I have already explained how he had reasonable suspicion and why it would be justified to detain multiple times, you just keep asking the same questions and them ignoring the answers, just go down to the beginning of our convo and reread it all because your just acting ignorant, I kinda feel bad at this point cause you might be slow or something... So I've had enough repeating myself for 2 days.... I give up, you win
Oh and by the way, if you value your privacy why invade his privacy? Would you like it if you were at work and someone videoed you and you had no idea who the hell they are?
I understand both sides of this. On your part it is harassing an officer by doing that, It also is dangerous when someone armed while videoing you. But he did harass you by following you. You should have shown your I.D to them because you were suspicious. And Law has every right to investigate suspicious activity.
@ColtelloGocce said: "And Law has every right to investigate suspicious activity. "
They sure do, they just can't stop and question a person while doing so unless they have consent or reasonable suspicion that the person is engaged in criminal activity.
like i've already said 50 times to you papoopdik, yes a person can not be stopped solely for carrying a fireaarm....but thats not what happened here you fucking idiot
@spurs8550: I have addressed the weapon and the impeding issues. What else did the agent say the person was stopped for then?
Or does this all boil down to you think he was impeding, and I don't think he was? If you really think he was impeding, then what was there to investigate? The officer was there when it happened (if it did).
I know I'm right I proved him wrong so many times and he just keeps repeating the same shit so I gave up on that, like i said hes ignorant. he's a loser with nothin better to do
Haha yeah I'm so gay, i have women all over me, they love a man in uniform, I get laid so much your head would explode if u were me.... You computer tough guys are just jealous, I live the life, you hide in your basements and critique it
Glad to see you were able to figure out the correct spelling of the word 'idiot' though. Maybe now you can graduate to calling me more compound wordage
like 'poo-poo head' or something.
The pedestrian was not violating any laws in this video.
The law goes how I enforce it and I've never once lost a case, lawsuit, or had a judge say I made an unlawful arrest.... I live the life your a bystander, stick to your computer
Your not defending anyones rights, your being an asshole.... I just told you he's purposely abusing his rights trying to cash in on a lawsuit and at the same time risking people's lives.... So just shutup already cause your an ignorant little bitch
@spurs8550 said: "I just told you he's purposely abusing his rights..."
I don't believe you.
Maybe you could insult me some more? It doesn't seem to be working but you go right ahead and blast away if it makes you feel better. It won't alter the fact that there are people out there that don't agree woth you.
Dude you don't get it, wether I knew who he was or not it would have been justifiable to detain. But your just ignorant so now just shut the fuck up... Cause your just as much of an asshole as him and u like annoying people for attention like him ...Why dont you go test it out in the field and hopefully u get shot and can't come back with your corny smart ass comments.... U have no credentials no experience so shut the fuck cause u don't know shit.... Everyone wants to critique cops from what t
No he's an asshole and was purposely and knowliny trying to test and push the limits of the police trying to get arrested so he can sue and get a monetary gain... That's an abuse of rights and you were defending him.....
No he's an asshole and was purposely and knowliny trying to test and push the limits of the police trying to get arrested so he can sue and get a monetary gain... That's an abuse of rights and you were defending him.....
you obviously dont know who this guy is...his name is pete him and his friend Ademo started a website called copblock.org....they go around and fuck with the police and video tape it trying to get lawsuits all over the country...thats why i say he KNOWINGLY did this....google it asshole
they know the laws and they walk the border line sometimes, they will eventually slip up and comit a serious crime, they keep trying to go bigger an bigger to attract attention...ive seen most of their videos....believe me they will get sick of getting arrested and paying fines and having to go to court...this thing is gonna run outta steam eventually, the one leader already got sentenced to some time, and this kid pete looked like a sad puppy when he was locked up last time
and i cant wait til one of these idiots shows up in my city with a camera, im too smart for them they are just looking for attention and a reaction, all you gotta do is ignore them and they start having hissy fits...
