TexasCHLforum.com

I saw this news spot on Ch. 11 TV in Houston. The man said he was standing on the sidewalk shooting a video of the police dept. building. After he was arrested, his partner who was white did the same thing and was not arrested. He made a big deal out of the race issue. He also admitted that he and the man arrested were videoing police dept. buildings all over Texas. Well now, that would make me nervous, especially with the rampant Obama-induced anti-LEO atmosphere and the fact that ISIS cells are in the U.S. now. That said, it's pretty clear to me that there was no justification for the arrest and the PD is going to have a problem. Videoing was a legal but imprudent act, under the circumstances.

Before HB910 passed, we had an adult male in Friendswood riding his bicycle back and forth in front of one of our elementary schools. That's perfectly legal. He was wearing an OCT shirt and had an AR-15 in a tactical sling across his chest while doing so. That too is perfectly legal. It was also perfectly legal for FPD to talk to him and to let him know a lot of good citizens were very concerned as was the PD. He got a lot of perfectly legal surveillance while he rode back and forth in front of an elementary school.

A free society works only as long as people are willing to say "I can do this, but I choose not to." Before the OCT apologists start foaming at the mouth, I'm not saying we forego perfectly legal activities because we may cause some unwarranted concern by some other citizens. It's the acts that are designed to cause alarm that I mean. Riding back and forth in front of an elementary school with a rifle slung over your chest or videoing police dept. buildings certainly fall into that category.

With freedom comes responsibility. When people act irresponsibly, freedom is in danger.

Chas.

JALLEN wrote:

TVegas wrote:

JALLEN wrote:The law requires that you give your name, residence and date of birth to an officer who has arrested you, upon request. It does not require "ID."

True, it does not explicitly require ID, but identifying your name, address, and date of birth Is what ID is for. If an officer asks for your ID once you are arrested, they are asking for the information it contains. Refusing to provide the ID is refusing to provide the other information (unless you do actually provide that information in some other way)

Why not just state it? You aren't required to provide any other information, nor required to carry any document unless engaged in an activity requiring it and they might as well get used to believing you. If you are walking down the street, you need not have any paper or other identification on your person.

They want you to confess, too, but you don't have to.

unless you are carrying, which requires you to have ID and your CHL.

"Refusing to provide the ID is refusing to provide the other information (unless you do actually provide that information in some other way)"

TVegas wrote:

JALLEN wrote:

TVegas wrote:

JALLEN wrote:The law requires that you give your name, residence and date of birth to an officer who has arrested you, upon request. It does not require "ID."

True, it does not explicitly require ID, but identifying your name, address, and date of birth Is what ID is for. If an officer asks for your ID once you are arrested, they are asking for the information it contains. Refusing to provide the ID is refusing to provide the other information (unless you do actually provide that information in some other way)

Why not just state it? You aren't required to provide any other information, nor required to carry any document unless engaged in an activity requiring it and they might as well get used to believing you. If you are walking down the street, you need not have any paper or other identification on your person.

They want you to confess, too, but you don't have to.

unless you are carrying, which requires you to have ID and your CHL.

"Refusing to provide the ID is refusing to provide the other information (unless you do actually provide that information in some other way)"

Let's have a look at the law requiring both ID and CHL. Doesn't it presume you are stopped while driving? What if you do not have a DL for whatever reason?

JALLEN wrote:Let's have a look at the law requiring both ID and CHL. Doesn't it presume you are stopped while driving? What if you do not have a DL for whatever reason?

Nope. The law says nothing about driving. It just says you must present both if you are carrying.

GC §411.205. REQUIREMENT TO DISPLAY LICENSE. If a license holder is
carrying a handgun on or about the license holder’s person when a magistrate or
a peace officer demands that the license holder display identification, the license
holder shall display both the license holder’s driver’s license or identification
certificate issued by the department and the license holder’s handgun license.
---
Last amended by Acts 2009, 81st Leg., R.S., Ch. 1146 (H.B. 2730), Sec. 12A.02, eff.
September 1, 2009.

I've never seen an identification certificate but imagine they are similar to a DL, which is in turn quite similar to a CHL.

Any idea what the thinking is to require both?

Charles L. Cotton wrote:I saw this news spot on Ch. 11 TV in Houston. The man said he was standing on the sidewalk shooting a video of the police dept. building. After he was arrested, his partner who was white did the same thing and was not arrested. He made a big deal out of the race issue. He also admitted that he and the man arrested were videoing police dept. buildings all over Texas. Well now, that would make me nervous, especially with the rampant Obama-induced anti-LEO atmosphere and the fact that ISIS cells are in the U.S. now. That said, it's pretty clear to me that there was no justification for the arrest and the PD is going to have a problem. Videoing was a legal but imprudent act, under the circumstances.

Before HB910 passed, we had an adult male in Friendswood riding his bicycle back and forth in front of one of our elementary schools. That's perfectly legal. He was wearing an OCT shirt and had an AR-15 in a tactical sling across his chest while doing so. That too is perfectly legal. It was also perfectly legal for FPD to talk to him and to let him know a lot of good citizens were very concerned as was the PD. He got a lot of perfectly legal surveillance while he rode back and forth in front of an elementary school.

A free society works only as long as people are willing to say "I can do this, but I choose not to." Before the OCT apologists start foaming at the mouth, I'm not saying we forego perfectly legal activities because we may cause some unwarranted concern by some other citizens. It's the acts that are designed to cause alarm that I mean. Riding back and forth in front of an elementary school with a rifle slung over your chest or videoing police dept. buildings certainly fall into that category.

With freedom comes responsibility. When people act irresponsibly, freedom is in danger.

Chas.

Thank you, Charles. Well said!

