According to the flexyourrights faq

"As a general principle, citizens who are minding their own business are not obligated to "show their papers" to police. In fact, there is no law requiring citizens to carry identification of any kind.

...

From here, ID laws only get more complicated. In Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, the Supreme Court upheld state laws requiring citizens to disclose their identity to police when officers have reasonable suspicion to believe criminal activity may be taking place. Commonly known as "stop-and-identify" statutes, these laws permit police to arrest criminal suspects who refuse to identify themselves.

As of 2008, 24 states had stop-and-identify laws. Regardless of your state's law, keep in mind that police can never compel you to identify yourself without reasonable suspicion to believe you're involved in criminal activity."

According to the wiki, Texas, is NOT one of those states.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_Identify_statutes#States_with_.E2.80.9Cstop-and-identify.E2.80.9D_statutes

However, if I understand the original article at rawstory, this cop was apparently not on duty, but working a side job for Walmart.

"“The officer seen in this video is not a Houston Police Officer and does not work for the Houston Police Department,” another Houston information officer wrote in the video’s comments. “Officers from jurisdictions throughout the area often work extra jobs at businesses throughout the area and that is the case in this incident/video.”"

So is it legal for him to wear a badge and uniform of a cop when he is working a side job, and IF Texas had a stop and identify law, which they don't seem to, would a person have to identify themselves to a cop when the cop is not on official duty?

Regardless, it is of course totally asinine that there is any doubt that the public cannot tape the police in action.

99% of cops are thugs and liars.

They lie continuously: on the street, in their reports, and on the stand under oath.

They are thugs and liars, and their only priority is their own pensions, their bloated salaries, and allowing themselves, their friends, and their families to break laws with impunity.

TJIC, I clicked your link:

   a 404 Not Found error was encountered while trying 
   to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request.

JUST WHAT ARE YOU TRYING TO HIDE, MISTER??!?!?

"99% of cops are thugs and liars."

And drawn from the general populace - which makes it likely that you are or would be a "thug and liar" - if you were even close to right.

Nope.

Do not mistake your opinion for the law, and do not fabricate some pie/sky goal in your mind for any police force, and you might be able to deal with reality a bit better.

Confrontations like this happen more when police have no interaction with decent people. If you want to be treated as an enemy by a professional police force, then step right up and declare they are your enemy.

Oh. You did. Lemme know how that works out for you.

Crid:

http://borepatch.blogspot.com/2011/01/i-am-tjic.html

If your argument, rad, is that any assertions that cops are prone to abuse their power, and are not likely to be all that up-to-date on what the law is (Civilians can film the police. That's well established), then your arguments are wrong.

If your argument, rad, is that any assertions that cops are prone to abuse their power, and are not likely to be all that up-to-date on what the law is (Civilians can film the police. That's well established), then your arguments are wrong. -- Frank at March 31, 2012 9:31 PM

Frank,

Quite frankly, Frank, your paragraph is quite twisted. Writing it in current standard English with normal phrasing it comes out as:

Rad, if you are arguing most cops abuse their power, and may not be current on the laws then you are wrong.

Responding to that:

There are always bad cops (law enforcement) out there. Same with lawyers. Same with doctors and Indian chiefs.

But both you and TJIC are asserting the majority are abusers. Get stats and come back an discuss it rationally.

While I will agree that my last encounter with law enforcement did not leave me happy, he was professional, calm and within the laws as written. If you have objections to the laws you need to take it up with your law enforcement.

What I said, Frank, is that most cops do NOT behave as TJIC asserts.

In my experience, people do not even know what a crime is (briefly, an action in violation of a statute, nothing more or less), do not know their local cops at all, and have some strange ideas at best about real life.

Cops basically do four things:

1) Carry out orders from superiors
2) Respond to obvious shenanigans in front of them, per #1
3) Respond to complaints from the public, again per #1
4) Minimize their own risk.

