Page 2 of 6
Re: Off Duty Officer and guys recording at wal-mart
Posted: Mon Apr 02, 2012 10:11 am
by VMI77
tbrown wrote:He touched a cop in uniform to stop the cop from moving toward his friend. I'm waiting for the media to vilify him like they vilified George Zimmerman for touching a cop (who wasn't in uniform) from moving toward his friend.
If anyone in the media has a milligram of integrity, they'll be all over this. But don't hold your breath.
If they had a milligram of integrity they'd be forced out of the media. Nothing screws up a corrupt culture or organization like someone with a little integrity.
Re: Off Duty Officer and guys recording at wal-mart
Posted: Mon Apr 02, 2012 8:02 pm
by RSJ
Anyone know the TX state law/citation for the statute about showing/not showing ID (i'm not talking about CHL)
Major tactical error.
The people videotaping are 100% in the right up until that moment. They do not have to talk to the cop, they do not have to stop videotaping, they do not have to show ID, they do not have to consent to being detained. They can ignore the cop and not interact with him at all.
Touch the cop, however, and he just committed a crime. That changes everything. Now they can be detained, arrested, ID'd, the works. Idiots.
Re: Off Duty Officer and guys recording at wal-mart
Posted: Mon Apr 02, 2012 10:27 pm
by matriculated
C-dub wrote:I don't get it. Why did the officer make the contact in the first place?
Because he's part of the 1%. The 1% of cops who give everyone else a bad name, that is. This crook (with a badge) needs to be taken off the streets, for the public's safety. He was obviously overly aggressive and basically attacked those kids under the guise of a police badge. He needs to take a nap in whatever the county's best color is, and be stripped of his duties.
Re: Off Duty Officer and guys recording at wal-mart
Posted: Tue Apr 03, 2012 7:15 am
by Jumping Frog
RSJ wrote:Anyone know the TX state law/citation for the statute about showing/not showing ID (i'm not talking about CHL)
Major tactical error.
The people videotaping are 100% in the right up until that moment. They do not have to talk to the cop, they do not have to stop videotaping, they do not have to show ID, they do not have to consent to being detained. They can ignore the cop and not interact with him at all.
Touch the cop, however, and he just committed a crime. That changes everything. Now they can be detained, arrested, ID'd, the works. Idiots.
Don't know the Texas statute, but the US Supreme Court has already weighed in on that issue. Needs to be a valid stop to require ID. That wasn't a valid stop.
Re: Off Duty Officer and guys recording at wal-mart
Posted: Tue Apr 03, 2012 6:51 pm
by Tamie
He's allowed to ask but it's not a crime if they refuse. Next time he'll be smart and give them a trespass warning and call it in if they don't di di mau.
Re: Off Duty Officer and guys recording at wal-mart
Posted: Tue Apr 03, 2012 6:52 pm
by WildBill
Jumping Frog wrote:RSJ wrote:Anyone know the TX state law/citation for the statute about showing/not showing ID (i'm not talking about CHL)
Major tactical error.
The people videotaping are 100% in the right up until that moment. They do not have to talk to the cop, they do not have to stop videotaping, they do not have to show ID, they do not have to consent to being detained. They can ignore the cop and not interact with him at all.
Touch the cop, however, and he just committed a crime. That changes everything. Now they can be detained, arrested, ID'd, the works. Idiots.
Don't know the Texas statute, but the US Supreme Court has already weighed in on that issue. Needs to be a valid stop to require ID. That wasn't a valid stop.
Is an off-duty cop working as a security guard still a cop?
Re: Off Duty Officer and guys recording at wal-mart
Posted: Tue Apr 03, 2012 6:57 pm
by Tamie
WildBill wrote:Jumping Frog wrote:RSJ wrote:Anyone know the TX state law/citation for the statute about showing/not showing ID (i'm not talking about CHL)
Major tactical error.
The people videotaping are 100% in the right up until that moment. They do not have to talk to the cop, they do not have to stop videotaping, they do not have to show ID, they do not have to consent to being detained. They can ignore the cop and not interact with him at all.
Touch the cop, however, and he just committed a crime. That changes everything. Now they can be detained, arrested, ID'd, the works. Idiots.
Don't know the Texas statute, but the US Supreme Court has already weighed in on that issue. Needs to be a valid stop to require ID. That wasn't a valid stop.
Is an off-duty cop working as a security guard still a cop?
Yes. Even if he's drunk.
Re: Off Duty Officer and guys recording at wal-mart
Posted: Wed Apr 04, 2012 12:30 am
by GeekDad
Jumping Frog wrote:they do not have to show ID,
Depending on what state they are in, (in Texas, if a peace officer ask for Identification you have to give it.) In other states this is not always true, in fact several open carry states, they do not have to show ID upon request unless they are being detained or another matter like a traffic stop. Even better, some of those states have rules that say, if you ask for a police officers business card, they have to give you one.
Texas does require peace officers to identify themselves via name and badge number upon request.
Jumping Frog wrote:Touch the cop, however, and he just committed a crime. That changes everything. Now they can be detained, arrested, ID'd, the works. Idiots.
Unfortunately this is true. I wish it wasn't because it can be just natural reaction depending on the officers approach to a situation, furthermore I think its part of the problem with those officers that have little man complexes and like do things like kick 13 year old girls in the face and this they are immune to the system. Cops & Judges both have forgotten who they work for and we are the masters and they are the servants.
(I say this with a great deal of respect for most cops and what they do... I do however think people need to start asserting their rights more and more to tilt the scales back... you should never be afraid or nervous of your government (IE: the police) but that is not the case today.
