Duty to Provide LTC on Voluntary Identification to LEO?

[The Annoyed Man]

Given today's state of the country, BLM bull, and the vicious anarchist left-wing dipocrap attacks on the POPO, I think I would have smilingly shown him both and asked him how I could help him......even if he was acting an arrogant ass.

We either Back the Blue or we don't? They have enough problems/issues with the others without our law quoting petulant demand for their correctness.

Sir, that statement is far too simplistic. I am neither pro nor anti police. I see the police as requirement to have a large, complex, functional society. I would like them to be primarily dedicated to keeping the peace, however, focused on stopping those who breach the peace, especially those who breach the peace in violent fashion. I think the development of police into "law-enforcement officers", enforcing every tiny statute whether well-written and clear or not, is at the root of some of the issues today. I fully understand the "rule of law", but without some discretion, things can devolve rapidly. The gray area involving when you need to show your ID to the police is a great example. It should be blatantly obvious to the "reasonable person" the courts always talk about as to when someone must show ID to the police, but it's not, and this discussion is proof of that. Now, do I cooperate with the police if I am pulled over by them? Why yes, I certainly do. I cooperate for many reasons, such as being taught manners as a child, and also being polite to those who have positional authority which I learned in the USAF. I understand that the police deal with a lot of folks that most of us would consider "dirtbags", and that gives a lot of police a naturally suspicious outlook, and often negative outlook, as well. However, obviously not everyone is a criminal, nor doing criminal things, and they shouldn't be treated as such, either.

Your point is?

I was going to respond to your original comment, but K.Mooneyham beat me to it, and covered the relevant points I would have made. I have highlighted that part of his post that was relevant to yours, because I was going to say exactly the same thing.

All of that said, here is my response to the OP's situation.....

I always show both TDL & LTC when asked for ID by an LEO. I fully understand that this is not a requirement if I am not armed (and I NEVER leave the house unarmed); and I fully understand that there is no penalty for failure to show my LTC. I don't care. As someone posted above, cops are people too, and most of them probably appreciate it when they are treated as such in their interactions with the rest of us; and that appreciation can influence the flavor and tone of the interaction. There is a word for this: "diplomacy".

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/diplomacy

Definition of diplomacy
1 : the art and practice of conducting negotiations between nations
2 : skill in handling affairs without arousing hostility : TACT
handled the awkward situation with diplomacy

......

Synonyms & Antonyms for diplomacy
- Synonyms
—tact, tactfulness
-Antonyms
—clumsiness, insensitivity, tactlessness

I’m not giving up one iota of personal liberty by choosing to be diplomatic, exactly because I CHOOSE to be so. Nobody is forcing me to be diplomatic. I choose to be so, because it is wise counsel; and as long as the decision is MY choice, I have not surrendered one iota of my liberty.

Some practical suggestions regarding the OP's situation....

1. I’d never agree to be an intermediary in such a situation. As the father of one of the aggrieved parties, I’m too close emotionally to the situation, and it would be better handled by a neutral party ... specifically the police themselves.

2. If the soon to be ex-DIL has requested a police presence for the handoff of property, and I'M the one who must receive it, then I too would also request a police presence—thus establishing my bonafides in advance, so that when the officer does show up, he/she already knows that I am equally interested in keeping the peace.

3. Show both TDL & LTC if asked for ID; and if asked if I’m armed, give the only rational answer: "Of course I am! Out out here, by myself, late at night, in an unfamiliar neighborhood, to meet with someone who doesn’t like my family. Only a fool would have come out here unarmed. Thank God you are here!"

[oljames3]

I've only been pulled over once in the many years I've had my CHL/LTC, for a tail light out. Handed the LEO license and LTC, he asked if I was carrying, told him I was. He said "good, if you can, you should". He handed me back my LTC, ran my license, then gave it back to me. Just told me to fix the light as soon as possible; no warning ticket, no nothing. Then we chatted about what we were carrying for a few minutes, he thanked me for my cooperation and we both went on our way.

I'll do the same any time I have interactions with a LEO, it's just easier and a common courtesy. Just my way of thinking......

...and there, you have it. The police have a hard and dangerous enough job without lawyer wannabees debating whether to show their I.D's or not..

The side of the road is not the place to argue the law. My plan is to comply with the exception that I will not consent to a search.

[K.Mooneyham]

Given today's state of the country, BLM bull, and the vicious anarchist left-wing dipocrap attacks on the POPO, I think I would have smilingly shown him both and asked him how I could help him......even if he was acting an arrogant ass.

We either Back the Blue or we don't? They have enough problems/issues with the others without our law quoting petulant demand for their correctness.

