TexasCHLforum.com

Zen wrote:I see no real value in baiting police to prove this point.

The same people would blame these cops if they drove by this guy and waved minutes before he shot up a theater, school, or group of people.

I think if we want respect as legal carrying folks, we can do it respectfully. There.is no harm in identifying oneself. Debating it and prolonging the interaction just delays cops from being elsewhere. And for what?

I would show my Id. I have nothing to hide and bigger fish to fry.

Isn't it the fish's responsibility to not take the bait?

suthdj wrote:

Code: Select all

Sec. 38.02.  FAILURE TO IDENTIFY.  (a)  A person commits an offense if he intentionally refuses to give his name, residence address, or date of birth to a peace officer who has lawfully arrested the person and requested the information.(b) [b] A person commits an offense if he intentionally gives a false or fictitious name, residence address, or date of birth to a peace officer who has[/b]:(1)  lawfully arrested the person;(2) [b] lawfully detained the person[/b];  or(3)  requested the information from a person that the peace officer has good cause to believe is a witness to a criminal offense.(c)  Except as provided by Subsections (d) and (e), an offense under this section is:(1)  a Class C misdemeanor if the offense is committed under Subsection (a);  or(2)  a Class B misdemeanor if the offense is committed under Subsection (b).(d)  If it is shown on the trial of an offense under this section that the defendant was a fugitive from justice at the time of the offense, the offense is:(1)  a Class B misdemeanor if the offense is committed under Subsection (a);  or(2)  a Class A misdemeanor if the offense is committed under Subsection (b).(e)  If conduct that constitutes an offense under this section also constitutes an offense under Section 106.07, Alcoholic Beverage Code, the actor may be prosecuted only under Section 106.07.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.  Amended by Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 869, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1987.  Acts 1991, 72nd Leg., ch. 821, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1991;  Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994;  Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 1009, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 2003.

Ok sorry, he was not required, it was if he lies about it while he is lawfully detained. However if you want to go out and make a statement about OC of a rifle it is just smarter not to put the police against you. The LEO even said he supported him OC'ing the rifle.

See, this guy open carrying and posting this on youtube led to this discussion and another person being educated on the subject. No telling how many others were enlightened.

suthdj wrote:I did not watch to the end I skipped the last 5-10%. I fail to see a problem with how the LEO was doing anything wrong. He wanted the guy to identify, just give name and birthdate.Like most of these video's it is childish nit picking one way or another by LEO or citizen.

When are people required to identify themselves to a police officer in your opinion?

I think the LEO could and probably should respond if someone calls. I think this issue is the manner in which they respond and how they conduct themselves just as it is important how the one being contacted responds and conducts themselves.

Just because a cop approaches someone does not mean there needs to be any intimidation or posturing to show who is alpha. This goes for either party. If one starts acting inappropriately, then that is different.

A cop can approach someone cordially and get an idea very quickly if the person is doing anything nefarious. If not, no reason for intimidation and confrontation. Same goes for the person being contacted.

There needs to be mutual respect between the parties and neither needs to try to bully or intimidate the other. Unfortunately, too often, the parties involved lose sight of this.