Pawpaw wrote:

JALLEN wrote:Let's have a look at the law requiring both ID and CHL. Doesn't it presume you are stopped while driving? What if you do not have a DL for whatever reason?

Nope. The law says nothing about driving. It just says you must present both if you are carrying.

GC §411.205. REQUIREMENT TO DISPLAY LICENSE. If a license holder is
carrying a handgun on or about the license holder’s person when a magistrate or
a peace officer demands that the license holder display identification, the license
holder shall display both the license holder’s driver’s license or identification
certificate issued by the department and the license holder’s handgun license.
---
Last amended by Acts 2009, 81st Leg., R.S., Ch. 1146 (H.B. 2730), Sec. 12A.02, eff.
September 1, 2009.

I think the key word here is DEMANDS... identification. Can an officer demand ID when you are walking down the street minding your own business? Or or they merely requesting it? Those without CHL can just walk off if there is no reasonable suspicion to detain them. It would seem to me that demanding ID from someone is only applicable when there is probable cause criminal activity is afoot or is about to be or has already been committed. Moving violations fit into this category as well as any other crime.

When you are demanded to do something from an officer, an objective person would feel they are not free to leave and they are being lawfully detained. Of course, RS/PC would have to be present for such a detention...

A few years ago the Texas State Rifle Association asked members to photograph 30.06 signs on government buildings. I was in downtown Houston and spotted one on a HPD store front. I took a photo. Black letters on the window in front of their bag scanner. I didn't think the activity was suspicious. HPD disagreed. I was detained for a couple of minutes while waiting for the Sargent to come downstairs, do a quick interview, and send me on my way.

Not everyone taking photos of police facilities is up-to-no-good.

MONGOOSE wrote: Letting the system sort it out may cost the taxpayers some money.

Maybe. But it will definitely cost the defendant some money.

The terrorists made us do this sort of thing to ourselves. At least that much of their plan is working.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:I saw this news spot on Ch. 11 TV in Houston. The man said he was standing on the sidewalk shooting a video of the police dept. building. After he was arrested, his partner who was white did the same thing and was not arrested. He made a big deal out of the race issue. He also admitted that he and the man arrested were videoing police dept. buildings all over Texas. Well now, that would make me nervous, especially with the rampant Obama-induced anti-LEO atmosphere and the fact that ISIS cells are in the U.S. now. That said, it's pretty clear to me that there was no justification for the arrest and the PD is going to have a problem. Videoing was a legal but imprudent act, under the circumstances.

Before HB910 passed, we had an adult male in Friendswood riding his bicycle back and forth in front of one of our elementary schools. That's perfectly legal. He was wearing an OCT shirt and had an AR-15 in a tactical sling across his chest while doing so. That too is perfectly legal. It was also perfectly legal for FPD to talk to him and to let him know a lot of good citizens were very concerned as was the PD. He got a lot of perfectly legal surveillance while he rode back and forth in front of an elementary school.

A free society works only as long as people are willing to say "I can do this, but I choose not to." Before the OCT apologists start foaming at the mouth, I'm not saying we forego perfectly legal activities because we may cause some unwarranted concern by some other citizens. It's the acts that are designed to cause alarm that I mean. Riding back and forth in front of an elementary school with a rifle slung over your chest or videoing police dept. buildings certainly fall into that category.

With freedom comes responsibility. When people act irresponsibly, freedom is in danger.

Chas.

Charles - I often agree with you, but on this one I think I'll have to politely disagree. When we stop exercising rights, and when we do, allow our government and its agents to harass or prevent us from doing them freely, then we are giving those rights up. Or at the very least on the path to loosing them.

I don't necessarily agree with some of OCT's tactics, but I do agree with the sentiment. And I've seen far too many youtube videos not to believe that Cops in Texas(and elsewhere) can often act very close to tyrannical in their approach to open carried weapons. People stopped open carrying at some point in the past, because they could but chose not to. Now I can do it, but am but guaranteed to be stopped, harassed or arrested doing so while walking down the street.

Riding a bike in front of a school while open carrying shouldn't rise to the level of detainment, harassment and showing ID and proving you are doing no wrong. Riding back in forth in front of a school while doing so while legal does raise it to a level of scrutiny.

A concerned citizen making a 911 call because they are scared about someone open carrying should prompt a response by police, but not detainment if no crime or suspicious behavior can be observed/determined.

Evil happens when good men watch it happen but do nothing to stop it.

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."

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."

Someone else mentioned it earlier; we gave up so much with the Patriot Act. And with loud applause. That was a huge wake-up moment for me and my relationship to the political party of freedom that I most closely relate to. We didn't watch it happen. We drafted it, championed it and made it happen. Then we told each other we were the smartest kids on the block for giving up these freedoms to our government that is only here to help us.

My first reaction is that he's being paid to do this. He has hundreds of videos of police interactions all over the state of Texas on his YouTube channel. No one has that kind of free time and travel money when they are otherwise employed. It would be interesting to know who is paying him.

Second, he was arrested for failure to show ID. You can't arrest someone for failure to show ID. You have to arrest them for something else and then you can add on the failure to ID charge. So this should be thrown out by the court.

It was funny around here. About a year ago we had a Sheriffs Deputy filming a County Commisioner's home, at the same time the CC was filming the Deputy. The Deputy got all bent out of shape and told the CC he couldn't film him. Kind of funny when it made the news .

talltex wrote: 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."

I agree with you. However, I'd point out that it's not just the last 50 years. We were doing it well before that. We locked up Asians - taking away their property during WWII and demanded that they indicate allegiance to the United States. Kept them in prison. During the 1960s, we went on a witch hunt against "communists" and were willing to bend (stating it nicely) the rules left and right. All that was required was someone report that you might be one to get the ball rolling.

Now it's ISIS/ISIL, national security, drug war, blah blah - keywords used to throw the rules out the door.