Now this is what interaction with police should be like...

Forum Sponsor
I thought it was kind of a dumb video. The guy basically went out of his way to be uncooperative and difficult with a law enforcement officer, when he didn't have to. The cop said it best when he noticed the camera, and said "You're trying to prove a point". His point was that you can be a jerk and cops still have to treat you nice, because it's the law.

I think if you're man enough to carry a gun around, you should be man enough to identify yourself. But it's a free country, so I guess you're free to be a jerk all day long. Doesn't sound like what you'd want from your fellow citizens, but who am I to say.

--- D
 
ashkan said:
i didnt know you are not required to even identify yourself! cool vid.
Click to expand...
In Ontario, you're required to provide identification or "give reasonable identification of himself or herself..."

Highway Traffic Act R.S.O. 1990 said:
As to carrying licences and surrender on demand
33. (1) Every driver of a motor vehicle or street car shall carry his or her licence with him or her at all times while he or she is in charge of a motor vehicle or street car and shall surrender the licence for reasonable inspection upon the demand of a police officer or officer appointed for carrying out the provisions of this Act. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 33 (1).
Same, re novice driver rules
(2) Every accompanying driver, as defined under section 57.1, shall carry his or her licence and shall surrender the licence for reasonable inspection upon the demand of a police officer or officer appointed for carrying out the provisions of this Act. 1993, c. 40, s. 3.
Identification on failure to surrender licence
(3) Every person who is unable or refuses to surrender his or her licence in accordance with subsection (1) or (2) shall, when requested by a police officer or officer appointed for carrying out the provisions of this Act, give reasonable identification of himself or herself and, for the purposes of this subsection, the correct name and address of the person shall be deemed to be reasonable identification. 1993, c. 40, s. 3.
Click to expand...

 
EngineerJoe said:
In Ontario, you're required to provide identification or "give reasonable identification of himself or herself..."
Click to expand...

The guy in the video isn't in a car. he is just walking on the street.
There is nothing in Canada that says you have to identify yourself or even say a single word to a police officer when you are walking around.
 
OpenGambit said:
The guy in the video isn't in a car. he is just walking on the street.
There is nothing in Canada that says you have to identify yourself or even say a single word to a police officer when you are walking around.
Click to expand...

If you're doing something that requires a license, for example carrying a gun, fishing, selling hot dogs from a cart, etc., I believe that might not be the case.
 
Duster929 said:
If you're doing something that requires a license, for example carrying a gun, fishing, selling hot dogs from a cart, etc., I believe that might not be the case.
Click to expand...

I said that already.
 
i find that video hard to believe, if your carrying a gun in any of the states that allow open carry you need a permit to carry it, meaning you have to identify to ensure you are authorized to carry it, not everyone in the US is allowed a gun
 
OpenGambit said:
Please keep in mind that this guy isn't driving. The law regarding stopping someone walking around and driving/riding is completely different.
Click to expand...


I'm aware I have to give my driver's license at a roadside stop. Outside of driving however, I'm going to decline. I've already had issues in the past insisting on my rights. I sincerely have nothing to hide, no criminal record. Legal Firearms owner, Conservative party member and generally a law and order type of guy, but the way things are going especially with the GTA police forces I really don't know who I can count on. I have a family member dealing with some serious allegations against the police. Once it is all sorted out in court, I have a good story to tell everyone on GTAM.

I strive to be polite to everyone I meet, regardless their occupation. Anyone who knows me will tell you, I use the words "Sir, Ma'am, Thank you and Please" as regular vocabulary. I will continue to be polite during a roadside stop so long as the officer remains professional (which isn't always the case), but no longer will I get drawn into the BS roadside game that's being played on Ontario roads.



I'd rather not give the officer any ammunition by admitting wrongdoing (with hopes of the ticket being dropped) or giving the officer any information for that matter except for my ID. I now expect every roadside stop to be a ticket and ensuing court battle. Breaks (I'm not talking a reduction from $200 to $150 which would occur during a meeting with the prosecutor anyway) are non existant in today's traffic cop manual.


I also intend to take notes at every encounter with the police, up to and including observing the officer themselves, the vehicle they were in and the location of the stop. There are far too many liars/criminals in the ranks and there are far too many good cops covering up for the bad.
 
geoff-9 said:
i find that video hard to believe, if your carrying a gun in any of the states that allow open carry you need a permit to carry it, meaning you have to identify to ensure you are authorized to carry it, not everyone in the US is allowed a gun
Click to expand...

