Triple amputee vet tested for explosives, invasively searched by TSA after landing for rally

[TCROW]

So, no one should have to show ID to vote?

Please try to stay on topic.

 

[This_person]

Please try to stay on topic.

It is on topic. Showing ID is a warrantless seizure, or it is not. Which is it when you do it for voting?

 

[Chris0nllyn]

There's absolutely no reason to not identify oneself, in my view.

Where does that end? In the thread I posted yesterday, a passenger in a car refused to give his ID. Should he be required to do so?

 

[This_person]

Where does that end? In the thread I posted yesterday, a passenger in a car refused to give his ID. Should he be required to do so?

The best I can give to that is, "depends".

In my opinion, yes, there are reasons to demand an ID of a passenger. For example, there's a resemblance from a credible witness' description of a suspect in a crime, then it's justifiable. If there is a belief by the officers (for good reason) that the driver is in peril (the passenger is seeming in some way threatening to the driver, implying the driver is not in control of his/her own actions), then yes. If the driver and passenger are both heading into a restricted area that demands ID to enter, then yes.

If the officer pulls a driver over for speeding, or tail-light out, or something like that, and there's no reason to question the passenger, then no there's no good reason to ask for the passenger's ID.

 

[This_person]

Please try to stay on topic.

It is on topic. Showing ID is a warrantless seizure, or it is not. Which is it when you do it for voting?

Still waiting on an answer to this.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

The best I can give to that is, "depends".

In my opinion, yes, there are reasons to demand an ID of a passenger. For example, there's a resemblance from a credible witness' description of a suspect in a crime, then it's justifiable. If there is a belief by the officers (for good reason) that the driver is in peril (the passenger is seeming in some way threatening to the driver, implying the driver is not in control of his/her own actions), then yes. If the driver and passenger are both heading into a restricted area that demands ID to enter, then yes.

If the officer pulls a driver over for speeding, or tail-light out, or something like that, and there's no reason to question the passenger, then no there's no good reason to ask for the passenger's ID.

Goctah. That's about how I feel as well. So to be clear, there is at least one reason not identify oneself?

 

[This_person]

Goctah. That's about how I feel as well. So to be clear, there is at least one reason not identify oneself?

To be clear, the default is that you shouldn't have to unless there is a reason to.

If you want to vote, for example, you should have to identify yourself. If you want to board a plane and bypass being unconstitutionally searched, it's reasonable to ask you to identify yourself as a citizen and therefore ineligible to be searched without a warrant. If you are strolling the street where no crime has occurred and the police have no reason to suspect you of any crime and you are not seeking to do anything but move along your way, there's absolutely no reason to need to identify yourself.

In and of itself, identifying oneself should not be a problem, per se, but it should also not be required for no reason.

 

[This_person]

Please try to stay on topic.

It is on topic. Showing ID is a warrantless seizure, or it is not. Which is it when you do it for voting?

Still waiting on an answer to this.

Still waiting on an answer to this.

 

[This_person]

TCROW, based on your inability to answer the question, I have to assume you recognize the fallacy of your thought process.

You don't have to publicly acknowledge it, but I'm glad to have helped you see your error.