Police 'carding'

[guyser]

I see nothing wrong with it.

Then think broader and farther reaching.

The stop and ID thing is not..." Who are you? Show me ID"...and then be off.

Its who are you

Where have you been

Where are you going

Whats in the bag

Who is she?

where does she live?

And if done more than once when all you are trying to do is enjoy a sunny walk w a lady friend around Dows Lake...one gets pissed pretty easily.

I don't consider it either an abuse of authority or of my rights.

And thats fine, but I do and will stick up for all of our rights.

But you have to concede, it is against the law.

[Topaz]

Have any of you ask a police person for their badge #??? They don't like that question either.

[guyser]

No, its right there on their lapel .

[Argus]

That's because you're an authoritarian at heart.

You would make a really good dictator, especially one that's beholden to a powerful patron.

There's a line I read somewhere about better to be silent and have people think you're a fool than open your mouth to confirm it. You should look that up sometime.

[jacee]

Have any of you ask a police person for their badge #??? They don't like that question either.

They'll give it to you. I've never had attitude about that. In fact at a demo just after the G20 they were REALLY obliging about that.

.

[jacee]

There's a line I read somewhere about better to be silent and have people think you're a fool than open your mouth to confirm it. You should look that up sometime.

And you!

.

[jacee]

I see nothing wrong with it. I don't consider it either an abuse of authority or of my rights.

If you give them your name, they'll put you on their list as someone police have had contact with.

Next time, they'll look you up and you'll be under suspicion because of previous 'contact'.

Just sayin' ...

.

[H10]

Have any of you ask a police person for their badge #??? They don't like that question either.

Nope and Nope, they don't like when you ask them who they are.

Then think broader and farther reaching.

The stop and ID thing is not..." Who are you? Show me ID"...and then be off.

Its who are you

Where have you been

Where are you going

Whats in the bag

Who is she?

where does she live?

And if done more than once when all you are trying to do is enjoy a sunny walk w a lady friend around Dows Lake...one gets pissed pretty easily.

And thats fine, but I do and will stick up for all of our rights.

But you have to concede, it is against the law.

This. First they are violating you rights. Second you are being asked a series of highly intrusive questions from a government agent that we know for a fact (at least in Toronto) will be stored in a secret database. Thirdly, they aren't just asking your name and then off. they are recording the answer to all these questions and have a body recorder on them(which is why they are able to remember the conversations so well) in which they will put in the database at a later time and put a series of associations.

So if your girlfriend use to date a loser 5 years ago who robbed a bank. And the database shows you walking together. Guess who doors they are going to be knocking on as a "possible associate" of the bank robber?

I might have no ID, but I'd be able to say who I was and where I lived. I admit it depends on circumstances, on time and location and, yes, frequency. And how polite they were.

What happened to the right to remain silent? The police should know who they are looking for. Not be harassing random people walking down the street committing no crime.

What, exactly is the problem with showing ID? We all live in this society. It's in our interests for the police to be able to properly identify and keep track of the nastier ones among us who insist on breaking laws all the time. I've only ever been stopped once by a cop, and that was when leaving the bar I used to work at at about 3AM. The interaction lasted about thirty seconds and then I was driving off on my bike. I recognize that some people get stopped more than I ever did. Then again some people are out in the wee hours of the morning a lot more than I ever was.

It is harassing behaviour from an out of control bloated government who has shown they are willing to take any right away we let them. There is no law requiring one to carry ID, but you have a right to remain silent. So why should anyone be required to BREAK their own RIGHTS just to comply with some government agent who is trying to enforce his whims which aren't even a law!

Further it is intimidating, because the carding practice involves a government agent trained in lethal force with a barrage of deadly weapons asking for your id and followed by a series of intrusive questions. Any of which could implicate you in something potentially criminal which you likely have no involvement. Ie. where are you coming from, bank, o there was just a robbery at the bank, let me search you person and vehicle now you are under arrest for suspicion of theft. House, or there was just a break in, in a house 3 days ago put your hands behind your back. worse of all if the officer mishears or believe you change your story or lie then he can hold you for suspicion when you may have just been confused by his gonzo style questioning.

