Should everyone be required to have ID on them at all times?

Yes

 

I think people should have their ID's at hand just in case there is an urgent need for it (i.e. emergency, etc), but that doesn't mean not having an ID should be punishible in a case where no crime is committed. Just my 1/50th of a dollar.

 

Damn I hope I'll be able to get Itzak Stern to convince the Asscroft gestapo that I'm an essential worker...

 

If the Supreme Court declares this practice illegal, how will the Dallas Police hassle minorities?

Not that the Dallas Police will care what the Supreme Court says (they already don't care that the Dallas City Attorney has said "Failure to ID" isn't a legal charge in Texas).

 

I understand the sentiment of requiring citizens and residents to possess their IDs at all times but I hope just it does not lead to or open the door to the kind of Police country atmosphere that is prevalent in many Western European countries like Germany. I doubt if it will ever get to that extreem.

Has anyone lived or visited (extended stay) Germany before? If so what what your experience of the Police country? Speaking as a black man it was not good.....

 

No

 

I don't even understand the sentiment of wanting people to have their ID available at all times to provide to law enforcement officers. If they don't have a legitimate reason to want it (if there was a reason for wanting it, they could likely legally request it), then the only reason for asking for it is to harrass someone who isn't breaking the law in any way.

Personally, I would hope that the police would be engaged in looking for criminals and attempting to solve crimes or prevent them rather than harrassing law abiding citizens by checking their IDs when no crime is being committed.

Seems to me that letting them harrass law-abiding citizens just takes away from the the time they could be out enforcing the law. I don't know why we want to make our country less safe by getting the police involved in this sort of thing.

 

I don't understand it either. All I can figure is that some of the folks who think it's a good idea have never been harassed.

 

I think it is a good idea. Ideally, we would like to catch criminals that are not in the act of commiting a crime. For example, I was just reading about a case where a guy jumped a bond and was caught several states away because police caught him stealing a sandwich. If random ID checks were made, you might not need someone who is violating their parole or jumping a bond to commit another crime in order to get caught. It isn't like it is really difficult to show your ID. If you aren't wanted, then you shouldn't have anything to worry about.

 

The reason facism existed in the first place was because there were enough people who wanted it.

And there are those who want it now in everything but name - if you asked them if they were in favor of "facism", they would definitely say no. But, if you listed off the qualities commonly associated with facism to these same people without ever using the actual word "facism," and then asked if they were in favor of those measures, these same people would say yes.

It must suck to be so frightened and intimidated by what other people choose to do with their freedoms.

 

You would be thoroughly comfortable in pre-war Nazi Germany, then, because that's what they did.

So if you're walking down a sidewalk on Congress Avenue in Austin, or Main Street in Downtown Houston, or the Boardwalk in Kemah, or along the Strand in Galveston, for example, minding your own business, not breaking any laws, and you get stopped by the police and asked for an ID... you're fine with that.

 

If you're not hiding anything, you shouldn't object to random searches of your home on any given night. You shouldn't object to random drug tests done by police. If you aren't doing anything wrong, you shouldn't object to giving DNA samples to the police for them to catalog. Sure would make it easier to solve crimes (and only a few police officers would misuse it. I mean, the DPD only sent a couple of dozen people to prison for possession of pool chalk). If you don't have anything to hide, you shouldn't object to random strip searches done by the police.

I mean, it would cut down on crime to have a curfew. Close the cities down from 10pm to 6am, and crime gets cut down considerably because the police don't have to wait for someone to commit a crime to arrest them. The crime would be simply being out and about. And people are often up to no good when they're out that late.

Plus, not giving the ID becomes a crime. So let's say I go out jogging and forget my ID. The police decide they want to see my ID, I go to jail (and in Dallas, I probably get a face full of pepper spray and some throw-down charges to boot for having the gall to defy a police officer).

And don't say it won't happen because that very thing happened in Houston to a judge.

The point is, if I'm not doing anything wrong and am not wanted, the police are wasting their time by wanting to see my ID. And I can imagine quite a few people ending up in jail simply because they forgot their wallet the day that the police was deciding to do ID checks rather than actually preventing crime.

Check out this case, the guy was leaning against a truck. What the hell did the police need his ID for in the first place? On the off chance that he'd wanted somewhere (the vast majority of people are not wanted criminals). So what did it help to take this guy to jail? He wasn't wanted, he wasn't doing anything wrong. He just didn't give up his ID to the police. He didn't have anything to hide, yet he had a problem with turning over his ID for no reason. And because of that, a police officer was taken off the beat, a space in jail was taken up (at least temporarily) and an already overburdened court system had to deal with the case (not to mention the paperwork the officers and the courts had to deal with).

All because a guy leaned against a truck.

