Off Duty Officer and guys recording at wal-mart

[jax1]

Postby Abraham » Sat Jan 26, 2013 2:40 pm
Let me see if I understand:

If, while driving my vehicle, a police officer stops me and then asks to see my drivers license (and of course without his having to ask, my CHL...) I have the option of not showing him my two licenses - unless I'm being arrested?

Is that what's being proposed?

No. Notice the part of the quote that is in parenthesis.
(Unless we are driving or flying.)
and other activities that require a permit like hunting and fishing. Then you have to show your permit upon request. Otherwise, you are not required to carry ID or answer any questions from a LEO including your name until after arrest.

[Abraham]

Thanks!

[EEllis]

The all dark uniform and shoulder patch resemble the ones for my fair city PD. I hope not. The Click2 Houston story stated the videographers were released with a warning for criminal trespassing. Experts needed. I thought a warning had to be issued and ignored before CT and the property owner, not a security guard, had to issue the warning??? I can't really make a precise judgment they were trying to provoke since he never got to state why they were video taping, but it was still pretty dumb. Way too much free time on their hands!

Actually in Texas Security Officers by definition are agents of the "Owner" and as such have full powers to require people to leave a property. As far as "trespass warnings" it is just evidence that can be used if at some later point someone attempts to prosecute an individual for criminal trespass. You are not entitled to a warning nor do you have to give a warning before you may be arrested. You must be given notice that you either can't enter a property or that you need to leave but that can be done in written or verbal form and a person can be arrested on the spot if they do not comply with the notice. Any security or employee at any level can issue said notice and it would be totally valid by Texas law. Now certain prosecutors may have certain standards that they require from the police before they will prosecute for criminal trespass but that is a different issue. There is also the fact that Police officers, even if they are acting as "security" can only enforce laws and not policies. Big lawsuit many years back where a cop working extra for an apartment complex and made a kid get out of a closed pool and go to the apt he lived in cost the apt over a million dollars because there isn't anything inherently unlawful about being in a pool. Now a security officer could remove someone from a pool and if they called the police then a cop can take action but not on their own.

[RogueUSMC]

The biggest difference I see between this incident and a traffic stop is as follows...

When operating a motor vehicle, it is done under the privilege granted by the state, not a right. This privilege is regulated by a the state using an identification card. You assume the responsibilities when you sign the forms to obtain the privilege of operating a motor vehicle.

Just standing on the street is not a privilege regulated by the state, it is a right. As our rights are assumed, (being as you were born with them) they did not come with a signed agreement between you and the government.

So the two situations are really apples vs. oranges.

[VMI77]

The biggest difference I see between this incident and a traffic stop is as follows...

When operating a motor vehicle, it is done under the privilege granted by the state, not a right. This privilege is regulated by a the state using an identification card. You assume the responsibilities when you sign the forms to obtain the privilege of operating a motor vehicle.

Just standing on the street is not a privilege regulated by the state, it is a right. As our rights are assumed, (being as you were born with them) they did not come with a signed agreement between you and the government.

So the two situations are really apples vs. oranges.

So then, is riding a bicycle a "right" or a "privilege" granted by the State. Do you think the Founders considered riding a horse or riding in a horse-drawn wagon to be a privilege granted by the State? Do you think they would have agreed they couldn't ride a horse or drive a wagon without a license? Are you saying we have no right to travel? If we have a right to travel are you saying the only way we can exercise that right is by walking? Wouldn't that infringe on such a right? Or are you saying the Founders could never have envisioned cars and other modes of transportation and only intended we travel about on foot or horseback? Sort of like they only intended for us to be armed with muskets?

[RogueUSMC]

I'm just saying that driving a car is an agreement that you enter with the regulating body and agree to a determined set of rules...you aren't licensed to ride a bicycle, therefore you never agreed to produce a license in given situations where the agreement you entered required it. The burden of proof is on the government, meaning you don't have to prove your innocence when it comes to rights in our country. When you obtain a license, you agree to abide by additional regulatory rules or you have the freedom not to agree and go without a license.

[BigGuy]

IANAL. But it has always been my understanding that what the DL allows you to do is operate a vehicle on the public roadways. Living in the country we often drove grain and fertilizer trucks (As well a various types of farm equipment) around the farm well before we got a DL. As long as we stayed on private property and off the roads, it is my understanding that we were breaking no law.
If that understanding is correct then the agreement, a DL represents, between you and the State is about the use of public facilities, built, owned, and maintained by the State. That would be a privilege, not a right.

