RE: NEVER stop and show a receipt on the way out... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

SugarMyChurro -> RE: NEVER stop and show a receipt on the way out... (9/6/2007 6:57:36 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alumbrado
So some people don't need no steeenking facts, OR to read what was actually said.


Seriously, make your argument or shut up already - these bald assertions will not do. You have simply failed to provide a reliable citation. Provide a case quote - as I have done - or simply concede that you are wrong. It's so simple really.

You want to claim that the ACLU, Wiki, SCOTUS, and myself all misunderstand some point of law that you would seem to understand far better than the rest of us. Well, edumacate me, Alumbrado. Do it already.

Put up or shut up. It's only fair.

Also, do not claim that you have already made this imaginary argument of yours clear. I want a link. Link me to where you stated it already - and I mean with quotes to holding case law.



caitlyn -> RE: NEVER stop and show a receipt on the way out... (9/6/2007 10:21:11 PM)

General reply ... I meant to post this yesterday, and just didn't get to it.
 
I went to Wally's World yesterday and got a bag of chopped salad, six plums and some grapes. One small bag. After checking out, I gave my best dumb ass look, batted my eyes and asked if someone would help me carry the bag to my car, since I didn't enjoy being searched on the way out.
 
Believe it or not, they actually had a guy carry that one bag, all the way to my truck.



thompsonx -> RE: NEVER stop and show a receipt on the way out... (9/6/2007 10:33:21 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: caitlyn

General reply ... I meant to post this yesterday, and just didn't get to it.
 
I went to Wally's World yesterday and got a bag of chopped salad, six plums and some grapes. One small bag. After checking out, I gave my best dumb ass look, batted my eyes and asked if someone would help me carry the bag to my car, since I didn't enjoy being searched on the way out.
 
Believe it or not, they actually had a guy carry that one bag, all the way to my truck.

caitlyn:
Well you do have a pretty nice butt.  Yeah I would have carried the bag out for you also just so I could watch that "oh so fine ass" work its magic.[;)]
thompson



farglebargle -> RE: NEVER stop and show a receipt on the way out... (9/7/2007 12:00:00 AM)

DAMNIT! THAT is the solution!!!

EVERYONE! Starting now.

DEMAND Carry Out Service.

Make their fucking employees do something USEFUL instead of wasting time checking receipts.




Alumbrado -> RE: NEVER stop and show a receipt on the way out... (9/7/2007 7:56:21 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SugarMyChurro

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alumbrado
So some people don't need no steeenking facts, OR to read what was actually said.


Seriously, make your argument or shut up already - these bald assertions will not do. You have simply failed to provide a reliable citation. Provide a case quote - as I have done - or simply concede that you are wrong. It's so simple really.

You want to claim that the ACLU, Wiki, SCOTUS, and myself all misunderstand some point of law that you would seem to understand far better than the rest of us. Well, edumacate me, Alumbrado. Do it already.

Put up or shut up. It's only fair.

Also, do not claim that you have already made this imaginary argument of yours clear. I want a link. Link me to where you stated it already - and I mean with quotes to holding case law.




My argument as repeatedly and clearly stated (that there are some cases where it is constitutional for the police to demand ID), has already been supported by the cases and examples I've mentioned how many times now?  The ones you keep tripping over yourself to pretend don't exist? That pesky little thing called reality?

Such as:

"...Hiibel argues that his conviction cannot stand because the officer’s conduct violated his Fourth Amendment rights. We disagree....
(03-5554) 542 U.S. 177 (2004)

and the one that remains invisible to you after many mentions:

"Interrogation relating to one's identity or a request for identification by the police does not, by itself, constitute a Fourth Amendment seizure"
466 U.S. 210 (1984)


Your imaginary straw position that you've created for me, gets no defense, unless the person who fabricated it would like to fabricate one.



And we are still waiting for you to explain how the USSC (and why pretend that the title of the court is 'Supreme Court Of The US' and ignore the appelation given in the Constitution?) saying that Hiibel's conviction was legitimate while citing the INS case, means that there are no cases ( your choice of words, remember..."So all of these assertions that you *MUST* show ID are currently false." ) where the police can legitimately compel one to show ID.

But you know all of this, and are just amusing yourself by flaunting your ignorance...  A game at which I'm happy to declare you the winner.