Sir, that statement is far too simplistic. I am neither pro nor anti police. I see the police as requirement to have a large, complex, functional society. I would like them to be primarily dedicated to keeping the peace, however, focused on stopping those who breach the peace, especially those who breach the peace in violent fashion. I think the development of police into "law-enforcement officers", enforcing every tiny statute whether well-written and clear or not, is at the root of some of the issues today. I fully understand the "rule of law", but without some discretion, things can devolve rapidly. The gray area involving when you need to show your ID to the police is a great example. It should be blatantly obvious to the "reasonable person" the courts always talk about as to when someone must show ID to the police, but it's not, and this discussion is proof of that. Now, do I cooperate with the police if I am pulled over by them? Why yes, I certainly do. I cooperate for many reasons, such as being taught manners as a child, and also being polite to those who have positional authority which I learned in the USAF. I understand that the police deal with a lot of folks that most of us would consider "dirtbags", and that gives a lot of police a naturally suspicious outlook, and often negative outlook, as well. However, obviously not everyone is a criminal, nor doing criminal things, and they shouldn't be treated as such, either.

Your point is?

My point is that your statement makes it an either/or situation, which is the same thing the political left has done, but in reverse.

[chasfm11]

Given today's state of the country, BLM bull, and the vicious anarchist left-wing dipocrap attacks on the POPO, I think I would have smilingly shown him both and asked him how I could help him......even if he was acting an arrogant ass.

We either Back the Blue or we don't? They have enough problems/issues with the others without our law quoting petulant demand for their correctness.

Sir, that statement is far too simplistic. I am neither pro nor anti police. I see the police as requirement to have a large, complex, functional society. I would like them to be primarily dedicated to keeping the peace, however, focused on stopping those who breach the peace, especially those who breach the peace in violent fashion. I think the development of police into "law-enforcement officers", enforcing every tiny statute whether well-written and clear or not, is at the root of some of the issues today. I fully understand the "rule of law", but without some discretion, things can devolve rapidly. The gray area involving when you need to show your ID to the police is a great example. It should be blatantly obvious to the "reasonable person" the courts always talk about as to when someone must show ID to the police, but it's not, and this discussion is proof of that. Now, do I cooperate with the police if I am pulled over by them? Why yes, I certainly do. I cooperate for many reasons, such as being taught manners as a child, and also being polite to those who have positional authority which I learned in the USAF. I understand that the police deal with a lot of folks that most of us would consider "dirtbags", and that gives a lot of police a naturally suspicious outlook, and often negative outlook, as well. However, obviously not everyone is a criminal, nor doing criminal things, and they shouldn't be treated as such, either.

Your point is?

My point is that your statement makes it an either/or situation, which is the same thing the political left has done, but in reverse.

I detest all or nothing arrangements. We have given up any chance for compromise every time we get into a situation where at least one side of the discussion says "accept everything that I believe/want or you are a xxxxxxx" I support law enforcement. I abhor them doing no knock raids and civil asset forfeiture. I would extend it to the officers themselves - they should be unwilling to stand behind one of their brothers/sisters who is clearly breaking the law or tarnishing their department. I want to give every officer the benefit of the doubt for the situations that they encounter. I want to facts to come out. But, like Erik Scott and others, I don't want the facts swept under the rug.

[flechero]

3. Show both TDL & LTC if asked for ID; and if asked if I’m armed, give the only rational answer: "Of course I am! Out out here, by myself, late at night, in an unfamiliar neighborhood, to meet with someone who doesn’t like my family. Only a fool would have come out here unarmed. Thank God you are here!"

That answer was worth the 3 page read.

[bbhack]

Months ago I had car trouble. It looked like I might have to get a ride from the cop who was diverting traffic, because the tow truck did not have enough room. I told the copy I was carrying. He asked "are you going to shoot me?". That was the end of it. Funny.

[Oldgringo]

Given today's state of the country, BLM bull, and the vicious anarchist left-wing dipocrap attacks on the POPO, I think I would have smilingly shown him both and asked him how I could help him......even if he was acting an arrogant ass.

We either Back the Blue or we don't? They have enough problems/issues with the others without our law quoting petulant demand for their correctness.

Sir, that statement is far too simplistic. I am neither pro nor anti police. I see the police as requirement to have a large, complex, functional society. I would like them to be primarily dedicated to keeping the peace, however, focused on stopping those who breach the peace, especially those who breach the peace in violent fashion. I think the development of police into "law-enforcement officers", enforcing every tiny statute whether well-written and clear or not, is at the root of some of the issues today. I fully understand the "rule of law", but without some discretion, things can devolve rapidly. The gray area involving when you need to show your ID to the police is a great example. It should be blatantly obvious to the "reasonable person" the courts always talk about as to when someone must show ID to the police, but it's not, and this discussion is proof of that. Now, do I cooperate with the police if I am pulled over by them? Why yes, I certainly do. I cooperate for many reasons, such as being taught manners as a child, and also being polite to those who have positional authority which I learned in the USAF. I understand that the police deal with a lot of folks that most of us would consider "dirtbags", and that gives a lot of police a naturally suspicious outlook, and often negative outlook, as well. However, obviously not everyone is a criminal, nor doing criminal things, and they shouldn't be treated as such, either.