cant wait til one of these jackasses gets popped and that video gets posted on youtube...then we can continue this convo...actually i hopes it you so then we cant ahahaha and i wont have to get all these damn email notifications....you people just strive to annoy people and test the limits
sorry for hurting your feelings, i know you have it easy in that fantasy world of yours probably not much insulting going on with all you hippies cause you high all the time
you obviously dont read my full posts....so ill put it in caps U NEVER ORIGINALLY SAID THE MCOLLEY CASE YOU JUST SAID "A CASE" AND I WAS GENERALIZING SAYING MOST CASES SETTLE OF OF COURT WITHOUT ADMITTING GUILT....i just typed that and you chose to only pick part of my statement out of context and thats exactly what you've been doing for that last day......stop writing @spurs8550
i keep saying im done repeating myself and i cant believe im still responding to such an idiot, i would just never check this message board again, but then i get your emails and the stuff you say is so ludacris and idiotic i just cant help myself to respond....so pleeeeeeeeease stop writing at @spurs8550 i dont wanna hear your nonsense reply, you can write it but just dont send it to my email cause then i wont know or care what you replied...you have know idea what your talking about
ignorant is not a strong enough word for what you are, but its ok cause ignorant people dont know they're stupid, so have fun in your fantasy world.....and please stop writing @spurs8550 cause im sick of getting an email every 5 secs about your nonsense...you dont see me doing that
you quoted 2 case laws,1 was a sante fe case that had different circumstance which ive repeated 20 times and you have ignored just like every other time i prove you wrong. the 2nd was terry search case law that any idiot who took the very first criminal justice class at community college knows, and a terrry frisk doesnt even pretain to this case...so please stop acting like you wrote the book on this cause you have no idea....congrats your batting .000 with case laws
I never said the city lost McColley, u never originally said the case name u just said a case.... I as generalizing that most cases are settled out of court and the city doesn't admit guilt....and like I also said about ur McColley cause it was different cirumstances
What planet are you from? I studied criminal justice along with passed the police academy and I deal with these laws and situations on a daily basis, I know legally what I'm allowed to do and not do... I explained to you 50 times why it's justified and legal, u just keep ignoring it,... Like I said about your case laws your bringing up they are I'm favor of my argument.... You are misunderstanding and misinterpreting them
And I'll tell u what a guy comes up behind me on a MV stop with a gun, I'm taking him down. First thing they teach you as a cop is your own safety comes first. I'd rather violate his right to carry a fire arm than lose my right to stay alive. I'm not gonna turn my back on him and wait and see what he's gonna do. He's obviously approaching with a motive he doesn't just wanna say hello.
Knowingly is the most important word there. He knew he was going to approach that cop and try to get involved in the invest with the gun on his hip. He says it right in the beginning " I spotted them, I'm gonna park and walk up" he knew exactly what he was doing. He didn't turn the corner and the cop was accidentally there in front of him
Ok you worded it differently, know i understand what your trying to say, but just because he walked back to the sidewalk doesnt cancel out the fact that the officer felt threatened by his first actions. This gives him reasonable suspicion to detain.
Your misunderstanding and interpretation of the law is not my fault. there's not a judge in the world that wouldn't say that cop had enough suspicion to detain an possible even enough cause to arrest depending on what info was gathered while he was detained. And New Mexico is one of the states that has the stop and identify law, if your detained (which they had enough suspicion to detain) you must identify yourself
I know all about terry but quoting it actually helps my case.... Reasonable suspicion is less than probable cause. Reasonable suspicion is used to detain and invest to build probable cause for an arrest. So cause is clearly present let alone suspicion..... And u sound rediculous saying that he lost the opportunity to invoke the law only minutes later
Just cause he was walking minding his own business after the fact doesn't erase what he did minutes earlier... It's idiotic for you to suggest that.... Your going off what you feel the laws should be instead of what they actually are
Just cause he was walking minding his own business after the fact doesn't erase what he did minutes earlier... It's idiotic for you to suggest that.... Your going off what you feel the laws should be instead of what they actually are
They clearly had more than enough reasonable suspicion. If this led to his arrest All you have to do is build probable cause. is it reasonable that this officer felt threatened that this man with a gun approaching him could possibly harm him? Yes he stated it and that's enough probable cause right there...lock him up and let the courts take over... The street is not a court room u don't have to prove guilt just enough probable cause to make an arrest
They clearly had more than enough reasonable suspicion. If this led to his arrest All you have to do is build probable cause. is it reasonable that this officer felt threatened that this man with a gun approaching him could possibly harm him? Yes he stated it and that's enough probable cause right there...lock him up and let the courts take over... The street is not a court room u don't have to prove guilt just enough probable cause to make an arrest
"And, in justifying the particular intrusion, the police officer must be able to point to specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant that intrusion....