SugarMyChurro -> RE: NEVER stop and show a receipt on the way out... (9/7/2007 11:02:21 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alumbrado
"Interrogation relating to one's identity or a request for identification by the police does not, by itself, constitute a Fourth Amendment seizure" 466 U.S. 210 (1984)


Yeah, the whole quote is actually:
"Interrogation relating to one's identity or a request for identification by the police does not, by itself, constitute a Fourth Amendment seizure. Unless the circumstances of the encounter are so intimidating as to demonstrate that a reasonable person would have believed he was not free to leave if he had not responded, such questioning does not result in a detention under the Fourth Amendment. "
http://supreme.justia.com/us/466/210/case.html

So just as I have stated previously ( http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=1251643 ), you simply ask: "Can I leave?" If yes, you leave without answering questions. If no, you are being stopped under the rules of Terry v Ohio (i.e. Terry Stop) or under Hiibel (Stop and Identify). In other words, the INS case is off point in the current hypothetical. Further, to work in this country you do have to have documents in order to do so - so again, the case is different. It is a tiny part of the answer the court gives in Hiibel (obiter dictum), and not quite the whole answer itself. If INS v. DELGADO were the complete answer there would be no need for Hiibel as the other case would be the precedent case containing the rule of law that is binding on all lower courts.

-----
Obiter dictum
An obiter dictum (plural obiter dicta, often referred to simply as dicta), Latin for a statement "said by the way", is a remark or observation made by a judge that, although included in the body of the court's opinion, does not form a necessary part of the court's decision. In a court opinion, obiter dicta include, but are not limited to, words "introduced by way of illustration, or analogy or argument."[1] Unlike the rationes decidendi, obiter dicta are not the subject of the judicial decision, even if they happen to be correct statements of law. Under the doctrine of stare decisis, statements constituting obiter dicta are therefore not binding, although in some jurisdictions, such as England and Wales, they can be strongly persuasive.
-----

And you are STILL confusing a demand that someone "identify" themselves with the specific demand for some kind of paper I.D. - the two things really are different as I already quoted from Hiibel. In plain english it says you don't have to show paper I.D.:
""As we understand it, the statute does not require a suspect to give the officer a driver's license or any other document. Provided that the suspect either states his name or communicates it to the officer by other means--a choice, we assume, that the suspect may make--the statute is satisfied and no violation occurs. See id., at ___, 59 P. 3d, at 1206-1207."
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=542&page=177

What I don't get is this: you said Hiibel was the holding case. I agree with that assessment. What you are doing now is literally arguing with what Hiibel says as if it were my fault.




Alumbrado -> RE: NEVER stop and show a receipt on the way out... (9/7/2007 3:20:36 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alumbrado

"Interrogation relating to one's identity or a request for identification by the police does not, by itself, constitute a Fourth Amendment seizure"
466 U.S. 210 (1984)


Your imaginary straw position that you've created for me, gets no defense, unless the person who fabricated it would like to fabricate one.



And we are still waiting for you to explain how the USSC (and why pretend that the title of the court is 'Supreme Court Of The US' and ignore the appelation given in the Constitution?) saying that Hiibel's conviction was legitimate while citing the INS case, means that there are no cases ( your choice of words, remember..."So all of these assertions that you *MUST* show ID are currently false." ) where the police can legitimately compel one to show ID.

But you know all of this, and are just amusing yourself by flaunting your ignorance...  A game at which I'm happy to declare you the winner.



Nice tap dance, SMC.



SugarMyChurro -> RE: NEVER stop and show a receipt on the way out... (9/7/2007 4:09:56 PM)

That's not an answer. That is not the holding case where a stop and identify is concerned, Hiibel is. This has all been asked and answered, asked and answered, and asked an answered. And I'm supposed to be the one that's tap dancing? Please...

Seriously, what is your problem?

Oh right...no case law to support your position.



SugarMyChurro -> RE: NEVER stop and show a receipt on the way out... (9/7/2007 8:05:33 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alumbrado
...and why pretend that the title of the court is 'Supreme Court Of The US' and ignore the appelation given in the Constitution?


Because everyone calls it that. SCOTUS is a well known and understood acronym. Notice anything interesting about this page?

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/

And anyway, a rose by any other name...

