TexasCHLforum.com

Mr Cotton can tell me if I'm wrong on these.

1. you are not legally required to carry ID when involved in any activity which does not require a license to engage in that activity.

2. you are not legally required to ID yourself by any means to LE unless you are being arrested or a bonafide witness to a crime. This includes being detained but not arrested by LE.

3. you are not legally required to answer the door when LE is at the door and wanting to speak to you. You are not legally required to consent to a conversation with LE on the street and that includes your home, your front door, and your property.

4. you are not legally required to ID yourself if you choose to answer the door. You are not engaged in an activity which requires a licence therefore you are not required to ID yourself.

5. you are not legally required to consent to a conversation with LE, you have the legal right to refuse to speak to a police officer regardless of location.

being a passenger in a car requires no licence of any sort, therefore you are not required to have ID on you.

At the front door "chasing a bad guy..." too bad, I'm not required to ID myself or consent to any conversations with LE under those circumstances. He wants to take me in because I Told him "no"? have at it, he gets to explain himself to someone like Mr Cotton.

Demanding ID from a passenger because 'check for warrants" Again, too bad, I'm not required to have ID on me or ID myself or consent to any conversations with LE under those circumstances. He want to take me in because I told him "no' Have at it, he gets to explain himself to someone like Mr Cotton.

on the side of the road and the officer wants to play '20 questions' "where are you going? What are you doing?" etc.
I have the right to remain silent, I am not legally required to answer any questions outside the reason he pulled me over for. An individual can be straightforward and assertive without being disrespectful to LE in stating this fact of the law.
it is entirely possible for an individual to simply state "officer, if you pulled me over for a traffic infraction and feel the need to issue me a citation you'll get no argument from me, that is your duty before the law. However I will not, nor am I legally obligated to, answer any questions outside the scope of that traffic citation. If you persist in these questions then I have the right to remain silent and I am choosing to excercise that right as of now."
it is not disrespectful, nor does it disturb the peace, it simply states my rights before the law in polite, straightforward, and assertive fashion.

what gets lost in these discussion is the real issue. Legitimate authority and the abuse of authority. Discussing one's rights and how they are subject to the abuse of authority is not "cop bashing" It is the legitimate discussion of a real issue and the things I wrote are legitimate abuses of authority. Usually done via LE taking advantage of peoples lack of knowledge on the law and their rights.
It is partly why Mr Cotton's career field exists, to defend people against these types of abuse of authority.