Your point is?

My point is that your statement makes it an either/or situation, which is the same thing the political left has done, but in reverse.

Horsefeathers! Why try to start an unnecessay confrontatation with a person who is doing their job? BTW, I voted for Barry Goldwater in my first Potus election. You?

[K.Mooneyham]

Given today's state of the country, BLM bull, and the vicious anarchist left-wing dipocrap attacks on the POPO, I think I would have smilingly shown him both and asked him how I could help him......even if he was acting an arrogant ass.

We either Back the Blue or we don't? They have enough problems/issues with the others without our law quoting petulant demand for their correctness.

Sir, that statement is far too simplistic. I am neither pro nor anti police. I see the police as requirement to have a large, complex, functional society. I would like them to be primarily dedicated to keeping the peace, however, focused on stopping those who breach the peace, especially those who breach the peace in violent fashion. I think the development of police into "law-enforcement officers", enforcing every tiny statute whether well-written and clear or not, is at the root of some of the issues today. I fully understand the "rule of law", but without some discretion, things can devolve rapidly. The gray area involving when you need to show your ID to the police is a great example. It should be blatantly obvious to the "reasonable person" the courts always talk about as to when someone must show ID to the police, but it's not, and this discussion is proof of that. Now, do I cooperate with the police if I am pulled over by them? Why yes, I certainly do. I cooperate for many reasons, such as being taught manners as a child, and also being polite to those who have positional authority which I learned in the USAF. I understand that the police deal with a lot of folks that most of us would consider "dirtbags", and that gives a lot of police a naturally suspicious outlook, and often negative outlook, as well. However, obviously not everyone is a criminal, nor doing criminal things, and they shouldn't be treated as such, either.

Your point is?

My point is that your statement makes it an either/or situation, which is the same thing the political left has done, but in reverse.

Horsefeathers! Why try to start an unnecessay confrontatation with a person who is doing their job? BTW, I voted for Barry Goldwater in my first Potus election. You?

Nowhere in my reply did I state that I would be uncooperative with the police. In fact, I stated just the opposite, that I DO cooperate with the police. Past that, I will not debate you on the merits of your age vs mine. Suffice it to say that I'm not as old as you are, but I did 20 years in the USAF, and retired from that "career" over 10 years ago.

[Oldgringo]

Given today's state of the country, BLM bull, and the vicious anarchist left-wing dipocrap attacks on the POPO, I think I would have smilingly shown him both and asked him how I could help him......even if he was acting an arrogant ass.

We either Back the Blue or we don't? They have enough problems/issues with the others without our law quoting petulant demand for their correctness.

Sir, that statement is far too simplistic. I am neither pro nor anti police. I see the police as requirement to have a large, complex, functional society. I would like them to be primarily dedicated to keeping the peace, however, focused on stopping those who breach the peace, especially those who breach the peace in violent fashion. I think the development of police into "law-enforcement officers", enforcing every tiny statute whether well-written and clear or not, is at the root of some of the issues today. I fully understand the "rule of law", but without some discretion, things can devolve rapidly. The gray area involving when you need to show your ID to the police is a great example. It should be blatantly obvious to the "reasonable person" the courts always talk about as to when someone must show ID to the police, but it's not, and this discussion is proof of that. Now, do I cooperate with the police if I am pulled over by them? Why yes, I certainly do. I cooperate for many reasons, such as being taught manners as a child, and also being polite to those who have positional authority which I learned in the USAF. I understand that the police deal with a lot of folks that most of us would consider "dirtbags", and that gives a lot of police a naturally suspicious outlook, and often negative outlook, as well. However, obviously not everyone is a criminal, nor doing criminal things, and they shouldn't be treated as such, either.

Your point is?

My point is that your statement makes it an either/or situation, which is the same thing the political left has done, but in reverse.

Horsefeathers! Why try to start an unnecessay confrontatation with a person who is doing their job? BTW, I voted for Barry Goldwater in my first Potus election. You?

Nowhere in my reply did I state that I would be uncooperative with the police. In fact, I stated just the opposite, that I DO cooperate with the police. Past that, I will not debate you on the merits of your age vs mine. Suffice it to say that I'm not as old as you are, but I did 20 years in the USAF, and retired from that "career" over 10 years ago.

Thank you for your service.

[jbirds1210]

I don’t post much these days, but enjoy learning from you fine folks. As I read this thread I kept reciting a mantra, “just because you can doesn’t mean you should.”