Just more proof that you will argue about any fool thing.





luckydog1 -> RE: NEVER stop and show a receipt on the way out... (9/7/2007 8:42:56 PM)

Ding, Ding, Ding....and sugar wins by a knockout.



sexypet -> RE: NEVER stop and show a receipt on the way out... (9/7/2007 9:42:52 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: feastie

Interesting.  A background search on Michael Righi in Ohio turns up zero results.


"For the labor day weekend my father decided to host a small family reunion. My sister flew in from California and I drove in from Pittsburgh ...."

Gee, i wonder why.



Sinergy -> RE: NEVER stop and show a receipt on the way out... (9/7/2007 10:49:32 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: KruelMistressK

Keeping in mind that a retail store posting something doesn't make it the law of the land.


They can post whatever they want.

They try to restrain you from leaving the store, you own them.

Sinergy



farglebargle -> RE: NEVER stop and show a receipt on the way out... (9/8/2007 2:08:32 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Alumbrado

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alumbrado

"Interrogation relating to one's identity or a request for identification by the police does not, by itself, constitute a Fourth Amendment seizure"
466 U.S. 210 (1984)


Your imaginary straw position that you've created for me, gets no defense, unless the person who fabricated it would like to fabricate one.



And we are still waiting for you to explain how the USSC (and why pretend that the title of the court is 'Supreme Court Of The US' and ignore the appelation given in the Constitution?) saying that Hiibel's conviction was legitimate while citing the INS case, means that there are no cases ( your choice of words, remember..."So all of these assertions that you *MUST* show ID are currently false." ) where the police can legitimately compel one to show ID.

But you know all of this, and are just amusing yourself by flaunting your ignorance... A game at which I'm happy to declare you the winner.



Nice tap dance, SMC.



The Fonts...

The Colors...

The Goggles -- They Do NOTHING!




Alumbrado -> RE: NEVER stop and show a receipt on the way out... (9/8/2007 6:14:03 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SugarMyChurro

That's not an answer. That is not the holding case where a stop and identify is concerned, Hiibel is. This has all been asked and answered, asked and answered, and asked an answered. And I'm supposed to be the one that's tap dancing? Please...

Seriously, what is your problem?

Oh right...no case law to support your position.


Riiiight....[8|]  Which is of course, why the Supreme Court referenced case law when they freed Hiibel after reversing his conviction.   On your planet.

Here on Earth, the reality remains exactly what I said it was, that law enforcement can under certain circumstances, demand identification without it being unconstitutional.
And that is why I've had no problem not only coming up with examples, but in tracing the precedent (we will add 'case law' to the list of buzz words you've misapprehended).

And your assertion that all such demands for identification are forbidden remains patently false.

The problem with your semantic gamesmanship continues to be that reality refutes you. 

The tactics you've chosen are the preferred method of religious fanatics, conspiracy theorists, and anti-whatever kooks for a reason... they impress the converted and bamboozle the complacent, because they do not depend on facts.  They abuse them but they do not conform to them.
Street corner zealots and barracks lawyers revel in this faith based stuff, but frankly, who cares besides people unschooled in critical thinking?

Taking a few words out of Scripture, or the Constitution, or a law book, or a court ruling, and applying incorrect definitions to 'make' the document say whatever one wants is a tired trick, and for all of your claims of extensive research, and great knowledge, that is all you've really done here... dressed up in a few whines about personal attacks, faked attributions, and high school debate team evasions.

All that is left for you to do is the standard reverse backflip dismount, where you claim you supported my assertion all along, and that I actually said your straw quotes, therefor, my own cites must prove you right.  And of course, the aftermath of running away and sniping in other threads about your 'victory'.

Or you could spare yourself the embarrassment, and simply admit that sometimes the police are allowed to compel people to identify themselves.



OrionTheWolf -> RE: NEVER stop and show a receipt on the way out... (9/8/2007 9:11:15 AM)

I agree with his comment I am pasting here. This should answer your question.

"
Righi is challenging the charge. He has a Sept. 20 date in mayor's court.
"I am not interested in living my life smoothly," Righi wrote on his blog. "I am interested in living my life on strong principles ... Allowing stores to inspect our bags at will might seem like a trivial matter, but it creates an atmosphere of obedience which is a dangerous thing."