[Keith B]

IANAL. But it has always been my understanding that what the DL allows you to do is operate a vehicle on the public roadways. Living in the country we often drove grain and fertilizer trucks (As well a various types of farm equipment) around the farm well before we got a DL. As long as we stayed on private property and off the roads, it is my understanding that we were breaking no law.
If that understanding is correct then the agreement, a DL represents, between you and the State is about the use of public facilities, built, owned, and maintained by the State. That would be a privilege, not a right.

Use of public roadways is not a right, it is a privilege. The state and feds can prohibit you from walking on a public roadway (think Interstate where is is illegal to walk).

[RottenApple]

[ Use of public roadways is not a right, it is a privilege. The state and feds can prohibit you from walking on a public roadway (think Interstate where is is illegal to walk).

We call it a "driver's license", but in reality you don't need a license to drive a motor vehicle.....on private property. I was driving n my grandparent's farm (first sitting on laps and later with an adult next to me) long before I even knew what a driver's license was. A driver's license is actually little more than a permit to use public roadways.

[VMI77]

IANAL. But it has always been my understanding that what the DL allows you to do is operate a vehicle on the public roadways. Living in the country we often drove grain and fertilizer trucks (As well a various types of farm equipment) around the farm well before we got a DL. As long as we stayed on private property and off the roads, it is my understanding that we were breaking no law.
If that understanding is correct then the agreement, a DL represents, between you and the State is about the use of public facilities, built, owned, and maintained by the State. That would be a privilege, not a right.

Use of public roadways is not a right, it is a privilege. The state and feds can prohibit you from walking on a public roadway (think Interstate where is is illegal to walk).

True in that sense. But then the State doesn't allow competition from private roadways. They've essentially transformed a right --the right to travel-- into a privilege by using State power to make a non-governmental alternative infeasible. Also, I pay taxes for those roadways and they are "public" roadways, and I should therefore have the right to travel upon them as long as I follow the rules of usage. If they were private property I'd have no such right.

[Keith B]

IANAL. But it has always been my understanding that what the DL allows you to do is operate a vehicle on the public roadways. Living in the country we often drove grain and fertilizer trucks (As well a various types of farm equipment) around the farm well before we got a DL. As long as we stayed on private property and off the roads, it is my understanding that we were breaking no law.
If that understanding is correct then the agreement, a DL represents, between you and the State is about the use of public facilities, built, owned, and maintained by the State. That would be a privilege, not a right.

Use of public roadways is not a right, it is a privilege. The state and feds can prohibit you from walking on a public roadway (think Interstate where is is illegal to walk).

True in that sense. But then the State doesn't allow competition from private roadways. They've essentially transformed a right --the right to travel-- into a privilege by using State power to make a non-governmental alternative infeasible. Also, I pay taxes for those roadways and they are "public" roadways, and I should therefore have the right to travel upon them as long as I follow the rules of usage. If they were private property I'd have no such right.

We are off track here, but let's look at the definition of Privilege and Right.

priv·i·lege/ˈprɪvəlɪdʒ, ˈprɪvlɪdʒ/ Show Spelled [priv-uh-lij, priv-lij] Show IPA noun, verb, priv·i·leged, priv·i·leg·ing.
noun
1. a right, immunity, or benefit enjoyed only by a person beyond the advantages of most: the privileges of the very rich.
2. a special right, immunity, or exemption granted to persons in authority or office to free them from certain obligations or liabilities: the privilege of a senator to speak in Congress without danger of a libel suit.
3. a grant to an individual, corporation, etc., of a special right or immunity, under certain conditions.
4. the principle or condition of enjoying special rights or immunities.
5. any of the rights common to all citizens under a modern constitutional government: We enjoy the privileges of a free people.

Right
right/raɪt/ Show Spelled [rahyt] Show IPA adjective, right·er, right·est, noun, adverb, verb
adjective
.......
noun
18. a just claim or title, whether legal, prescriptive, or moral: You have a right to say what you please.
19. Sometimes, rights. that which is due to anyone by just claim, legal guarantees, moral principles, etc.: women's rights; Freedom of speech is a right of all Americans.
20. adherence or obedience to moral and legal principles and authority.
21. that which is morally, legally, or ethically proper: to know right from wrong.
22. a moral, ethical, or legal principle considered as an underlying cause of truth, justice, morality, or ethics.

So, if you take the two definitions above, a privilege is no more than an enhanced right. So, in the case of driving, you have the right to travel, but the privilege of a Drivers License allows you to do it in a motor vehicle on public thoroughfares.

In the case of the right to bear arms, I see concealed carry as a privilege or an enhancement of our right to bear them in the first place.