you would have to understand how police have that attitude. I guess it's the old, walks like a duck, talks like a duck, etc, etc.
Last edited by Bent Wookie; 09-15-2014 at 12:47 PM.
But I do agree, just because you aren't producing ID doesn't mean you are hiding something. I guess what he is saying is that in HIS experience, the vast majority that do that are hiding something. So you would have to understand how police have that attitude. I guess it's the old, walks like a duck, talks like a duck, etc, etc.
You do realize I'm the guy always getting in arguments for defending the police right? Take a look at the Ferguson thread, I have 0 issues with police nor do I have an agenda. I do realize there are amazing and terrible officers however. I will take issues with an officer who believes a person who simply exercises their right has something to hide, it spits in the innocent until proven guilty code I so love. I don't know why a person may refuse with police officers requests (not demands), it may be bad experience, it may be because they don't like being mistaken for a prostitute, it may be because they are an #######. There could be a thousand reasons to exercise their right, they do have that right though. It does not make them a criminal nor does it mean that an officer should believe they are. But of course, according to dissentowner, exercising your rights somehow means you want other people to die and have something to hide. Fear mongering on a local scale.
Again when does "nothing to hide" argument end. Would you be okay with them going through your car for no other reason but they asked? House? Internet history? Personal photos? His argument stems from "nothing to hide" but at what point should a person just be allowed privacy and going about their day unharassed? Some people may very well argue that they should be able to go about their day without answering to officers if they have done no wrong, and they would have a point. And don't overlook this argument stems from a report of a black woman being mistaken for a prostitute because she dared kissed a white man in public and refused to give ID. What did she have to hide?
My point is it appears that some posters seem to gain some sort of perverse sense of satisfaction from negative stories about the police, I guess to be fair this also occurs in the media as well.
When a thread was started to speak about positive experiences, it only took till post #14 for someone to take a negative slant.
I actually think this is pretty sad.
I have dealt with police in other nations, first world, second world and third world. The police that populate our streets are light years ahead of those in some other parts of the world.
__________________
Captain James P. DeCOSTE, CD, 18 Sep 1993
Crappy person? Pound sand. If it is lawful NOT to provide ID, then acting in a lawful manner is not being a crappy person.
Yes, that was the Ontario Ombudsman André Marinspeaking at a press conference after his G20 investigation. The government and police used an archaic wartime law to detain and demand identification from people.
So does this conversation boil down to the following?
Police asks for ID = Don't need to provide it
Police informs you that you're suspected of a specific crime and asks for ID = Need to provide it
The way I read that pamphlet, if you are driving you must provide ID, full stop.
That is likely not a Charter issue but a Traffic Safety Act issue, which makes sense.
If you are detained you have the right to a lawyer, but that pamphlet is unclear as to whether they can then take your ID. Same as being arrested, can they take your ID without your consent? Sounds like it, if it is in conjunction with a detention or arrest.
The way I read that pamphlet, if you are driving you must provide ID, full stop.
That is likely not a Charter issue but a Traffic Safety Act issue, which makes sense.
If you are detained you have the right to a lawyer, but that pamphlet is unclear as to whether they can then take your ID. Same as being arrested, can they take your ID without your consent? Sounds like it, if it is in conjunction with a detention or arrest.
You must identify yourself to the satisfaction of the police with arrest or detention.
The way I have always understood it is if you are detained or arrested, do not answer any questions until you have spoken to a lawyer. Once you have been given your rights anything you say can be used against you. The fact that wording is in the actual warning that has been mandated suggests it is a very important point.
The grey area is what happens when an officer just approaches you and asks a question. As a Canadian I am inclined to be helpful. However, the police do have extraordinary powers and unfortunately, either due to a few bad apples here or our exposure to the US situation, the trust level of the police is quite low among the general population.
Relying on an enshrined right should not make someone a crappy person.
I am a police supporter but I am also a Charter of Rights supporter. As soon as you accept some rights being infringed, outside of the legal process, it will become a slippery slope until that right disappears.
Last edited by Titan; 09-15-2014 at 03:10 PM.
Reason: edited lawyer for police
