Disrupting Town Hall Meetings

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Snowboarder_Bo

The point is, you in fact do have to identify yourself to a police officer. You can refuse to answer any other questions, but you do not have the right to not identify yourself. There is no such right in the US Constitution. He was wrong (yet again).

If the state has a stop-and-identify law, and the officer has reason to believe you are engaged in, about to engage in, or have just engaged in commission of a crime, yes.

In other words, if the situation is totally unlike the one Shodan describes.

[Shodan]

@Snowboarder_Bo

You are an unbelievably stupid person. And not very well informed, either.

Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada

Well, at least we can do something about your ignorance. Your stupidity is your own problem (and stop shoving it onto us here, would you?).

No, annoyingly enough I am right (and you, as usual, are wrong). The case you cite is about giving the officer your name. I said “show ID”, which a police officer may not compel.

Or are you going to try another of your silly “not doesn’t mean not” arguments? Please do. Mocking your stupidity amuses me.

Regards,
Shodan

[mhendo]

As far as i can tell, Shodan’s right about this. There’s a distinction between identifying yourself, and providing ID. From the Supreme Court’s Hiibel ruling:

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.

<snip>

Here, the source of the legal obligation arises from Nevada state law, not the Fourth Amendment. Further, the statutory obligation does not go beyond answering an officer’s request to disclose a name. See NRS §171.123(3) (“Any person so detained shall identify himself, but may not be compelled to answer any other inquiry of any peace officer”).

It’ not really clear to me, from reading the decision, whether a state law requiring that you show ID (as opposed to merely identifying yourself), would pass muster under Hiibel. Perhaps someone better versed in constitutional law and Supreme Court rulings could weigh in.

[SteveG1]

@mhendo

As far as i can tell, Shodan’s right about this. There’s a distinction between identifying yourself, and providing ID. From the Supreme Court’s Hiibel ruling:It’ not really clear to me, from reading the decision, whether a state law requiring that you show ID (as opposed to merely identifying yourself), would pass muster under Hiibel. Perhaps someone better versed in constitutional law and Supreme Court rulings could weigh in.

I are not an lawyer.

Still, I think the requirement is to identify yourself, not produce mutliple IDs. If that were the case robbery victims would go to jail.

Officer! I’ve been robbed! They took my wallet, my briefcase, everything!

Your name?

John Smith, 12345 Any Street, Whatever City.

Do you have any ID?

No, it was in my wallet.

You have the right to remain silent…
I don’t think that’s how it works.

[Ca3799]

Glenn Beck continues to lose advertisers. Today’s list includes:
"Allergan (maker of Restasis): “We reviewed our commercial schedule, and based on your feedback, we’ve put any programming featuring Glenn Beck on our “do not air” list. This means that you will no longer see any Restasis ads during programming featuring Glenn Beck. Thanks again for bringing this to our attention.”

Ally Bank (a unit of GMAC Financial Services): “Ally advertises on a broad spectrum of programs to reach our potential customers. Our advertising is not an endorsement of editorial content on any program. We have ceased to advertise
on the Glenn Beck program.”

Best Buy

Broadview Security: “Given the considerations, we have requested of Fox News not to include us in the rotation that would have our commercials running on Glenn Beck’s show.”

CVS: “While advertising on Fox is part of our communication plan, we had not requested time on Glenn Beck’s show specifically. We have instructed our advertising agency to inform Fox to ensure Glenn Beck’s program is not part of our advertising plan.”

Re-Bath: “…We are no longer airing our commercials on the Glenn Beck Show…”

Travelocity: “We did not specifically place our ad on the show. We buy ads in bulk and then they are placed somewhat randomly. However, we have now specifically asked that our ads do not appear during this show.”

Wal-Mart: “Walmart today confirmed the retailer pulled ads from the Glenn Beck show on August 3rd,”
These companies join a growing list of advertisers to pull their ads from Beck’s show, including ConAgra, GEICO, Lawyers.com, Men’s Wearhouse, Procter & Gamble, Progressive Insurance, RadioShack, Roche, SC Johnson, Sanofi-Aventis, Sargento, and State Farm

Insurance. "Walmart, CVS, Best Buy, GMAC Among 8 Major Companies To Pull Ads From Glenn Beck Show | HuffPost Latest News