It is also highly stressful, because the carding type id practices are purposely designed to cause the person to believe that they are not free to leave (ie being detained or under arrest) when usually this is simply not the case. The problem is if the person were to attempt to leave and not answer questions then the officer might really arrest them. It would be like saying you have the right to a lawyer but if you try to call your lawyer the cop will arrest you and beat you just for exercising your right and nothing else.

What is the point of rights if we can't use them. That isn't a right, it is a temporary privilege that the government can take back on any suspicion or whim no matter how ill founded or baseless. And bear in mind, with all the criminals out there, there is a description of some wanted criminal fitting any possible description you could imagine from 6'5 red headed ginger to chinese midget. The cop can trump up charges and say you fit any description in the system.

Also it is offensive. Some of us come from countries where less free government have used this as a way to harass civilians. And some ethnic minorities ie. those from south africa may take offense or think they are being racially profiled AGAIN by people asking them for their freedom papers to walk on the street or in the white side of town.

The police know who the nastier ones are. They have multiple interactions with them, and often are on a first name basis with the career criminals and can spot a serial trouble maker from a mile away. They know if you are in your 20s or 30s and they haven't seen or heard of you before that you probably aren't a criminal.

[Argus]

It is harassing behaviour from an out of control bloated government who has shown they are willing to take any right away we let them. There is no law requiring one to carry ID, but you have a right to remain silent. So why should anyone be required to BREAK their own RIGHTS just to comply with some government agent who is trying to enforce his whims which aren't even a law!

Further it is intimidating, because the carding practice involves a government agent trained in lethal force with a barrage of deadly weapons asking for your id and followed by a series of intrusive questions. Any of which could implicate you in something potentially criminal which you likely have no involvement. Ie. where are you coming from, bank, o there was just a robbery at the bank, let me search you person and vehicle now you are under arrest for suspicion of theft. House, or there was just a break in, in a house 3 days ago put your hands behind your back. worse of all if the officer mishears or believe you change your story or lie then he can hold you for suspicion when you may have just been confused by his gonzo style questioning.

First of all, I highly doubt the cops are just stopping people at random. Second, you do not have the right to remain silent, as such. You have the right not to answer questions which might incriminate you. Not quite the same thing. If you are arrested you are required to identify yourself. If you refuse, you will be held until they identify you.

But you're also putting two issues together. On is carding, that is, the habit of keeping records of the people they stop to ask for ID or other questions. Second is the actual stopping and interviewing. Now as to the second part, let's say there's just been a crime committed. The broadcast description is reasonably vague, but let's say it's a YBM, as it often is, with a shaved wearing a dark jacket. That means the police are likely to stop any YBM in the vicinity with a shaved head. So if you happen to be a YBM and the cops stop to ask you for ID, they're just doing their job. If you refuse to speak to them they'll simply detain you until you're identified.

But in any event police being a bureaucracy, they will document the encounter and keep records.

[Black Dog]

I see nothing wrong with it. I don't consider it either an abuse of authority or of my rights.

If it was a total stranger asking you for ID and a rundown of your own activities, you'd probably tell them to shove off and mind their own business. If it's a cop doing the same for no good reason, then yeah, it's an abuse of authority and a violation of your privacy rights.

[cybercoma]

I know when I think of freedom I think of armed people walking the streets demanding to know who you are, where you've been, where you're going, who you're with, what you're doing, etc. That sounds like exactly the kind of freedoms our soldiers died for. The freedom to have a militarized police force that roams the streets "carding" people.

[H10]

First of all, I highly doubt the cops are just stopping people at random. Second, you do not have the right to remain silent, as such. You have the right not to answer questions which might incriminate you. Not quite the same thing. If you are arrested you are required to identify yourself. If you refuse, you will be held until they identify you.

But you're also putting two issues together. On is carding, that is, the habit of keeping records of the people they stop to ask for ID or other questions. Second is the actual stopping and interviewing. Now as to the second part, let's say there's just been a crime committed. The broadcast description is reasonably vague, but let's say it's a YBM, as it often is, with a shaved wearing a dark jacket. That means the police are likely to stop any YBM in the vicinity with a shaved head. So if you happen to be a YBM and the cops stop to ask you for ID, they're just doing their job. If you refuse to speak to them they'll simply detain you until you're identified.