good faith on the part of the arresting officer is not enough"
This convo is going In circles, I don't know how many times I have to explain it, and when u get proven wrong you tell me I'm making stuff up.... Go do your own dirty work and look it up, I already went to school for this shit.
It's not an opinion, your obviously not involved with criminal justice for your career. If he was minding his own business walking then the cop had no right to stop him. But all the facts build probable cause to detain him and invest what his intentions were. What are those facts? Was he involved with the invest? No. Does he approach a cop with a fire arm? Yes. Did the officer feel threatened ? Yes he states that. Did he have a legitimate purpose for doing this? Not sure, that's why you detain
It's not what someone's thinking, if that person stopped is over 18 he has no legal right to walk up and try and get involved, if he would have stayed across the street fine. But he approached the officer with a weapon. The officer doesn't know his intentions and for his own safety is legally allowed to detain and invest. The officer says how he feels, he says "he's protecting himself" so that means at one point he felt threatened
It's not what someone's thinking, if that person stopped is over 18 he has no legal right to walk up and try and get involved, if he would have stayed across the street fine. But he approached the officer with a weapon. The officer doesn't know his intentions and for his own safety is legally allowed to detain and invest. The officer says how he feels, he says "he's protecting himself" so that means at one point he felt threatened
Wether the gun is legal or illegal it all goes off of how the victim takes its presence. If the victim feels threatened its enough to be detained, ID'd, and even charged. Even if the gun is never Un holstered or if there is no verbal threat to use it.
How is it an opinion that he did not belong in the invest? The only ways legally he would be involved is if he was a witness and was asked for input, which he was not cause he showed up after, or I'd it involved his underage child which it did not
Like I said early all the cop had to say is he felt threatened by the guy walking up behind him to his scene carrying a gun. That's enough to detain and ID. That word knowingly is what gets him, he knew he didn't belong walking up to the investigation and he did it anyway
Your honestly going to sit here and try to say New Mexico has no obstruction of justice charge? Your stupider than I thought. Its not even worth replying to your nonsense anymore
@spurs8550 said: "Your honestly going to sit here and try to say New Mexico has no obstruction of justice charge?"
I did not say that. If you wish to comment to me, comment on what I wrote, not what you guess about.
I suggest you read New Mexico Statutes - Section 30-22-1. The first word in section "A" should help you understand why the action at 00:22 was important.
Nopedawg said: Poofnik1 you are ignorant beyond belief. A. It is unlawful for person, after being advised that the person's refusal to answer is unlawful, to fail or refuse officer who has lawfully detained the person based on "Reasonable Suspicion" the person has committed is committing or is about to commit a crime. So like I said before if the cop was smart he should have detained him as a suspicious person. Whether or not the person is being detained illegally depends. Face bitch...
@Pafoofnik1 you told me to show you the statue... which I did but you blind to the facts. So you should really not debate topics you have know knowledge about. Maybe read a book, or take a Criminal Justice course or something... Anyway Papoopdik1 quite wheezing off this dudes gig and admit your gay and the guy in the vid is your boyfriend...
If he was walking down the street minding his own business and the cop tried to ID him for carrying your absolutely right....but that's not what happened here
If u get involved in an investigation you don't belong in it is called obstructing. Once the officer finished the first invest he moved on to invest this idiot who walked up behind him with a gun. All that officer had to do was say he felt threatened by him walking up with a gun during an investigation and it would have been justified to detain and possibly even arrest him.
