5 ms·

"A friend" was detained in protests and illegal parties multiple times, the police will make you identify yourself when you don't have an ID and they radio in o

"A friend" was detained in protests and illegal parties multiple times, the police will make you identify yourself when you don't have an ID and they radio in or verify your identity with the terminals on their cars. You are obliged to identify yourself when you are "detained", and if you don't in cases like this were there's ample evidence of _at least_ breaking and entering they will arrest you and move on to the next person. They had basically all of the the DC police at their disposal for this, plus the national guard. They can't say they didn't have the resources to identify 100 protesters, I've seen them do it with 20 police officers with bigger groups. If they are overwhelmed they don't do the verification but they always always always at least write the given identities on a notebook or the car computer. If they didn't do that when they emptied this building is because someone on the chain of command told them not to. Otherwise they _have_ to do it.

tastyfreeze 6y ago
Unless you are under arrest you do not need to give identification.
- pvarangot 6y ago
  That's what's written but it's not how it works, because "being detained" is usually not stipulated in laws. If you are detained, which the police have ample power to do so if you for example just broke into the Capitol, if you don't identify yourself usually you _will_ get arrested. So yeah, if you are not arrested you don't have to identify yourself. But if the police show up and you are clearly committing a crime if you actively refuse to identify yourself you will get arrested and you will have to identify yourself.
  - tastyfreeze 6y ago
    That is only true in stop and identify states. Being in the building is not itself a crime. Unless there is enough evidence to actually arrest an individual they can just sit there and not say a damn thing until the police are required to release.
    - pvarangot 6y ago
      There's no city state in the US were the police don't have as part of their operational procedure on a breaking and entering to arrest an individual that exercises their right to silence. That doesn't exist. No Police Department in the US will just let you walk away after they just kicked you out of a building that was violently stormed if you just refuse to identify yourself. In this case it's even more bizarre and out of the ordinary. The police executed a kettling maneuver but didn't even try to identify the individuals. They don't train police officers with the ACLU "how to act if you are being detained manual" dude, it's the other way around, they train them to try to dissuade you from committing property crimes by actively trying to make you not exercise your rights and identify yourself. Being in the Capitol while it's on lockdown is enough evidence to get arrested if you can't produce a bagde or something. Letting this people walk out is completely unjustified from the usual DC Metro procedures.
  - disgrunt 6y ago
    This is incorrect for multiple reasons: 1. There are laws in every U.S. state regarding what grounds the police have to detain someone. In most states, it boils down to reasonable articulable suspicion that someone has committed, is about to or is in the process of committing a crime. Suspicion alone isn't enough. The police don't need to tell you what their reasonable suspicion is during a detainment, but if the matter ends up in court, they will. 2. There are "stop and I.D." states. If you are in one of these states, you are required to identify yourself if detained. If you're not in one of these states, such as California, you are not required by law to identify yourself when detained. That being said, if you are lawfully detained and subsequently arrested you'll be jailed until you do identify yourself no matter which state you're in. More info here. [0] [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_identify_statutes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_identify_statutes
- sammax 6y ago
  What stops them from arresting you when they just saw you breaking into the Capitol?
  - tastyfreeze 6y ago
    To arrest an individual there would have to be evidence that they were responsible for damage or actually breaking in. That is a handful of the people that were there. The police cannot just arrest you if you haven't broken any laws. If a person just entered after somebody else broke in they didn't break any laws.
evanb 6y ago
The Metropolitan Police are good at kettling; see, for example, the Swann Street Siege during protests this summer. The objective was to arrest every protestor. That so many people just walked away is mind boggling.
- nerdponx 6y ago
  Again, glaring evidence that this was more or less allowed to happen, even if police officers did not literally open the gates.
  - jonnycomputer 6y ago
    Not glaring evidence that it was allowed to happen. Just evidence that they did not correctly anticipate the number of personnel they'd need.
    - Pfhreak 6y ago
      There are videos showing cops waving people in, cops taking selfies with people inside the Capitol, cops gingerly walking hand in hand with insurrectionists. Underestimating the police necessary is a form of allowing this to happen. Yeah, maybe there were individuals holding the line, but the police definitely, irrefutably allowed this to happen.
      - jonnycomputer 6y ago
        About those selfies. The only ones I've seen are those where the Trump supporters were holding the cameras. Have you seen any where the police were taking shots of themselves with the protesters? A police officer standing passively by while someone takes as shot that includes them seems less ... outrageous.
        Pfhreak 6y ago
        What's the demeanor of the cops in question? https://twitter.com/bubbaprog/status/1346920198461419520 https://twitter.com/bubbaprog/status/1346920198461419520 is not someone who is just idly standing by -- they are participating, even if the insurrectionist is holding the camera.

