That wasnt your argument..your argument is below
Of which you failed to address in your tangent
And again Walmart didnt ask for ID the cop did...he was clearly in cop mode.
Are you really having trouble noticing that?
Perhaps the threads that involve law and such are not for you.
Just an observation.
Why the fuck are you bitching about wal mart asking for an ID...When it was a cop asking for an ID.
Do you even know what the fuck you post?
Wow... I suppose that I'm going to have to simplify matters even more for you. I'm really sorry, I thought that someone of "above average" intelligence would be able to follow the logic of what I said and the flow of conversation. I was wrong, and for that I apologize... I didn't meant to give you more credit than you were due.
So, let's try this again.
My comment about Walmart, or any agent of Walmart not being legally able to require someone to show identification was based on the post that I quoted originally....
The cop has every right to ask for id and even detain people simply on the basis of his suspicion. Walmart is not public property. In addition if you are being detained (not the same as arrested) you must do as you are told or face the consequences.
and this one...
1. It is standard practice to have an off duty police officer at Walmart, especially in the side of town that is described in the video.
2. Not so sure about the previous action that took place there as it appears it wasn't video'd
The reason that I responded the way that I did originally was because of the implication that one gives up rights by stepping onto private property, or has less rights on private property (Walmart) than they would on public property. Also, I read the second statement as it meaning that the off duty LEO was employed by Walmart at the time of the incident... as I know many retailers that employ off-duty LEOs for extra security or loss prevention. The Walmart near my house when I lived in Texas did that during the holiday season, as did the Best Buy that I worked at 7 years ago. It sounds as though I very well may have misread or misunderstood what was said though, but that's why I made my comment about Walmart requesting identification.
I did actually respond to the comment about the cop being on or off duty, but apparently your vaunted IQ of 128 made you overlook this very clear statement.
That all being said, even if the LEO was on duty, he still would not have the authority to demand to see identification without an offense being committed which required it. Even then, identification isn't something that is required to walk the streets in this country.
I really do apologize that I make comments that are apparently so far beyond your "above average" intelligence that you find it difficult to have a discussion with me. Hell, I'm even somewhat inebriated at the moment, so the 25 IQ points that I lose because of it should theoretically bring me down to around the "above average" level. But either that belief is incorrect, or you have overstated your IQ... which honestly wouldn't surprise me very much given what I know about you. Don't fret though, there is a place in society for everyone, even people whose IQ levels are at or below average, as it would appear you actually are.
If you really must continue to respond to me, please at least read my comments 7-8 times before responding. I also recommend that you also read every comment that I quote, and the other surrounding information, as that might give you a better insight into the greater scope of what I am saying. I hope that we can bridge this communicative gulf that exists between the two of us. I just hope that there is a way to increase your intelligence, because I honestly can't find it in myself to seek out a way to reduce my intelligence to a level that matches your own... it simply wouldn't be fair to the rest of the world.
Best of luck to you in your quest for enlightenment and knowledge, the "man".