@spurs8550 -Not true, the gun card does not work because the gun was legal. He did not make contact with the police, he stood at a distance filming, perfectly legal.
That's a different case with different circumstances like i said, obviously they didn't rule on random. They didn't stop the guy solely for carrying, they stopped him because he walked up in the investigation, it's the combination. If you wanna carry your gun and but your nose were it doesn't belong u deserve to be checked out. I meant random as they didnt just say "hey how about we stop this guy and harass him for no reason" this idiot put himself in that situation
@spurs8550 SAID: "they stopped him because he walked up in the investigation, "
The gentleman was not violating any law at that point. The officer lost the chance for investigating a possible impeding violation by the person's response to the officers instructions at 00:22.
Now you say: "If you wanna carry your gun and but your nose were it doesn't belong u deserve to be checked out."
Of course, but officers do not have the authority to detain and question while doing so.
It's not true the city lost the case, they settle out of court for less money without admitting guilt. And u don't know the circumstances, every case is different... This cop didn't just pick on this random guy carrying a gun walking down the street. That idiot walked up on the cops investigation. And yes a motor vehicle stop is an investigation. This asshole asked to be fucked with by the cops... And where I'm from noone can carry, u have a gun here cops are shooting your ass not asking for ID
@spurs8550: Yes, the city lost in court. "Mr. St. John's motion for summary judgment is granted with regard to liability on Plaintiff's claims under the Fourth Amendment and New Mexico Constitution." (McColley)
McColley didn't rule on 'random'. It ruled on being detained for carrying a weapon.
Please read the case for more information.
It doesn't matter what the laws are in your state in this incident.
Same thing happened in Dickson City, Pa. The district attorney agreed it was a violation of civil rights for the officer to demand ID for open carry. Period.
If you do get arrested is it really worth all the time and money spent on fighting the case just to say I told you so?... Don't forget all those cops, judges , and lawyers will be getting paid to be there
@spurs8550: One gentleman did not take you advice and instead filed suit.
The city lost the case and settled for $21,000.
What was much more important is that now that man can do something lawful like open carry without fear of the same police department violating his rights again.
Also, the court decision can be reference when other police decide to step outside the law in this way.
I don't see the point in all these new stupid videos testing the cops. You accomplish nothing and just waste your own time and create your own problems..... It's one thing if cops are coming to your house and following you around but when you do idiotic things like this you deserve whatever happens
How Could anyone dislike this Video? This Guy is standing up for Anti-Corruption! Very Brave. I would have shivers in my voice as well with those guys with there hands on their guns, just waiting for an excuse to escalate. They really shouldn't be able to lie like that. You have Balls of steal man. Thx for doing what you're doing for this country.
@128726 They were out of line and they knew it. If they weren't they would have taken him in. So what if he is trying to attract attention, he's still showing people should stand up for themselves when they're in the right. Just because someone wears a badge doesn't mean you should automatically give in to them.
@sonsofmosiah no but man they put there fucking life on the line for and i understand that you shouldnt let them push you around..(especially if there being dicks) but from what i saw they werent being disrespectful , ill go back and watch the video again to see if missed something but until then i think that cops in america are getting out of control but if you go around trying to entagnize them you are no better than they are
I have a concealed weapons permit here in Oregon & I on occasion open carry, but under no circumstances do I look for on confrontaion from the police. The way I see it these idiots looking for a police altercations make the rest of us pissed off.
I respect all law enforcement and I would never put them in a position that would make them feel unsafe.
@MrElkrick Ad hominem attack. How long did it take you to think of that brilliant statement. Why's he so "batshit crazy" as you say? Do you have a problem with the constitution?
@RaytheonPwnsYou Would you consider someone who would rather give in to our enemy's demands a sane person? Remember that Paul stated that 911 was our fault because the US was in Saudi Arabia on Muslim holy grounds, and that was why 911 attack happened. The man is totally insane, why would any normal person agree that Iran should have nuclear weapons just because it's their right.