But in any event police being a bureaucracy, they will document the encounter and keep records.

The random issue is complex. The cops racially profile. They stop people based on their race and tell them they are being stopped randomly. So you see where this becomes confusing. Cops pretend they stop people randomly to get around racial profiling and other profiling (gender, sexual orientation, etc.) laws. The people being profiled damn well know, this isn't a random stop and they are being targeted. This is why some people want to stop "random" stops. If you are going to stop someone, they say you better stop someone who is doing a crime or doing something suspect.

You are correct on the silent point. But cops in Canada still say it.

you have the right to remain silent and anything you say can and will be used against you, you have the right to consult with a lawyer

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/under-arrest-what-are-your-rights-1.960223

Carding is actually the same issue. It is the issue of being stopped by police and forcing to produce ID or they make you think you are under arrest. And you correctly stated once arrested YOU MUST ID YOURSELF. People like me want this type of ambiguous behaviour to come to an end. If a person is committing a crime or breaking the law, yes fine arrest them. But if the cop didn't see them do a crime or has no clear reasonable evidence, like a blood fist walking away from a broken window with a hole in it, then leave them alone.

The problem with the police looking for a suspect with such a generally vague description and demanding ID from non-criminals is multi fold. 1. Legally, no one has to produce id nor even carry it. 2. Even if they did have ID, it would not allow them to catch the suspect in 99.9% of cases. Because most people who seen the crime to give the suspect description, do not know the name of the criminal first and last who did the crime. 3. Even if the cop did find the criminal this way, he is likely to just lie about his name. 4. Is the cop searching for a name or is he searching for a suspect description? It is unclear how the cop gaining an ID of an innocent by-stander or person in the vicinity is going to allow him to solve the crime? 5. I am just sitting here thinking. Do cops in black countries use ybm as a suspect description and how useless the racial description would be when 99% of the people in the vicinity are black. And if we are for the most part more progressive and advanced than the majority of black countries, or we purports to be (ie sudan or somalia) then how come there police can catch black criminals without racial policing and ours can't?

I'd also add, the cops almost never tell people they are investigating a crime of someone who looks like them. Because if they did, most non-criminals would probably provide ID, even though they didn't have to.

[Black Dog]

First of all, I highly doubt the cops are just stopping people at random.

They are.

But you're also putting two issues together. On is carding, that is, the habit of keeping records of the people they stop to ask for ID or other questions. Second is the actual stopping and interviewing. Now as to the second part, let's say there's just been a crime committed. The broadcast description is reasonably vague, but let's say it's a YBM, as it often is, with a shaved wearing a dark jacket. That means the police are likely to stop any YBM in the vicinity with a shaved head. So if you happen to be a YBM and the cops stop to ask you for ID, they're just doing their job. If you refuse to speak to them they'll simply detain you until you're identified.

And how often does that happen? We don't know because the cops won't say, which itself speaks volumes.

But in any event police being a bureaucracy, they will document the encounter and keep records.

They have no business stopping citizens at random and compiling information on them. They aren't the Stasi.

[Argus]

If it was a total stranger asking you for ID and a rundown of your own activities, you'd probably tell them to shove off and mind their own business. If it's a cop doing the same for no good reason, then yeah, it's an abuse of authority and a violation of your privacy rights.

The problem is that few of us are able to define what a 'good reason' is to a cop.

[Michael Hardner]

I lived in France as a youth, and we were told that you had to carry ID and you could be stopped and detained for any reason. It's a different feeling to walk around a country knowing that.

[GostHacked]

First of all, I highly doubt the cops are just stopping people at random.

Really? Naive or playing stupid, which is it?

[Argus]

I lived in France as a youth, and we were told that you had to carry ID and you could be stopped and detained for any reason. It's a different feeling to walk around a country knowing that.

Oh yes, those poor wretched French living in their cruel, despostic dictatorship, yearning to breath the free air of Canada so they don't have to carry ID! I'm surprised the airports aren't overloaded with French refugees.

