TexasCHLforum.com

talltex wrote:

Abraham wrote:I'm usually on the side of the citizen in these I.D. stories especially when someone has not been arrested, but the police demand I.D. anyway.

As noted earlier in this thread, you can walk down the street without an I.D. and not have to give out personal information just because an LEO demands it.

That being said, in this current, national anti-LEO climate, espoused by groups like BLM, I'm on the side of LE.

Of course, they're concerned about 'future harm', though that description sounds somehow off to my ears. Kinda Sci-Fi sounding...

It also sounds like the guy (I'm not at all certain) was filming in a secured area, if so, the I.D. request/demand makes sense even if he was not at the time arrested.

I just can't go there. For the last 50 years, the Government has continually eroded the rights of citizens by justifying actions based on "potential dangers" that we need to be protected from. That phrase "future harm" is ridiculous and borders on the edge of "thought police". You cannot justify violating individual's rights based on what "might happen" at some point in the future. Anyone has the right to stand on public property and look around, take pictures, etc... as long as THEY are not infringing on someone else's rights. The fact that he was taking pictures through a gate has no bearing on that. If the police don't like it they can put up a gate that blocks the view. Justice Louis Brandeis stated it well: "The makers of the Constitution conferred, as against the Government, the right of the individual to be let alone--the most comprehensive of rights, and the right most valued by civilized men."