Oh I see you would love to see Israel being wiped off the face of the earth, and if in fact you do agree then that speaks volumes of who and what you really are.
You see mister, I believe that God has his chosen people, they are the Jews, what Paul would like to see is the absolute destruction of our great nation by way of bowing down to radical nut jobs.
@MrElkrick: Maybe Judeo-Christian are waging a holy war in the middle east, using the creation of Israel taken by force from Palestine as the christian foothold, and U.S. soldiers to do their dirty work.
@Pafoofnik1 Really? Are you aware that there was never a country called Palestine, and in fact the majority of Arab countries disown the Palestinians. And by the way it's not really the Juedo-Christian style to wage holy war, that would be a Muslim agenda. Good try though.
@MrElkrick. My point is that maybe Judeo-Christian are waging a holy war in the middle east, using the creation of Israel taken by force from Palestine as the christian foothold, and U.S. soldiers to do their dirty work.
@MrElkrick All fox news talking points. Al qaeda SPECIFICALLY said thats why they attacked us. Iran wouldn't nuke Israel. They aren't stupid. They never said "they'd wipe Israel off the map". Iran hasn't attacked a single country in over 2 centuries. So you really think they'd nuke Israel and flush 5000 years of Persian history down the shitter?
You have access to the internet, obviously, use it to better your understanding and I mean that in the most respectful way, man.
@RaytheonPwnsYou Humm, seems to me that Iran attacked Iraq some time in the past two thousand years, oh lets not forget Greece now, or how about Mongolia?
And the leader of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has made several threats to destroy Israel....so, where have you been? All respect back at ya.
@MrElkrick One other thing, Iran is not at all stupid....they do however have a completely different out look on human life then we do, you see death to them, (especially during Jihad conflict), means a ticket to heaven. I don't know where your getting your information friend but man it is totally wrong.
@MrElkrick A century is 100 years... a millennium is 1000. So 200 years, they haven't attacked anyone. Iraq attacked Iran with our support and backing. Remember all the biological weapons we gave saddamn then went back in to get in 2003?
As for Ahmadinejad he said "Zionism will be wiped from the pages of history." you can google that. He never said anything about wiping Israel off the map. That is noe-conservitive/Liberal globalist propaganda. You do know what Zionism is?
Why do all these 'open carry' guys get nervous and stumble and stutter their words when confronted by police officers? I still think the cops are barking up the wrong tree with you and often wonder why they can't just let you be on your way. It becomes a pissing match, especially when you appear to be nervous. If you smiled and laughed and didn't stutter things would go so much better.
Stupid move to walk up unannounced on a traffic stop with a pistol on your hip. I would of drawn down on him and the lady in the car. An ambush would look the same way. The cops have rights also. Right number 1 is to go home alive at the end of their shift. Comman sence people.
Did I just hear that correctly? The officer said "I feel that I have the right to check on you..." First off an officer can not do anything just because they "feel" like it. Secondly as an officer your "feelings" are not substitutes of a law, which in this case does not exist, because if this person had broken a law the officer would, then, have that right or authority. Not I feel I have the right. Its either you have the authority to do so or you don't.. Clearly they didn't.
If you value your privacy then stay the fuck inside your house asshole! Since you want to be Mr. Big shot; do us all a favor and don't call the police when you can't or don't know how to handle a situation in the future. I am surprised they didn't bring you in under investigative purposes. It's fine if you want to record but how stupid are you to walk up to him with a gun??? How old r u? Do u have any common sense?
Dude kicked ass! Way to keep your composure good job man.
Just a tip for next time instead of asking am i legally required to do something, know the law by heart and state in the affirmative you are not obligated to comply. Good job tho man.
in most states, any law enforcement officer CAN ask u for ID, irregardless... dude way to tell them fucking cops off, here in Mississippi u would have got your ass beat by the cops for not complying....