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittensmailbox

Ok the other day at work, I polled a ton of ppl, black, white, Jews, Christians Arabic, rich and poor and they all said the same thing… If they had nothing to hide, they would have no problem showing their receipt or ID…



farglebargle -> RE: NEVER stop and show a receipt on the way out... (9/8/2007 10:03:20 AM)

You know how Movie Theatres post signs, saying "No Outside Food"?

ENFORCING IT is a misdemeanor under New York Civil Rights Law section 40-b.

Again, you can post anything you want. Even, "No Blacks, Hippies, or Jews".

That don't make it lawful.






SugarMyChurro -> RE: NEVER stop and show a receipt on the way out... (9/8/2007 10:39:04 AM)

Alumbrado:

Is this how you lose in court, by asserting endless stupidities? Pity that...



luckydog1 -> RE: NEVER stop and show a receipt on the way out... (9/8/2007 10:53:20 AM)

I would imagine that CC does have the right to demand to inspect customers bags, yet the only ability to enforce would be to refuse future service and have the person charged with tresspassing if they entered the Store.  The USSC cases cited implied that if Ohio requires an ID as part of identifying them selves to an officer, its ok.  whether this is the case is not yet clear, and may be up to the Ohio Courts.  Even if the man was in the right and  called the cop, he still has to comply with the offier.  The person who calls does not automatically not get charged, if they also "obstruct official bussiness".



SugarMyChurro -> RE: NEVER stop and show a receipt on the way out... (9/8/2007 11:34:26 AM)

luckydog1:

But he complied with the statute - he gave his name verbally. The idea that he was obstructing the officer's investigation won't hold up because there is no statutory obligation to provide a paper document, one's name is sufficient. I expect he could even have written it down if he were mute and still not shown a paper document with his name on it (e.g. driver's license, state I.D., etc).

Hiibel did neither. He would not give his name and he would not provide a paper document. He had the statutory obligation to at least provide his name and the court upheld the statute. That's why Hiibel lost.

Now personally I don't think one should have to provide one's name under any circumstances. The law is constantly evolving to erode our freedoms and make various law enforcement jobs easier. We are getting to the point where the 4th and 5th Amendment no longer have any teeth though. If you think about the traditional Miranda warning it starts with the statement: 'You have the right to remain silent." In Hiibel the court is saying: "You have the right to remain silent provided you have already met a statutory obligation to identify yourself by some means." So we are certainly on the slippery slope here.

But there is no case the declares that one must show documentary (paper) identification.

FWIW, in my state there is still no statutory obligation to give one's name. The one that existed was shot down for vagueness. They might write another that is less vague and the court might uphold it.

And that's the road to tyranny - the petty tyranny of every asshole of some authority that demands to see your papers.




Alumbrado -> RE: NEVER stop and show a receipt on the way out... (9/8/2007 1:16:43 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SugarMyChurro

Alumbrado:

Is this how you lose in court, by asserting endless stupidities? Pity that...



Another fictional assertion made up by you, and attached to my name?  How....predictable. And bogus.
What is your point again in falsely claiming that  I said anything about trying cases in court, (or about Hiibel being the controlling case, or that I had an excellent legal education, with 'education' mispelled)?  The same point as denying what Hiibel says, and the precedent it sets and cites?

That's some fantasy you've got going there, I suppose it is easier than dealing with the reality that under some circumstances the authorities are allowed to compel identification.

Don't forget to flip-flop and claim you've been saying that all along while denying your 'all assertions currently false' line of BS.

[sm=biggrin.gif]


quote:

...But there is no case the declares that one must show documentary (paper) identification.


Since people have to produce paper ID frequently, I'm pretty sure that the ball is in your court to produce the current case ruling it unconsitutional... I don't suppose that you have a clue how that works?  Something about being able to do something unless it is forbidden, as opposed to everything being forbidden unless a court ruling permits it?[8|]

Here's a little puzzle for you...

Its

No

Surprise that you can't seem to

View the cases

Damaging to your assertion.

Either you can't stand to

Lose to reality or facts

Get in your  way

All the time.

Don't let it bother you

Obviously someone will fall for your fantastic logic.




Page: <<   < prev  8 9 [10] 11 12   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
4.882813E-02