This was in California, that apparently has a weird version of open carry. You can carry a gun as long as you are in a (precisely defined) low population area and the gun is not loaded. It seems like merely a fashion accessory at that point, but the guy's playing by the rules.
 
mat2312 said:
I'm aware I have to give my driver's license at a roadside stop. Outside of driving however, I'm going to decline. I've already had issues in the past insisting on my rights. I sincerely have nothing to hide, no criminal record. Legal Firearms owner, Conservative party member and generally a law and order type of guy, but the way things are going especially with the GTA police forces I really don't know who I can count on. I have a family member dealing with some serious allegations against the police. Once it is all sorted out in court, I have a good story to tell everyone on GTAM.

I strive to be polite to everyone I meet, regardless their occupation. Anyone who knows me will tell you, I use the words "Sir, Ma'am, Thank you and Please" as regular vocabulary. I will continue to be polite during a roadside stop so long as the officer remains professional (which isn't always the case), but no longer will I get drawn into the BS roadside game that's being played on Ontario roads.



I'd rather not give the officer any ammunition by admitting wrongdoing (with hopes of the ticket being dropped) or giving the officer any information for that matter except for my ID. I now expect every roadside stop to be a ticket and ensuing court battle. Breaks (I'm not talking a reduction from $200 to $150 which would occur during a meeting with the prosecutor anyway) are non existant in today's traffic cop manual.


I also intend to take notes at every encounter with the police, up to and including observing the officer themselves, the vehicle they were in and the location of the stop. There are far too many liars/criminals in the ranks and there are far too many good cops covering up for the bad.
Click to expand...

Well. How you act with the police is a judgment call and I won't tell you what to do. I personally don't have an SOP on these kind of things but so far it has worked out for me.

I do offer this one bit of information
Many of the cases that have to do with the rights of indivduals when stopped by the police (including the leading cases on investigative detentions and searches), come from rich kids with well to do parents who are willing to finance the fight. In order words, please don't start a fight you can't finish.
 
geoff-9 said:
i find that video hard to believe, if your carrying a gun in any of the states that allow open carry you need a permit to carry it, meaning you have to identify to ensure you are authorized to carry it, not everyone in the US is allowed a gun
Click to expand...

Completely not true. There are states such as Michigan that do not require a license for open carry or only require a license for specific instances of open carry ie. carrying at a hospital
 
OpenGambit said:
I do offer this one bit of information
Many of the cases that have to do with the rights of indivduals when stopped by the police (including the leading cases on investigative detentions and searches), come from rich kids with well to do parents who are willing to finance the fight. In order words, please don't start a fight you can't finish.
Click to expand...

Doesn't it bother you that the police would even consider trampling the rights of citizens? The police are supposed to be the bastions of freedome, the protectors of the people. Yet in this day and age, there are innocent people afraid of the police. Sad day indeed.
 
mat2312 said:
Doesn't it bother you that the police would even consider trampling the rights of citizens? The police are supposed to be the bastions of freedome, the protectors of the people. Yet in this day and age, there are innocent people afraid of the police. Sad day indeed.
Click to expand...

Believe me. I am with you. I think the concept that insisting on your rights being some sort of grounds to believe that an indivdual is doing something wrong is complete ********. I think that Cops overstep their boundaries as a matter of course because they know that the vast majority of people won't have the ammo (money) to fight them. I dont' think thats because they are bad people, but I do believe many of them are "ends justify the means" people.

But I also used to work for the Department of Justice.

What I was offering isn't the ideal, but what I am saying is that these are fights where even when you win, you lose. Criminal charges can and will destroy your life, in the meantime, you live with the uncertainty of wondering whether you are really right or not (there are lots of grey areas). For example, you are allowed to resist an unlawful arrest, but if you really hit a cop... there is a lot of **** that is going to blow up in your face before you even get any where near a judge to argue that your arrest was unlawful. I wouldn't wish that on anyone.

I hope you get where I am going with this.
 
OpenGambit said:
Believe me. I am with you. I think the concept that insisting on your rights being some sort of grounds to believe that an indivdual is doing something wrong is complete ********. I think that Cops overstep their boundaries as a matter of course because they know that the vast majority of people won't have the ammo (money) to fight them. I dont' think thats because they are bad people, but I do believe many of them are "ends justify the means" people.

But I also used to work for the Department of Justice.