ROFLMAO, "Per the law, if I'm not being detained, I have not broken any law, I do not need to produce identification. I'm gonna leave the scene, in a peaceful manner, I wish you guys a good day", and leave them in the dust. Well done.
Understandable? Spics should never be allowed authority over Caucasians. As you all can see in this video presentation, they don't have sufficient brain matter to interpret and uphold law. Cock fighting, yes...law enforcement, NO!
I have to admit that you did approach that situation in a weird manner. You walked right up into the scene, packing no less, and since felons as well as those convicted of DV cannot carry, then the only way for him to determine this is to perform an ID check. I'm not saying that the law isn't on your side, but in this specific situation you acted really odd and without much common sense. For the record, I am pro open-carry, but I have to give you my honest take on this video.
the vid proves if you don't know ur rights the lawful authorities would make up a false statement of the law to fool u into complying and give up ur rights. some people don't believe this truth. they will be like "sheeps for the slaughter."
if u don't exercise ur rights u will lose them. the guy with camera is acting a bit extreme. but it is a wake up call to keep people like the govt from getting out of control. if the guy was a perp why did the cops not just apprehend him..because he was not in any violation of the law. the cops were stumped cause their perceived god like powers were questioned!
Dude, I am all for carrying a weapon legally. I have done so for years with a VALID PERMIT. You sir, are an asshole. Fine, you want to be a big shot and open carry??? Go get a permit to conceal carry then you won't have any problems, but assholes like you like problems. As for not wanting to show an Id. " It is unlawful for a felon to receive, transport or possess any firearm or destructive device in this state. NMSA 1978, Section 30-7-16. how does a cop know if your a felon, what a tool.
I'm sure you have nothing better to do
spurs8550 5 hours ago
I have already explained how he had reasonable suspicion and why it would be justified to detain multiple times, you just keep asking the same questions and them ignoring the answers, just go down to the beginning of our convo and reread it all because your just acting ignorant, I kinda feel bad at this point cause you might be slow or something... So I've had enough repeating myself for 2 days.... I give up, you win
spurs8550 5 hours ago
@spurs8550: Thanks for the debate.
I'll be sure to pick it back up need be.
Pafoofnik1 5 hours ago
Oh and by the way, if you value your privacy why invade his privacy? Would you like it if you were at work and someone videoed you and you had no idea who the hell they are?
ColtelloGocce 12 hours ago
I understand both sides of this. On your part it is harassing an officer by doing that, It also is dangerous when someone armed while videoing you. But he did harass you by following you. You should have shown your I.D to them because you were suspicious. And Law has every right to investigate suspicious activity.
ColtelloGocce 12 hours ago
@ColtelloGocce said: "And Law has every right to investigate suspicious activity. "
They sure do, they just can't stop and question a person while doing so unless they have consent or reasonable suspicion that the person is engaged in criminal activity.
Pafoofnik1 6 hours ago
like i've already said 50 times to you papoopdik, yes a person can not be stopped solely for carrying a fireaarm....but thats not what happened here you fucking idiot
spurs8550 13 hours ago
@spurs8550: I have addressed the weapon and the impeding issues. What else did the agent say the person was stopped for then?
Or does this all boil down to you think he was impeding, and I don't think he was? If you really think he was impeding, then what was there to investigate? The officer was there when it happened (if it did).
So if it happened, where was the arrest?
Pafoofnik1 5 hours ago
@davidforthoffer but if you like we can just say i was talking to you cause you obvioulsy fall in that category too
spurs8550 13 hours ago
@davidforthhoffer the person who i was calling an idiot it was very clear too, but thanks for your concern
spurs8550 13 hours ago
I know I'm right I proved him wrong so many times and he just keeps repeating the same shit so I gave up on that, like i said hes ignorant. he's a loser with nothin better to do
spurs8550 13 hours ago
Haha yeah I'm so gay, i have women all over me, they love a man in uniform, I get laid so much your head would explode if u were me.... You computer tough guys are just jealous, I live the life, you hide in your basements and critique it
spurs8550 13 hours ago
why is Papoopdik1 so gay?