They are NEVER required to protect a specific person, in ANY circumstance. But they will try. Does that sound like a thug and liar? Of course not.

All that said, they're human beings, who can make mistakes and who are influenced by the people they interact with. YOU would develop an "us vs. them" attitude if all you did was deal with the kind of people you find in the Jail Report (that's a flimsy paper fulla mugshots).

Who can change that? You. Who else did you have in mind?

>> If you want to be treated as an enemy by a professional police force, then step right up and declare they are your enemy.

The police already treat me like the enemy. It's a done deal.

>>Who can change that? You.

Yeah, I wish.

>>What I said, Frank, is that most cops do NOT behave as TJIC asserts.

While that may be true, a sufficient number of cops do act as TJIC asserts, and the rest are complicit in their inaction to correct this.

The cops have a 5th task which is to enforce the laws of the state. In the pursuit of this task, a police officer will use any means at his disposal, including the telling of falsehoods in order to elicit a confession. In this respect, all police officers are, in fact, liars.

The question is how big a step is it from lying to get a confession and lying to get a conviction? You tell me.

And so right away someone steps up to prove my points, telling us how that's working out for him.

Assholio, you're just not changing the police except by your actions. Your alternative is what? Wishing.

And no, cops do NOT have the job of enforcing the laws of the state. In fact, they can't choose to do that. Ask any trooper who has been ordered to drop a traffic ticket because the kid is the son of the highway commissioner.

Their actions are directed, and then regulated by laws. The beat cops (that's the guys on shift responsible for your area) are not going to make extra work for themselves, good cop or bad.

And there's another statement that shows me just how far from reality your opinion of police is:

"a sufficient number of cops do act as TJIC asserts, and the rest are complicit in their inaction to correct this."

"The rest", huh? Imagine if someone were to generalize that much in your case. Well, that happens. Act like everybody else, be treated like everybody else. The point is that you don't want to be associated with the people cops usually must treat badly.

Another unpleasantry: you cannot argue with a nightstick. You must get to court to argue, because the guy in the patrol car doesn't have the time to go over legal nuances with you.

Do not mistake your opinion for the law...
Unless you're a cop, or in this case, an OFF-DUTY cop functioning as a private security guard.

...and you might be able to deal with reality a bit better.
Because you exhibit such a firm grasp yourself.

Confrontations like this happen more when police have no interaction with decent people.
So this kind of behaviour is justified? Did you watch the video or are you just being polemic again?

The OFF-DUTY cop in the video goes out of his way to be confrontational. How were the man filming and his friend not being 'decent' in your view?

In my experience, people do not even know what a crime is...
So what crime occurs here? To the layman, it would appear that the cop is the one who doesn't know what a crime is.

and have some strange ideas at best about real life.
And you are the only one without these 'strange ideas' obviously.

If you have objections to the laws you need to take it up with your law enforcement.
Please. Law enforcement does not make the laws, they enforce them. If you object to laws you need to go to those who make the laws (municipalities, legislatures, etc.).

On topic, the basic problem pertinent to the video is the lie the cop uses...
"I haven't broken the law..."
"Yes you have, at this point."
He doesn't go on to cite which law specifically has been broken here. As occurs previously...
"You're not going anywhere now, you put your hands on me and now you're not going anywhere."
We don't see this (in fact it looks quite the opposite, that the cop pushes him away), but that doesn't stop this cop from lying.
And then there's...
"You are hostile...because you're non-compliant with me."
So the cop (in his mind) now has carte blanche to justify the rest of the incident.
1. He fails to produce ID (which is not a legal requirement regardless of the cop's opinion).
2. He doesn't back away fast enough so he 'put his hands on me'
3. He's hostile because he won't comply with (non-lawful) orders.

So would you like to discuss what happens in the video, or is it more important to prove that you are so much more well informed and grounded in reality than the rest of us?