[Michael Hardner]

Oh yes, those poor wretched French living in their cruel, despostic dictatorship, yearning to breath the free air of Canada so they don't have to carry ID! I'm surprised the airports aren't overloaded with French refugees.

I'm not sure what your sarcasm is saying here. All I said is that the prevalence of carding makes free association feel different, especially if you're in a targeted group (as I am in this example).

[Black Dog]

I'm not sure what your sarcasm is saying here. All I said is that the prevalence of carding makes free association feel different, especially if you're in a targeted group (as I am in this example).

A very good piece here that touches on this exact thing.

[guyser]

A very good piece here that touches on this exact thing.

Thats painful to read.

Thanks for that BD

[cybercoma]

A very good piece here that touches on this exact thing.

Great article, but it's incredibly sad that the people who need to read this and step back for a moment to understand it, those people never will.

[GostHacked]

Great article, but it's incredibly sad that the people who need to read this and step back for a moment to understand it, those people never will.

Getting stopped a couple times may not be so bad, but when it is consistent, then you start to wonder wtf is up. This man does not appear to have any criminal record that would even warrant a 'stop and frisk' type scenario. Let alone over 50 of said incidents. A very well written article, and it left me with more of a sad feeling. Sad he has to consistently face this in a place where we are supposed to be tolerant and inclusive. Sad that it seems more of a case of guilty until proven innocent. Sad that is seems racial profiling still exists.

It is also sad that you are correct that there are those who wont understand it at all.

[cybercoma]

Chris Rock has been posting on Twitter each time he gets stopped by the cops. IIRC, he was stopped 3 times in two weeks for absolutely no reason.

[LesActive]

Perfect spot for this quote from the "Police Manual for Arrest, Seizure and Interrogation", Carswell Publishing. I'm quoting the text as it's not available online. I got the book at a used book store.

The common law does not require a citizen to identify himself or carry ID of any sort. Therefore, while it may the mark of a good citizen to identify himself when asked to do so, a police officer must not use force to compel someone to identify himself when he refuses; otherwise, the officer will be guilty of criminal assault and be liable to civil damages. (Koechlin v. Waugh)

This general rule often places the police officer in a difficult position. The officer may become suspicious of a certain person's conduct and may simply wish to ask the suspect to identify himself so that the officer can be satisfied that the person is not up to some sort of "mischief". If the person refuses to identify himself, can he be charged with "obstructing the police"?

Section 129(a) of the Criminal code makes it an offence to "wilfully obstruct a public or peace officer in the execution of his duty". Is it an obstruction to refuse to identify yourself and thus prevent a police officer from carrying out his general duties to investigate crimes? Twenty years ago (40 years now), in an English case, Rice v. Connolly, Lord Parker, Chief Justice of England, said that it was not. He wrote:

"It seems to me quite clear that though every citizen has a moral duty or, if you like, a social duty to assist the police, there is no legal duty to that effect, and indeed the whole basis for the common law is the right of the individual to refuse to answer questions put to him by persons in authority , and to refuse to accompany those in authority to any particular place; short, of course, of arrest."

The duty of a police officer to attempt to identify an offender is independent of any duty of that person to assist the constable in performing his task. It is only when the police have a lawful claim to demand that a person identify himself that the person has a corresponding duty to comply with that demand.

I haven't carried ID since I let the driver's licence expire bout ten years ago and don't even use a legal name except on one account (hydro). Personally, I claim the right to be identified as I see fit and I feel no duty to ID myself in any way except by offering my given name, no family name.

As the statute says, "a person whose birth is registered in Ontario is entitled to be recognized by the name as it appears on the birth certificate or change of name certificate". Change of Name Act, Sec 2.1, Ontario. An entitlement is quite different from a duty. There is no obligation there. Is there a charge for attaching a legal name to someone without their consent?

Date of birth? Was not a competent witness to that event; will the officer accept third party hearsay testimony? They shouldn't.

Yes, I am prepared to lose some freedom over this.

[Argus]

Thats painful to read.

Thanks for that BD

I can see his point, truly. But one thing he never touches on is the fact that police interact so often with young black men because young black men commit such a hugely disproportionate amount of crime, particularly violent crime.