TheNopedawg 1 day ago
@TheNopedawg oh yeah cause he like wiener...
TheNopedawg 1 day ago
Your def an idiot
spurs8550 1 day ago
@spurs8550: However you are still getting the contraction wrong.
That's OK. I'm just enjoying watching your ego doing all this damage...
New Mexico law enforcement officers cannot legally detain a person for open carrying a firearm.
Pafoofnik1 1 day ago
@spurs8550 This guy has no idea what he is talking about. Don't waste time on this fag cause he is misinformed and gay...
TheNopedawg 23 hours ago
you dont listen you just talk...your a nobody dont try to hint that your lawyer cause your too stupid to be lawyer
spurs8550 1 day ago
@spurs8550: Jumping to conclusions again I see.
I never said I was a lawyer.
Glad to see you were able to figure out the correct spelling of the word 'idiot' though. Maybe now you can graduate to calling me more compound wordage
like 'poo-poo head' or something.
The pedestrian was not violating any laws in this video.
Pafoofnik1 1 day ago
your an idiot
spurs8550 1 day ago
@spurs8550 said, "your an idiot".
That makes it very clear who is an idiot.
DavidForthoffer 17 hours ago
The law goes how I enforce it and I've never once lost a case, lawsuit, or had a judge say I made an unlawful arrest.... I live the life your a bystander, stick to your computer
spurs8550 1 day ago
@spurs8550: Thanks for sharing that you think you are so all-important that "The law goes how I enforce it ".
I am also familiar with a court room. I have also never lost a case or have the other party settle in my favor before stepping in front of the judge.
Of course none of this has any bearing on the facts about this incident.
Pafoofnik1 1 day ago
Your an isiot
spurs8550 1 day ago
It doesn't matter if you disagree, cause the law doesn't go by how you interpret it, cause your a nobody but a prick out to annoy people
spurs8550 1 day ago
@spurs8550: And it doesn't matter if you disagree, because the law doesn't go by how you interpret it. It goes by what is lawful.
I guess the officers realized this when they let the pedestrian just walk away.
And I guess New Mexico courts realized this when it affirmed that a person cannot be detained for open carry
And the legislature for the sense to include the word "knowingly" in 30-22-1, so people would know when they were violating the law.
And round and round we go.
Pafoofnik1 1 day ago
Your not defending anyones rights, your being an asshole.... I just told you he's purposely abusing his rights trying to cash in on a lawsuit and at the same time risking people's lives.... So just shutup already cause your an ignorant little bitch
spurs8550 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@spurs8550 said: "I just told you he's purposely abusing his rights..."
I don't believe you.
Maybe you could insult me some more? It doesn't seem to be working but you go right ahead and blast away if it makes you feel better. It won't alter the fact that there are people out there that don't agree woth you.
Pafoofnik1 1 day ago
Dude you don't get it, wether I knew who he was or not it would have been justifiable to detain. But your just ignorant so now just shut the fuck up... Cause your just as much of an asshole as him and u like annoying people for attention like him ...Why dont you go test it out in the field and hopefully u get shot and can't come back with your corny smart ass comments.... U have no credentials no experience so shut the fuck cause u don't know shit.... Everyone wants to critique cops from what t
spurs8550 1 day ago
@spurs8550: You think it would of been justifiable to detain. I disagree.
Why do you feel the need to personally attack me at this point? I disagree with your position, and bring facts to justify mine.
What does calling me names do to help you at this point?
And now you want me to be murdered?
Pafoofnik1 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
No he's an asshole and was purposely and knowliny trying to test and push the limits of the police trying to get arrested so he can sue and get a monetary gain... That's an abuse of rights and you were defending him.....
spurs8550 1 day ago
No he's an asshole and was purposely and knowliny trying to test and push the limits of the police trying to get arrested so he can sue and get a monetary gain... That's an abuse of rights and you were defending him.....
spurs8550 1 day ago
@spurs8550 said: "he's an asshole.." etc etc.
