*Zaccheus* on 10/9/2007 at 12:13
Quote Posted by DaveW
Key word in my sentence being
"possible".
As far as I know, the officer had already verified that no crime had taken place.
Rug Burn Junky on 10/9/2007 at 13:55
Quote Posted by hopper
That simile was retarded because it made no sense and addressed a point I didn't make. No amount of law school can change that.
The fact that you think that, means that you still don't get it, kiddo. While it isn't a perfect 1:1 correlation with the original situation, it still addresses the flaw in what you said rather perfectly.
LesserFollies on 10/9/2007 at 14:17
For god's sake, he's the one who called the police! Anyone who calls the police to come to HIS AID (and for such a minor thing) and then has the audacity to refuse to provide id is living on some other planet.
Rug Burn Junky on 10/9/2007 at 15:37
That's the thing, the law says otherwise. Common sense and general practice may say that you should provide ID in that situation, but you should not be compelled to do so. If he declines, yeah, call him an asshole, but for him to be arrested for it is still wrong.
We do not yet live in a totalitarian state where you can be arrested for walking around without your identification papers.
LesserFollies on 10/9/2007 at 15:54
Of course I knew that. :D
But he's not likely to change that particular "general practice" by fighting it, is he? What's so wrong with being asked to provide ID when you call the police? That's a silly thing to stand up against. "Common sense and general practice" are common and general for a reason.
Also, "walking around without" and "refusing a reasonable request to provide" are very different things.
(For the record, I don't think he should have been arrested. I do, however, think he should have just been a big boy and shown his damn receipt in the first place.)
hopper on 10/9/2007 at 16:12
Quote Posted by Rug Burn Junky
it still addresses the flaw in what you said rather perfectly.
No, it doesn't. I went over my original post again, and in no way can it be reasonably construed to have the meaning "it is illegal for a store to demand the permission to search you, because otherwise it'd be an unlawful search", which would correspond to what Starrfall said. That's just flatly wrong. I never said anything like "it's illegal because...".
You could translate it to "it is illegal for a store to demand the permission to search you, and
because it's illegal, any provision that forces you to comply to being searched, is unlawful". You said this position was retarded. OK. Retarded or not, it is nothing like what Starrfall read into it.
Rug Burn Junky on 10/9/2007 at 16:16
Quote Posted by LesserFollies
But he's not likely to change that particular "general practice" by fighting it, is he? What's so wrong with being asked to provide ID when you call the police? That's a silly thing to stand up against. "Common sense and general practice" are common and general for a reason.
Nothing's wrong with being asked for it, but being required to do so is, and that's the crux. Sure, in general if you're the one who calls the police, you're going to be far more acquiescent to their requests, but if you're the one that calls, and you're treated as a suspect upon doing so, don't you think you'd be a little defensive as well?
The simple fact that hundreds of thousands of people are now more aware of this, and may be more likely to stand up for their own rights in the future means that yes, he actually has done something that can change it.
Standing up for one's rights is never silly, even when it's obnoxious, and I find peer pressure that discourages one from doing so to be far more disheartening than even the actions of the police officer.
/edit
JESUS FUCKING CHRIST SHUT THE FUCK UP HOPPER
YOU'RE WRONG
YOU'RE WRONG
YOU'RE WRONG
YOU'RE WRONG
YOU'RE WRONG
YOU'RE WRONG
How many fucking times do I have to tell you before you figure it out?
hopper on 10/9/2007 at 16:20
I bet you're cute when you explode.
Rug Burn Junky on 10/9/2007 at 16:26
I find it amazing that someone so stupid can be ignorant enough of this fact that one thinks a deadpan quip drawing further attention to oneself is advisable.
Stitch on 10/9/2007 at 17:46
Quote Posted by LesserFollies
(For the record, I don't think he should have been arrested. I do, however, think he should have just been a big boy and shown his damn receipt in the first place.)
So taking the path of least resistance when you're being unfairly treated like a criminal is the "big boy" course of action?