tastyfreeze 6y ago

Unless you are under arrest you do not need to give identification.

pvarangot 6y ago
That's what's written but it's not how it works, because "being detained" is usually not stipulated in laws. If you are detained, which the police have ample power to do so if you for example just broke into the Capitol, if you don't identify yourself usually you _will_ get arrested. So yeah, if you are not arrested you don't have to identify yourself. But if the police show up and you are clearly committing a crime if you actively refuse to identify yourself you will get arrested and you will have to identify yourself.
- tastyfreeze 6y ago
  That is only true in stop and identify states. Being in the building is not itself a crime. Unless there is enough evidence to actually arrest an individual they can just sit there and not say a damn thing until the police are required to release.
  - pvarangot 6y ago
    There's no city state in the US were the police don't have as part of their operational procedure on a breaking and entering to arrest an individual that exercises their right to silence. That doesn't exist. No Police Department in the US will just let you walk away after they just kicked you out of a building that was violently stormed if you just refuse to identify yourself. In this case it's even more bizarre and out of the ordinary. The police executed a kettling maneuver but didn't even try to identify the individuals. They don't train police officers with the ACLU "how to act if you are being detained manual" dude, it's the other way around, they train them to try to dissuade you from committing property crimes by actively trying to make you not exercise your rights and identify yourself. Being in the Capitol while it's on lockdown is enough evidence to get arrested if you can't produce a bagde or something. Letting this people walk out is completely unjustified from the usual DC Metro procedures.
- disgrunt 6y ago
  This is incorrect for multiple reasons: 1. There are laws in every U.S. state regarding what grounds the police have to detain someone. In most states, it boils down to reasonable articulable suspicion that someone has committed, is about to or is in the process of committing a crime. Suspicion alone isn't enough. The police don't need to tell you what their reasonable suspicion is during a detainment, but if the matter ends up in court, they will. 2. There are "stop and I.D." states. If you are in one of these states, you are required to identify yourself if detained. If you're not in one of these states, such as California, you are not required by law to identify yourself when detained. That being said, if you are lawfully detained and subsequently arrested you'll be jailed until you do identify yourself no matter which state you're in. More info here. [0] [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_identify_statutes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_identify_statutes
sammax 6y ago
What stops them from arresting you when they just saw you breaking into the Capitol?
- tastyfreeze 6y ago
  To arrest an individual there would have to be evidence that they were responsible for damage or actually breaking in. That is a handful of the people that were there. The police cannot just arrest you if you haven't broken any laws. If a person just entered after somebody else broke in they didn't break any laws.

evanb 6y ago

The Metropolitan Police are good at kettling; see, for example, the Swann Street Siege during protests this summer. The objective was to arrest every protestor. That so many people just walked away is mind boggling.

nerdponx 6y ago
Again, glaring evidence that this was more or less allowed to happen, even if police officers did not literally open the gates.
- jonnycomputer 6y ago
  Not glaring evidence that it was allowed to happen. Just evidence that they did not correctly anticipate the number of personnel they'd need.
  - Pfhreak 6y ago
    There are videos showing cops waving people in, cops taking selfies with people inside the Capitol, cops gingerly walking hand in hand with insurrectionists. Underestimating the police necessary is a form of allowing this to happen. Yeah, maybe there were individuals holding the line, but the police definitely, irrefutably allowed this to happen.
    - jonnycomputer 6y ago
      About those selfies. The only ones I've seen are those where the Trump supporters were holding the cameras. Have you seen any where the police were taking shots of themselves with the protesters? A police officer standing passively by while someone takes as shot that includes them seems less ... outrageous.
      - Pfhreak 6y ago
        What's the demeanor of the cops in question? https://twitter.com/bubbaprog/status/1346920198461419520 https://twitter.com/bubbaprog/status/1346920198461419520 is not someone who is just idly standing by -- they are participating, even if the insurrectionist is holding the camera.