Quote:
|
Originally Posted by hot_pastrami
As OnyxCougar pointed out in this thread on the subject, the ruling does not require a citizen to show their ID, only to give their name. I feel that this makes it less bad but still far from right. |
I concur with Jinx. The cop kept asking for an ID, not a name. From the way the man acted, he had no ID on him; so he told the cops to go ahead and arrest him. What's an "investigation of an investigation," anyhow? What? Did the police superintendent have a bad case of de ja vu and send the boys out to investigate the mishandling of this case before it ever occurred? And since when is "Because" a reasonable reply for the need to show ID?
The Supreme's messed up badly on this one. They should stick to "mo' town" if you ask me, except that the residents of Detroit would most likely run them out on a rail.