Originally Posted by 22wingit
I noticed that, too. If he was older there would certainly be the expectation that he would show photo ID, but the catch in this case is that the kid is apparently not 18 yet. He could have flown without gov't ID with no problem at all. The AMTRAK alternative was totally unnecessary.
The other thing odd about that story was the business about being asked for ID when he was a back-seat passenger in a car that was in a wreck. What on earth? Cops don't normally ask passengers (especially kids!) for ID at an accident scene.
It is not a given that "he could have flown without gov't ID with no problem at all". There may be more to this story than there is, but we also have to remember that most people in America don't realize that there are ways to still fly without ID. What the sheople have been spoon-fed is that ID is security and that ID checks are now a requirement to fly. That most people think ID is required of most to fly is neither uncommon nor necessarily incorrect. In various regards, ID is required to fly .... and more so from some than others.
And in regards to passenger ID demands from passengers in vehicles that have been pulled over, it was happening here and there after 9/11. Being "brown" or "black" and speaking with a foreign accent probably didn't help matters a whole lot.