And like I mentioned, the Dallas police already use this charge simply to harrass minorities. Making it legal just makes that worse. Granted, not every police department is a criminal enterprise like the DPD, but there are a lot of bad cops out there.

 

All of those things are quite a bit more invasive than asking to see a driver's license. As soon as a cop pulls me over he asks for license, registration, and proof of insurance which I provide immediately. All this happens before any charges are made known to me. I have never had any problem with this. If the cop randomly wanted to search my car, then he would have to ask, and I would demand an explanation before deciding whether or not to submit to the search (despite the fact that I have nothing to hide in my car, it just seems that a search would take quite a while).

This is quite a bit of an overreaction. It would also be very difficult to implement because of all of the people who have jobs requiring that they be out after 10 pm. It is also a much more restrictive proposal than having your ID.

Not having your ID while you are driving is already a crime (driving without a license). What if you forget your wallet and then are pulled over for speeding or something? Well it would be just like that, only people would need to be just as careful when theyu go out jogging to take their wallet as they are when they go out driving. Why has it become such a tremendous burden to carry a wallet around. I do it every day, and it has never caused me any problems.

 

My problem with it is that it's 1. a waste of time and effort to go after people who haven't committed any crime, and 2. since it's not illegal to not have an ID, it can easily cause many arrests of innocent people who simply do not have ID, and 3. it will be abused, just as it is right now by the Dallas Police even though it is currently illegal for them to do so.

It's all a slippery slope. Every power you give to the police takes away freedom from law-abiding Americans. All the things I've mentioned are merely a few further steps down that road. You can make the same argument for any one of those things. It would make it easier to combat crime and if you're not hiding anything, you've got nothing to worry about (except those times that the police abuse the power, but if you're white, you probably don't have to worry as much).

To me, requiring me to produce ID for standing on the corner or jogging or whatever is just as intrusive as searching my home. It's unnecessary. It takes police power away from where it needs to be (preventing crimes and solving others), the potential benefits are small (happening to accidentally find a fugitive) and the potential for abuse is strong (any black people walking through my neighborhood would likely automatically be asked for ID. Not to mention that it could be used to intimidate people. For example, I might not want to participate in an antiwar rally if the police are going to be checking IDs of everyone there and putting me in the database. Or I might not want to attend a speech by some wacky liberal if the police are going to ID everyone going in the building and arresting anyone who doesn't comply. I don't know about you, but I'm probably going to be intimidated if a line of cops is recording the IDs of everyone at any given event because who knows what they're doing with that information).

This is just one of the many steps toward losing freedoms we do cherish. Freedom is never taken away in one fell swoop. It's taken away over time, incrementally. Today, it's requiring everyone to have an ID and allowing the police to request your papers, then in a few years, it's random searches without warrants, and on and on and on. All in the name of making us safer. Of helping the police do their jobs. And the excuse will always be that if you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to worry about.

But it still worries me because it violates the spirit, if not the actual wording, of the Constitution. And it changes the rules from "innoncent until proven guilty" to "guilty until proven innocent". Personally, I'm not willing to give that up.

 

And if you refused, he simply could arrest you and search your car in the guise of an inventory, all because we continually expanded what the police can do under the guise of making us safer.

Driving a car is a contract. In the case of being pulled over, by providing your license, you're proving the legal ability to operate the motor vehicle. Over time, that driver's license has gotten to the point that it's used as an indentification, but that's not what the intent was originally.

But it would cut down on crime considerably. Plus, the number of people who need to work past ten would drop considerably given that no one would be allowed to be out.

Plus, requiring people to have an ID is a big step. Right now, I'm not required to carry ID. If I operate a motor vehicle, I get a license and have to have it when I drive. But if I didn't drive, I wouldn't even be required to have a license. And if I didn't, I could be arrested, under this rule.

My kids don't have identification. Even if they aren't doing anything wrong, should they be subject to arrest at any given moment? Should I simply keep them inside all the time?

I go out all the time without my license when I don't need it. Why, all of a sudden, should I be clogging up the jails because I don't choose to carry my wallet when I walk over to check my mail? Why should I be subject to arrest because it's difficult to carry my wallet when jogging? If I don't drive at all and don't have a license, why should I constantly be subject to arrest?

And when this isn't enough for the police, what's the next thing on the list the police will want? What's the next freedom that gets taken away?

 

why
and please don't say 9/11

Rocket River

 

I don't have a problem with it (saying everyone has to have an ID with them), but one problem with the law:

Where do minors get IDs? Do they have to start carrying state IDs with pictures?

 

How about just getting a bar code on your neck or the back of your hand?

Rocket river

 

Yes, only because of medical emergencies. I was watching the news the other night and there was a guy in the hospital for like three weeks and the hospital still didn't know who he was.