Re: Off Duty Officer and guys recording at wal-mart
Posted: Wed Apr 04, 2012 8:16 am
by Scott in Houston
GeekDad wrote:Jumping Frog wrote:they do not have to show ID,
Depending on what state they are in, (
in Texas, if a peace officer ask for Identification you have to give it.) In other states this is not always true, in fact several open carry states, they do not have to show ID upon request unless they are being detained or another matter like a traffic stop. Even better, some of those states have rules that say, if you ask for a police officers business card, they have to give you one.
Texas does require peace officers to identify themselves via name and badge number upon request.
Please cite the statute. I do not believe you are correct, but would like to know for sure.
Upon further research, you ONLY have to show ID if you are detained. If not detained, there is no requirement to show ID.
The question is, what is required for detainment? Suspicion of something?? If so, then a cop could detain everybody they encounter with some sort of 'suspicion'.
Re: Off Duty Officer and guys recording at wal-mart
Posted: Wed Apr 04, 2012 8:21 am
by Keith B
Scott in Houston wrote:GeekDad wrote:Jumping Frog wrote:they do not have to show ID,
Depending on what state they are in, (
in Texas, if a peace officer ask for Identification you have to give it.) In other states this is not always true, in fact several open carry states, they do not have to show ID upon request unless they are being detained or another matter like a traffic stop. Even better, some of those states have rules that say, if you ask for a police officers business card, they have to give you one.
Texas does require peace officers to identify themselves via name and badge number upon request.
Please cite the statute. I do not believe you are correct, but would like to know for sure.
Texas does not have a
'Stop and Identify' law. You only have to give your info once you have been lawfully arrested per TPC 38.02. However, you can be cahrged if you give the officer false information if detained (listed in same statute.)
§ 38.02. FAILURE TO IDENTIFY. (a) A person commits an
offense if he intentionally refuses to give his name, residence
address, or date of birth to a peace officer who has lawfully
arrested the person and requested the information.
(b) A person commits an offense if he intentionally gives a
false or fictitious name, residence address, or date of birth to a
peace officer who has:
(1) lawfully arrested the person;
(2) lawfully detained the person; or
(3) requested the information from a person that the
peace officer has good cause to believe is a witness to a criminal
offense.
(c) Except as provided by Subsections (d) and (e), an
offense under this section is:
(1) a Class C misdemeanor if the offense is committed
under Subsection (a); or
(2) a Class B misdemeanor if the offense is committed
under Subsection (b).
(d) If it is shown on the trial of an offense under this
section that the defendant was a fugitive from justice at the time
of the offense, the offense is:
(1) a Class B misdemeanor if the offense is committed
under Subsection (a); or
(2) a Class A misdemeanor if the offense is committed
under Subsection (b).
(e) If conduct that constitutes an offense under this
section also constitutes an offense under Section 106.07, Alcoholic
Beverage Code, the actor may be prosecuted only under Section
106.07.
Re: Off Duty Officer and guys recording at wal-mart
Posted: Wed Apr 04, 2012 8:39 am
by Scott in Houston
Thanks!! You found the detail that I was looking for.
Can you or anyone elaborate on what it takes for an officer to detain you?
Re: Off Duty Officer and guys recording at wal-mart
Posted: Wed Apr 04, 2012 8:43 am
by Keith B
Scott in Houston wrote:Thanks!! You found the detail that I was looking for.
Can you or anyone elaborate on what it takes for an officer to detain you?
Reasonable suspicion, traffic violation, etc.
Re: Off Duty Officer and guys recording at wal-mart
Posted: Wed Apr 04, 2012 7:14 pm
by Bart
GeekDad wrote:Depending on what state they are in, (in Texas, if a peace officer ask for Identification you have to give it.)
Please quote the law that says that.
or is this like your double jeopardy remark?
Re: Off Duty Officer and guys recording at wal-mart
Posted: Wed Apr 04, 2012 8:55 pm
by pbwalker
Bart wrote:GeekDad wrote:Depending on what state they are in, (in Texas, if a peace officer ask for Identification you have to give it.)
Please quote the law that says that.
or is this like your double jeopardy remark?
It was cited above. You missed it...
Re: Off Duty Officer and guys recording at wal-mart
Posted: Wed Apr 04, 2012 9:57 pm
by Jumping Frog
Keith B wrote:Texas does not have a
'Stop and Identify' law. You only have to give your info once you have been lawfully arrested per TPC 38.02. However, you can be cahrged if you give the officer false information if detained (listed in same statute.)
§ 38.02. FAILURE TO IDENTIFY. (a) A person commits an
offense if he intentionally refuses to give his name, residence
address, or date of birth to a peace officer who has lawfully
arrested the person and requested the information.
(b) A person commits an offense if he intentionally gives a
false or fictitious name, residence address, or date of birth to a
peace officer who has:
(1) lawfully arrested the person;
(2) lawfully detained the person; or
(3) requested the information from a person that the
peace officer has good cause to believe is a witness to a criminal
offense.
(c) Except as provided by Subsections (d) and (e), an
offense under this section is:
(1) a Class C misdemeanor if the offense is committed
under Subsection (a); or
(2) a Class B misdemeanor if the offense is committed
under Subsection (b).
(d) If it is shown on the trial of an offense under this
section that the defendant was a fugitive from justice at the time
of the offense, the offense is:
(1) a Class B misdemeanor if the offense is committed
under Subsection (a); or
(2) a Class A misdemeanor if the offense is committed
under Subsection (b).
(e) If conduct that constitutes an offense under this
section also constitutes an offense under Section 106.07, Alcoholic
Beverage Code, the actor may be prosecuted only under Section
106.07.
By the way, everyone, please note a key point in the statute. You can be arrested for intentionally refusing to give your name/address/DOB upon arrest. However, the statute does not require providing a driver license or other form of identification documents. It simply requires you to provide the requested info without lying.