I've had uncountable experiences with police. None were pleasant-it's not like they'
re inviting me out to tea. Only 3 were actually wrong. Once, in college, a trooper stopped me and told me it "looked" like I was doing 75 in a 50 and ticketed me. Nothing to back it up. But the troopers on the roads heading to UT know the UT final exam schedule or their JP clerks do, and I wasn't skipping a final to fight it.

Once, DH and I were going through a very rough patch. I locked him out one night. He called the cops, teh cop threatened to arrest me and was very belligerent in spouting his opinion that he didn't care if I was afraid of DH or not (previous hubby) I had to allow him in the house. e. He got some unpaid time off for that once I was done going up the chain.

And, when in high school, a trooper pulled me over, made me get out fo teh car, and made a lot of comments about my looks in a skeevy and inappropriate way. He got suspended too, once my parents were done going up the chain.

IN neither of the last 2 situations, did the superiors ever try to block us or minimize us or fail to admit the actions were unacceptable. I can't imagine there's anything special about us. ALl this was before my mom married a lieutenant and my brother became a cop.

So I call bullshit the opinion that 99% of cops are bullies. If 99% of ANYONE acts that way to you, look to your own behavior. The entire rest of the planet is not wrong and you right.

> The entire rest of the planet is not wrong and
> you right.

This beings to seem like a developmental matter. No corrective is offered by the distressed party... No policy choices upon which the rest of us could pass judgment.

The implicit suggestions have the vibe of a junior high school nihilist: "Let's arm ourselves to the teeth and be all twitchy and intense!", or "A whole sector of society has to completely change their mentality at the snap of my finders, without any thoughtful consideration of the forces that brought us to this moment!"

It's not interesting.

DrCos,

Try addressing one person at a time, first. Next, your objections have no merit, because you're responding to something you made up, not what I wrote.

The law is codified. Do not substitute your opinion for the content of a statute.

That is my firm grasp of reality: the law is not what the layman thinks is right.

I have not claimed exclusive possession of these facts. You made that up, perhaps to conceal your tendency to avoid them.

One of the problems with police work is that narcissists find it very attractive. A main job of the police academies is to keep these people out. Some academies do that job a lot better than others.

Try addressing one person at a time, first.
Sorry, I responded to five of your comments, to one other. Did this confuse you?

Next, your objections have no merit, because you're responding to something you made up, not what I wrote.
Is there a filter between what you type and what is posted on the blog? I responded to your comments. And who are you to define what has 'no merit' ?

The law is codified. Do not substitute your opinion for the content of a statute.
What laws or statutes do we see broken in the posted video? Here is a pertinent law in Texas, from the Texas Penal Code:
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.
Is this codified enough for you? Where does this statute require photo ID?

That is my firm grasp of reality: the law is not what the layman thinks is right.
I never said it was. But the law is not what a cop thinks is right either.

I have not claimed exclusive possession of these facts. You made that up, perhaps to conceal your tendency to avoid them.
Substitute 'made an empirical observation made over many similar posts by you' for 'made that up' and feel free to point out where I have avoided these 'facts' you appear to see where they do not exist.

One of the problems with police work is that narcissists find it very attractive.

Another problem is that even good cops get worn out dealing with the dregs of humanity day after day. I imagine it can get hard to see the public as anything but hostile after awhile.

Another problem: the countless petty offenses people can be nailed for. It pits generally decent people against the police more than they need to be and sets up a more adversarial relationship. When you make criminals of everyone by having someone, say, detained for leaving her kid in a car alone for 5 minutes or driving while black, you make everyone more hostile to law enforcement. And that creates a nasty feedback loop.

DrCos, I have no reply for you now - not because you have made a point, but because repeating myself would not do any good. I would suggest an Excel table of statements and replies so that the difference between what I wrote and your response would be obvious, but I fear it would do you no good. "Responding to your comments" did not preclude you from injecting your own content beyond what I offered, then acting as if I had said such things.

Good day.