# Controversial encounters between law-enforcement and civilians - the omnibus thread **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [October 10, 2014, 7:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942 "2014-10-10T07:35:51Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 396
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2016, 11:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/7902 "2016-01-17T23:48:21Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > False. As noted in the article, a bicyclist is required to provide ID if stopped for a traffic violation. Do you understand what words actually mean? The fact that police are allowed to demand ID does not mean that you are required to carry it. Yes, if the police stop a cyclist for violating a road rule, they can demand ID, and if the cyclist does not produce it, then they can detain the cyclist. But this does not mean that cyclists are required to carry ID. The law requires you to carry a license when you are driving a car. It does not require you to carry one (or any ID for that matter) when you are on a bike. Here’s the section from the California Vehicle Code regarding having your license when driving: > [@](#): > > 1. > > (a) The licensee shall have the valid driver’s license issued to him or her in his or her immediate possession at all times when driving a motor vehicle upon a highway. If you can find me a law requiring cyclists to have a license (or, indeed, any ID) on their “immediate possession” when riding a bike, i will concede the point. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2016, 11:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/7903 "2016-01-17T23:48:39Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > If you believe in law at all, then you are obligated to obey any and all laws that apply to you, regardless of what you think of them. To do otherwise is to assert that _any_ law can be disobeyed by _anyone_ if they don’t want to obey it. You can’t assert that human traffickers don’t have the right to disobey trafficking laws that they feel are unduly harmful to their business. You can’t assert that ISIS doesn’t have the right to fight against a government that violates God’s law. You can’t assert that pedophiles are obligated to obey consent laws that don’t take into account how “special” their relationship with their victims is. The world does not exist in this black and white, liar, and it never has. Most people have the ability to utilize nuance, and recognize that while obeying the law is _generally_ a good thing, there can exist occasions in which disobedience is not only permissible but morally necessary. I don’t think you’re constitutionally capable of making this distinction. Your brain is faulty, probably due to trauma, such that you can’t comprehend it. It sucks for you and you have my sympathy and my pity. You’re a broken dude and that sucks. But I wish you’d recognize this so you could withdraw from these kind of issues, recognizing that your faulty, damaged brain is just incapable of parsing morality and authority when there might be conflicts and nuance. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2016, 11:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/7904 "2016-01-17T23:53:07Z")
Forgot about this **Smapti** gem: he believes it is morally acceptable, if one has knowledge of a bomb on an airplane, to [refrain from telling the authorities](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=17721715#post17721715). He really would be totally okay with not telling anyone and allowing the plane to be blown up, with hundreds dead. His moral system and philosophy is repugnant and evil. ---
**Author:** ![Smapti](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smapti/32/17938_2.png) [@Smapti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smapti)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2016, 12:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/7905 "2016-01-18T00:00:03Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Most people have the ability to utilize nuance, and recognize that while obeying the law is _generally_ a good thing, there can exist occasions in which disobedience is not only permissible but morally necessary. Can you prove that your morality is objectively true and trumps every other moral code or belief that has ever been asserted in the history of mankind? Unless you can, then you cannot claim that you have a moral authority to disobey the law and that ISIS doesn’t. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2016, 12:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/7906 "2016-01-18T00:05:24Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > Can you prove that your morality is objectively true and trumps every other moral code or belief that has ever been asserted in the history of mankind? > > Unless you can, then you cannot claim that you have a moral authority to disobey the law and that ISIS doesn’t. No one can make such a claim – all such discussions involve opinions and feelings. I can objectively prove that your moral and philosophical system would result in no resistance to regimes like Nazis, to slavery when legal, to racial or gender or religious apartheid (like old South Africa or modern Saudi Arabia), to Jim Crow laws, or other monstrous acts by authority. Your system results in far, far more suffering, since it has no recourse for what to do when authority goes wrong (as it has most of the time through human history). How can you support and follow a system that would have supported so much terror and horror through human history? Wouldn’t you rather support and follow a system that would have _fought against slavery_, supports slaves in resisting their masters, fought the Nazi anti-Jewish actions and laws, and other abominable acts through history? Why would you pick a philosophy that is so friendly to these terrible regimes? ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2016, 12:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/7907 "2016-01-18T00:18:47Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Forgot about this **Smapti** gem: he believes it is morally acceptable, if one has knowledge of a bomb on an airplane, to [refrain from telling the authorities](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=17721715#post17721715). He really would be totally okay with not telling anyone and allowing the plane to be blown up, with hundreds dead. > > His moral system and philosophy is repugnant and evil. I am almost certain it’s illegal to not let people know. I could be wrong. But if I’m right, then that’s funny. ---
**Author:** ![Smapti](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smapti/32/17938_2.png) [@Smapti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smapti)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2016, 12:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/7908 "2016-01-18T00:19:36Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > No one can make such a claim – all such discussions involve opinions and feelings. Then noone can claim a moral authority to break the law. > [@](#): > > I can objectively prove that your moral and philosophical system would result in no resistance to regimes like Nazis, to slavery when legal, to racial or gender or religious apartheid (like old South Africa or modern Saudi Arabia), to Jim Crow laws, or other monstrous acts by authority. I don’t have a “moral and philosophical system”, so that statement is false by definition, as well as on the facts. Had the Nazis not violently opposed the German government they would never have claimed power in the first place. Jim Crow was defeated by peaceful participation in the democratic process, while it was the criminal actions of people like the KKK and George Wallace that perpetuated it. In countries in the Arab world where people have violently resisted oppressive governments, the inevitable result has been _more_ violence and oppression, as we’ve seen in Syria and Libya. > [@](#): > > Wouldn’t you rather support and follow a system that would have _fought against slavery_, supports slaves in resisting their masters, fought the Nazi anti-Jewish actions and laws, and other abominable acts through history? I’d love to, but I can’t prove the existence of objective morality, so I can’t do such a thing without legitimizing the actions of those people in the first place. > [@](#): > > Why would you pick a philosophy that is so friendly to these terrible regimes? I didn’t. These are the facts. We don’t get to choose what the facts are. ---
**Author:** ![Fubaya](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/c2a13f/32.png) [@Fubaya](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fubaya)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2016, 12:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/7909 "2016-01-18T00:20:26Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > I’m just taking his word for it, as he says himself in the article, that he refused to follow instructions and was verbally and physically resisting the officer. > [@Fubaya](#): > > Care to show that quote? I’m not seeing it. It’s been 5 hours and he’s made 14 other posts since. Good thing I wasn’t holding my breath. ---
**Author:** ![Smapti](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smapti/32/17938_2.png) [@Smapti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smapti)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2016, 12:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/7910 "2016-01-18T00:25:04Z")
> [@Fubaya](#): > > It’s been 5 hours and he’s made 14 other posts since. Good thing I wasn’t holding my breath. [You must not have read this post.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=19024235&postcount=7885) [Or this one.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=19024318&postcount=7889) ---
**Author:** ![Smapti](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smapti/32/17938_2.png) [@Smapti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smapti)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2016, 12:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/7911 "2016-01-18T00:26:14Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > I am almost certain it’s illegal to not let people know. I could be wrong. But if I’m right, then that’s funny. That was a discussion about personal responsibility, not legality. If one has a _legal_ obligation to tell someone, then they would be wrong to not do so, but they still wouldn’t be personally responsible for the bomb going off. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2016, 12:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/7912 "2016-01-18T00:30:59Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > Then noone can claim a moral authority to break the law. Yes they can, just as much as you can claim moral authority to obey the law. Both claims can have the same “moral authority”, depending on the circumstances. Moral authority is determined entirely by people, and thankfully for me (and unfortunately for you), the vast majority of Americans (and probably most other countries too) believe that it’s morally right to help slaves escape, morally wrong to withhold information about a bomb, morally wrong to assist the authorities in oppressing or killing minorities, and the like. So the moral authority is on my side, not yours. > [@](#): > > I’d love to, but I can’t prove the existence of objective morality, so I can’t do such a thing without legitimizing the actions of those people in the first place. It has nothing to do with objective morality – it has everything to do with the choices you make. You can choose to oppose slavery, help slaves, and believe that it’s morally wrong to withhold information about a bomb. But you’ve chosen the opposite – you’ve chosen to not help slaves (were you in that circumstance), you’ve chosen to be friendly to slavers, and you’ve chosen that it would be morally acceptable to not tell anyone if you knew about a bomb on a plane. _ **You have made these choices** _, and you can make a different one if you choose. > [@](#): > > I didn’t. These are the facts. We don’t get to choose what the facts are. We choose our actions and how we would respond to various situations. You’ve chosen (in the hypotheticals, at least) actions that result in death and suffering. Why not choose to believe that it’s wrong to hold information about a bomb without telling someone? Why would you rather believe that this is acceptable? ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2016, 12:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/7913 "2016-01-18T00:33:25Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > [You must not have read this post.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=19024235&postcount=7885) [Or this one.