What I was offering isn't the ideal, but what I am saying is that these are fights where even when you win, you lose. Criminal charges can and will destroy your life, in the meantime, you live with the uncertainty of wondering whether you are really right or not (there are lots of grey areas). For example, you are allowed to resist an unlawful arrest, but if you really hit a cop... there is a lot of **** that is going to blow up in your face before you even get any where near a judge to argue that your arrest was unlawful. I wouldn't wish that on anyone.

I hope you get where I am going with this.
Click to expand...


Yep, I understand completely. But no matter what I refuse to lay down my freedom, integrity and morals for anyone, regardless of the consequences. Our people have shed their blood on many foreign beaches and continue to do so today for these ideals.


I take exception to one part however. "Ends justify the means" people ARE bad people if they make decisions that deliberately and knowingly harm innocent people even if it means getting their bad guy.
 
mat2312 said:
Yep, I understand completely. But no matter what I refuse to lay down my freedom, integrity and morals for anyone, regardless of the consequences. Our people have shed their blood on many foreign beaches and continue to do so today for these ideals.


I take exception to one part however. "Ends justify the means" people ARE bad people if they make decisions that deliberately and knowingly harm innocent people even if it means getting their bad guy.
Click to expand...

Well the "ends justify the means" comment is really a matter of degree. I made a generalization and I think you get my point, putting a label of "good" vs "bad" is probably not necessary. Every case on its facts on that one.

With regards to the compromise of your freedom. We really do live in a society that has more indivdual freedom and almost any before it, and people have died for that freedom. But I don't think giving up a right is necessarily a compromise of freedom.

I often don't vote, or I don't exercise my freedom of speech, I turn down my right to counsel, decline to ask for disclosure... Certainly I am aware of my rights, and I assert them in appropriate occations. I don't think that insisting on every one of your rights as if its a checklist does you, or ideals of freedom, any service at all. Sometimes, the situation will rub me the wrong way and I will insist on every process. So far, it seems that I have picked correctly on what to put my foot down on.

Discretion is the better part of valor... so to speak.
 
mat2312 said:
The police are supposed to be the bastions of freedome, the protectors of the people.
Click to expand...

I think this is a major misconception. There's a reason that the phrase "police state" means what it does. The police are not supposed to be the bastions of freedom. In fact, their very role is to curtail freedom. The reason you need police is to make sure that one person's activities don't infringe upon the rights of others. For example, to make sure my right to get drunk doesn't diminish someone else's right to do what they want. Or my right to free speech doesn't cross the line into a threat that diminishes someone's sense of safety.

The police exist to monitor and control freedom, not to provide freedoms. In an ideal world, we would all be aware of our own rights, and respectful of the rights of others, to the extent that we would self-police and make sure that our activities don't infringe on the rights of others. In that world, you wouldn't need police. That would be a truly free society. But it's also a society where people are willing to take on a lot of responsibility. The responsibility to give up something to respect the rights of others.

This is where I have the biggest problem with people who say "I have a right" to do this or that. Whenever someone tells me what their rights are, I then ask them what their responsibilities are. Someone who demands rights without freely accepting their responsibilities, can never really participate in a free society.

So, you want the right to carry a gun? No sweat. But I would say you then have a responsibility, which includes identifying yourself to others so that they feel safe and not threatened.
 
bitzz said:
I am QUITE sure you do have to identify yourself here in Canada.
You don't have to provide ID, but you do have to identify yourself, I think to ANYONE that asks.
Click to expand...


What's your name? What's your DOB? What's your address?
 
Last edited:
Duster929 said:
This is where I have the biggest problem with people who say "I have a right" to do this or that. Whenever someone tells me what their rights are, I then ask them what their responsibilities are. Someone who demands rights without freely accepting their responsibilities, can never really participate in a free society.

So, you want the right to carry a gun? No sweat. But I would say you then have a responsibility, which includes identifying yourself to others so that they feel safe and not threatened.
Click to expand...


Carrying a firearm should come with responsibilities. Safety, training etc. But why should I identify myself because someone may feel unsafe/threatened? If the mere action of a citizen carrying a firearm on a belt scares individuals, who actually has the problem? As far as I'm concerned, provided the firearms owner doesn't threaten someone, there is absolutely no reason why other citizens should care.

I take zero issue with measurable responsibilities which help to maintain social order but we need less policy based on 'feelings' and more on facts. The facts state, you are far more likely to be shot and killed by an unlicenced thug than an ordinary citzen open-carrying.

The facts also state that drunk driving really isn't as big of an issue as played out by special interest groups, but that's another debate ;)
Forum Sponsor
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom