Anonymous
Anonymous asked in Politics & GovernmentPolitics · 1 decade ago

The police are legally required to identify themselves -- you are not - Why is the opposite the reality?

You are not required to identify yourself -- or carry ID - or show it to anyone

Unless you have been charged with an offense -- or there is probable cause you just did ---

The police on the other hand -- are required by law to identify themselves - Their badge number their staff Sgt their rank their name --- all of it is required of them at the request of the public

--------------------------

The opposite if often true

When police illegally refuse to identify themselves --- not much happens -- there is no consequence

When a member of the public refuses they are often arrested interrogated beaten up or the target of harassment as a result

When one group legally required to identify themselves refuses there is no consequence

When members of another group that have no legal resposibility to identify themselves refuse --- they are often punished severely for refusing to volunteer their rights away

----------------------

How can this problem be addressed ?

How should this be solved ?

Update:

Well apparently Canadians really do have more rights than Americans -- wow -

OK -- never mind you lost all your rights -- the question does not apply to you

Update 2:

Well apparently Canadians really do have more rights than Americans -- wow -

OK -- never mind you lost all your rights -- the question does not apply to you

Update 3:

Well apparently Canadians really do have more rights than Americans -- wow -

OK -- never mind you lost all your rights -- the question does not apply to you

Update 4:

Well apparently Canadians really do have more rights than Americans -- wow -

OK -- never mind you lost all your rights -- the question does not apply to you

8 Answers

Relevance
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    For years we fought police corruption and misuse of power by passing laws to limit police powers. Actually it was a good thing. 40 or 50 years ago, police routinely beat confessions out of suspects, did 'fishing expedition' searches without probable cause, led people into criminal activity through 'entrapment', etc.etc. As people grew more aware of these abuses they got angry and passed laws to keep police 'honest'

    This turned around with Richard Nixon. Nixon declared the "War on Drugs" and began passing laws to give police more discretion and more power. As you can see now, 35 years later, the purpose of this movement was not to stop drugs, it has had just the opposite effect. The real purpose of the War on Drugs was to erode constitutional protections, to give police and prosecutors more power, to take power away from judges and defenders. Now a cop could stop someone on the street and demand to see ID for no reason. They could tap phones and break down doors. They could search without a warrant in some circumstances.

    The Supreme Court grew more conservative also, all this time, and backed this trend. The Supreme Court now has six justices appointed by Reagan and the two Bushes (actually they appointed seven, but Sandra Day O'Connor retired). Each of these appointments was promised to be the single swing-vote needed to overturn Roe v. Wade and ban abortion. But in fact the are not all pro-life. If there's anything they all do have in common, it's support for more powers for police and prosecutors and for the Fed. Govt. in investigation and prosecution.

    For instance, since our nation began, evidence collected illegally was inadmissible in court. Only a few years ago the Supreme Court decided that this evidence was admissible so long as the policeman said he collected it in 'good faith'.

    Undercover cops patrol the streets of inner cities--Chicago, Philadelphia, etc.--offering drugs for sale. This is classic textbook 'entrapment' and shouldn't be allowed. This is one reason 1/3 of all our young black men are either in jail or on probation or parole.

    A year ago I was stopped by cops in my middle-class suburban California neighborhood for nothing more than walking down the street carrying a camera! I had walked by an elementary school and someone across the street had seen me and suspected I was taking pictures of kids for purposes of kidnapping them! I did walk by the school but hadn't even used the camera. The cops were very nice about it, and I was easily able to show them there were no pics of kids on the camera, but that's not the point. I suspect if I'd been black or hispanic they might not have been so nice about it.

  • MI
    Lv 6
    1 decade ago

    You are incorrect, it is a law in some states that you identify yourself to police. A law that was upheld by the supreme court.

    There are also exceptions to when police have to identify themselves as police officers.

    ***I do not feel that my rights have been violated just because I have to present identification to the police. I believe that in order to do their jobs effectively, they should know who they are talking to and what harm does it do to me to provide them the information? I object to the random traffic check points that are set up to catch drunk drivers and people driving without a license but I do not mind providing id when the police ask me.

  • REALITY is that you need to put the crack pipe down.

    Every law enforcement officer I know identifies themself to the public.

    Sounds like you refused to provide ID or identify yourself and you're just upset that you went to jail.

  • Bling
    Lv 5
    1 decade ago

    Police legally represent and are charged with enforcing the law of the land.

    They need to identify themselves so that the "alleged" perp understands that "this will not be a private matter" and you may be harmful, and I WILL use force untill we find out what's going.

    Just a thought

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 1 decade ago

    Two pennys,

    Public,the Master that pays.

    Police,the paid Servant...

    to protect,and bow/salute with respect,yes Ma'am/Sir.

    But in the USA,contrary to more civilized countries,the dogs have become wild,wolves that bite and maim the Nation herd.

  • You're assumption is incorrect.

    It is a CRIME to NOT identify yourself if a police officer asks you for ID.

    Now that doesnt mean you cant say I dont have Id and give them a fake name.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    You are not required to identify yourself -- or carry ID - or show it to anyone~~~~~~~~~~~~LIE

  • 5 years ago

    This is silly

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.