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=19024318&postcount=7889) These don’t support your assertion. ---
**Author:** ![Smapti](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smapti/32/17938_2.png) [@Smapti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smapti)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2016, 12:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/7914 "2016-01-18T00:38:53Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Moral authority is determined entirely by people, and thankfully for me (and unfortunately for you), the vast majority of Americans (and probably most other countries too) believe that it’s morally right to help slaves escape, morally wrong to withhold information about a bomb, morally wrong to assist the authorities in oppressing or killing minorities, and the like. Then the people will create laws to that effect. Law, unlike morality, can be proven to exist. > [@](#): > > _ **You have made these choices** _, and you can make a different one if you choose. > > Why not choose to believe that it’s wrong to hold information about a bomb without telling someone? Why would you rather believe that this is acceptable? Nobody gets to choose these things. The facts are what they are whether we like them or not. ---
**Author:** ![Fubaya](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/c2a13f/32.png) [@Fubaya](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fubaya)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2016, 12:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/7915 "2016-01-18T00:41:37Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > [You must not have read this post.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=19024235&postcount=7885) [Or this one.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=19024318&postcount=7889) Oh, I thought you’d have something other than your twisted bullshit. Not having his license=refusing to follow instructions. When they were holding his legs in the air, beating them and told him to put his legs down, he said he couldn’t because the cop was holding them=verbally and physically resisting arrest. What a bore. ---
**Author:** ![pulykamell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pulykamell/32/3166_2.png) [@pulykamell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pulykamell)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2016, 12:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/7916 "2016-01-18T00:43:19Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > [A person shall not ride a bicycle while using a wireless telephone unless that telephone is specifically designed and configured to allow hands-free listening and talking, and is used in that manner while riding the bicycle.](http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=200920100SB1475) That’s just a bill. So far as I can tell, that never became law with that wording, unless you can find it. [This article from 2015](http://www.sonomacountygazette.com/cms/pages/categories-rtn-sonoma-col-arg1-Columns-arg2-Finance%20and%20Law-article-4416.html) seems to state that there is no law in California prohibiting cell phone use while biking. Now, my opinion is there should be, of course, but I can’t find evidence that any such law does exist right now. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2016, 12:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/7917 "2016-01-18T00:44:33Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > Then the people will create laws to that effect. Law, unlike morality, can be proven to exist. They always have and always will. There’s no other way to create laws. > [@](#): > > Nobody gets to choose these things. The facts are what they are whether we like them or not. Everyone chooses these things. You’ve made choices, including the bizarre choice that you believe it’s okay to withhold information about a bomb, and the choice that you wouldn’t make any effort to free slaves at little or no risk to yourself. These are all choices, whether you like it or not. ---
**Author:** ![pulykamell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pulykamell/32/3166_2.png) [@pulykamell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pulykamell)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2016, 12:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/7918 "2016-01-18T00:47:05Z")
> [@pulykamell](#): > > That’s just a bill. So far as I can tell, that never became law with that wording, unless you can find it. [This article from 2015](http://www.sonomacountygazette.com/cms/pages/categories-rtn-sonoma-col-arg1-Columns-arg2-Finance%20and%20Law-article-4416.html) seems to state that there is no law in California prohibiting cell phone use while biking. Now, my opinion is there should be, of course, but I can’t find evidence that any such law does exist right now. Plus, [see here](http://www.senatorsimitian.com/entry/sb_1475_cell_phones_and_texting_while_driving/), regarding the bill you cited, on the website of the senator who introduced it: > [@](#): > > Final Status and Text > SB 1475 is no longer active. Its final status was: > Did not pass the Legislature > > You can read its final text on the Legislature’s Bill Information site. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2016, 12:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/7919 "2016-01-18T00:52:46Z")
> [@pulykamell](#): > > That’s just a bill. So far as I can tell, that never became law with that wording, unless you can find it. [This article from 2015](http://www.sonomacountygazette.com/cms/pages/categories-rtn-sonoma-col-arg1-Columns-arg2-Finance%20and%20Law-article-4416.html) seems to state that there is no law in California prohibiting cell phone use while biking. Now, my opinion is there should be, of course, but I can’t find evidence that any such law does exist right now. Another **Smapti** lie, then, it seems. Par for the course. ---
**Author:** ![Smapti](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smapti/32/17938_2.png) [@Smapti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smapti)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2016, 12:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/7920 "2016-01-18T00:57:04Z")
Everything I’m seeing says that the rules against cell phone use while driving also apply to bicyclists in CA. ---
**Author:** ![Smapti](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smapti/32/17938_2.png) [@Smapti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smapti)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2016, 12:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/7921 "2016-01-18T00:58:13Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Another **Smapti** lie, then, it seems. Par for the course. It would seem I was incorrect about that specific text being a law. Of course, you are incapable of distinguishing between an error and a lie, since lying comes so naturally to you. > [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Everyone chooses these things. You’ve made choices, including the bizarre choice that you believe it’s okay to withhold information about a bomb, and the choice that you wouldn’t make any effort to free slaves at little or no risk to yourself. > > These are all choices, whether you like it or not. That’s like saying I’ve chosen to believe the sky is blue or that hamburgers are made from cows. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942.md?page=395) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942.md?page=397)