LoL! Why is every piece of ghetto trash, no matter what race, act like theyr'e armchair couch super lawyers when it comes to cops? -SMH-

[2 Cops Taser Black American For Refusing To Show I.D]

http://youtu.be/cd6lKqQv32k

i dont know man lol but you are right they all do act like it i mean look at this vid and then at the end look at the guy he looks like a hobo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCZB-k4jKBc

Well the guy half alright during the early first half of the video. The second half he just completely discredited and destroyed any respect I could have for an individual with all his banter and nonsense chatter. ~.~;;

Well they have the right to ask for ID and refusing to show ID is actually a crime if your carrying any that is. Police have the right and authority to ask for a residence, an ID etc.

There is no law requiring anyone to carry ID while walking around (driving is different). As such, there is no law requiring anyone to show ID if requested. The cops can ask, but there is no law requiring you to show.

Arrogance is present on both sides of the tracks.

I don't know about the specific laws and so on, but isn't tasing someone for that a little over the top?

Though, whenever I watch American cop shows, I think their cops are over the top. They're always so eager to tackle/taser/get their gun out. When I watch Kiwi cop shows, they're nothing like that. I watched this one where a drunk guy refused to pay his cab fare and tried to hide in his hotel room, mouthed off at the cops and everything...and they calmly talked him down like they were best friends until he paid the fare.

It's a surprise that they expect respect when they dress and act like boy scouts.

The black man is no better than a kindergarten either.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_Identify_statutes#States_with_.E2.80.9Cstop-and-identify.E2.80.9D_statutes

it seems like the cops where justified, they asked for his I.D. which he would not give, so they where putting him under arrest for not compiling, he then tried to resist, and the cops tasered him to subdue him.

Why can't people just do as they are told? If the police want your I.D. then just give it to them. Does this guy think he's a hero or something? What a loser.

Actually, yes, there is. Looks like it was in Florida, so yes, the guy who was not wanting to show his ID was in the wrong on the whole line.

Stop and identify only applies in the case of lawful detainment (a Terry stop) or arrest.

In case of arrest, identification can be lawfully required, although 5th amendment can apply if the arrested person has a reasonable suspicion that self-identification would lead to self-incrimination. The video states he was not being arrested, so this doesn't apply.

He was most likely being detained (this would be a Terry stop). In a Terry stop, the US Supreme Court has ruled in Berkemer v. McCarty (468 US) that "the officer may ask the detainee a moderate number of questions to determine his identity and to try to obtain information confirming or dispelling the officer’s suspicions. But the detainee is not obliged to respond.” This was later modified in "HIIBEL v. SIXTH JUDICIAL DIST. COURT OF NEV., HUMBOLDT CTY" (542 US). there is no federal requirement for identification for a Terry stop, although states may create statutes requiring as such (542 US at 183 and 187, respectively).

468 is not on the US Supreme Court website, so I don't have any links to provide, but 542 is here: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/boundvolumes/542bv.pdf


In the case of Florida, the only statute that has such a requirement would be 856.021. This comes in two parts.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0800-0899/0856/Sections/0856.021.html

First, understand that this statute is for Terry stops for "prowling" or "loitering" as stated in 856.021(1): "It is unlawful for any person to loiter or prowl in a place, at a time or in a manner not usual for law-abiding individuals, under circumstances that warrant a justifiable and reasonable alarm or immediate concern for the safety of persons or property in the vicinity." The statute makes clear that the person needs to "loiter or prowl", which the person in the video clearly was not, and it would need to happen " in a place, at a time or in a manner not usual for law-abiding individuals", and a public place during the middle of the day certainly does not meet that criteria.

The applicable circumstances that would elevate this to an arrest are given in 856.021(s): "Among the circumstances which may be considered in determining whether such alarm or immediate concern is warranted is the fact that the person ... refuses to identify himself or herself..." So, if the person met the conditions of 856.021(1), this would apply, but he didn't, so it doesn't.

Also, requirement for identification in and of itself is not a requirement to produce documentation (at least outside of Arizona), although that is one method of self-identification. Rather, one merely needs to provide a name and address.