The cops should have just capped his ass and avoided a trial that way.
They should have prosecuted the fucker. How about engaging in leisure activities that don't involve hitting strangers?
Rachner was arrested several days after the ruling which, he says, was the basis for his refusal to show ID.

Either Rachner really keeps up on obscure legal cases or he's completely full of shit.
For the record:

@2, I never hit anybody. Also, they did prosecute me, at least long enough to cost me a few thousand dollars in attorney's fees, before waking up to the fact that they had no case.

@3, my refusal to show ID was actually based on my desire to be left alone, and my knowledge of Hiibel v. 6th District Court of Nevada, which isn't exactly obscure, as civil rights cases go. But, yes, I actually do follow that shit.

I think what Jonah meant to write was that my defense (as opposed to my initial refusal) was to be based on the defense in Tacoma v. Jones.
So, "appropriate and consistent with policies and practices of the Seattle Police Department" means significant harassment and arrest in spite of "proof problems"?

Let's face it, Rachner was harassed and arrested because he stood up for his rights and refused to show the cops an ID.

"Papers, please?"
Why would anyone think that any of us is required to "show ID" (to present credentials that can be used to determine one's identity; identification is a process, not something you can show) when a cop requests that we do so? We're not even required to have ID. This is the United States: we don't have to carry any documentation around with us unless we're doing something that requires it (e.g., driving on a public street).

Please see the Flex Your Rights Foundation's police encounters FAQ, particularly "7. When do I have to show ID?". See also: "What's Wrong with Showing ID?" from The Identity Project.
I will never understand someone reading (or writing) this article on the Stranger, and somehow defending the city or the police department's position. Repeat after me: NERF GOLF BALL.

Get off your high horses (or stoned donkeys) and realize this was a stoopid, stoopid move by the city. Your fucking flipped, lit cigarette tossed on the sidewalk does far more damage than a fucking NERF GOLF BALL.
Eric, since you're up to speed on not so obscure civil rights cases, I hope you can find someone to take up a 1983 suit.
Nerf Golf Ball = Assault
standard Golf Ball = Assault and Battery

so? cap his ass.
Fucking Hipsters. Just stay at home and get stoned in your crappy little Capital Hill apartments. I'd love to see a photo of Rachner -- my guess is is would ooze douchebag, regardless of whether he was "right" or "wrong".
Identification is a process, not something that can be shown. To "show ID" typically means to present documentation of one's identity. In this country, we're not required to possess such documentation, so how could we ever be required to present it? When driving on public roads, we're required to be licensed to do so, and to both carry and present upon demand of a police officer documentation of such licensing. Eric wasn't driving.

See also: "Local computer security expert investigates police practices", Seattle P-I, April 22, 2010. Turns out, SPD had a copy of the video Eric requested and lied about having destroyed it when he requested it.

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.

Add a comment

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.