OK. So you are attacking the man, not the incident.
This makes more sense.
And you are quite mistaken about my motives. I cannot defend him simply because I do not know him.
I am defending our rights.
Pafoofnik1 1 day ago
this is one of their many videos
spurs8550 1 day ago
you obviously dont know who this guy is...his name is pete him and his friend Ademo started a website called copblock.org....they go around and fuck with the police and video tape it trying to get lawsuits all over the country...thats why i say he KNOWINGLY did this....google it asshole
spurs8550 1 day ago
@spurs8550: So is this why you've been talking so much here, because you don't like the guy?
Please do not direct vulgarity at me.
Pafoofnik1 1 day ago
they are gonna run out of time, money, and motivation...the system has all the time and money in the world
spurs8550 1 day ago
they know the laws and they walk the border line sometimes, they will eventually slip up and comit a serious crime, they keep trying to go bigger an bigger to attract attention...ive seen most of their videos....believe me they will get sick of getting arrested and paying fines and having to go to court...this thing is gonna run outta steam eventually, the one leader already got sentenced to some time, and this kid pete looked like a sad puppy when he was locked up last time
spurs8550 1 day ago
@spurs8550: What are you talking about? The person here was not arrested.
In fact, he just walked away...
Pafoofnik1 1 day ago
and i cant wait til one of these idiots shows up in my city with a camera, im too smart for them they are just looking for attention and a reaction, all you gotta do is ignore them and they start having hissy fits...
spurs8550 1 day ago
its not disagreeing when i know for a fact your wrong, cause i do this for a living,
spurs8550 1 day ago
cant wait til one of these jackasses gets popped and that video gets posted on youtube...then we can continue this convo...actually i hopes it you so then we cant ahahaha and i wont have to get all these damn email notifications....you people just strive to annoy people and test the limits
spurs8550 1 day ago
sorry for hurting your feelings, i know you have it easy in that fantasy world of yours probably not much insulting going on with all you hippies cause you high all the time
spurs8550 1 day ago
@spurs8550: Not to worry, you haven't hurt my feelings in the least. How can you do so if all you are doing,
is talk?
Pafoofnik1 1 day ago
BECAUSE YOUR WRONG, and i call a spade a spade, just like i call an idiot an idiot
spurs8550 1 day ago
ego has nothing to do to it, i keep getting these fuckin email notifications and your so dead wrong i almost feel like im obligated
spurs8550 1 day ago
you havent brought one shred of truth tour a mis informed idiot
spurs8550 1 day ago
@spurs8550: Why do you feel the need to personally insult someone just because they disagree with you?
Pafoofnik1 1 day ago
you obviously dont read my full posts....so ill put it in caps U NEVER ORIGINALLY SAID THE MCOLLEY CASE YOU JUST SAID "A CASE" AND I WAS GENERALIZING SAYING MOST CASES SETTLE OF OF COURT WITHOUT ADMITTING GUILT....i just typed that and you chose to only pick part of my statement out of context and thats exactly what you've been doing for that last day......stop writing @spurs8550
spurs8550 1 day ago
i keep saying im done repeating myself and i cant believe im still responding to such an idiot, i would just never check this message board again, but then i get your emails and the stuff you say is so ludacris and idiotic i just cant help myself to respond....so pleeeeeeeeease stop writing at @spurs8550 i dont wanna hear your nonsense reply, you can write it but just dont send it to my email cause then i wont know or care what you replied...you have know idea what your talking about
spurs8550 1 day ago
@spurs8550 said: "i cant believe im still responding to such an idiot"
You have the power to stop yourself.
Like I said. Ego...
Pafoofnik1 1 day ago
ignorant is not a strong enough word for what you are, but its ok cause ignorant people dont know they're stupid, so have fun in your fantasy world.....and please stop writing @spurs8550 cause im sick of getting an email every 5 secs about your nonsense...you dont see me doing that
spurs8550 1 day ago
@spurs8550: Well, it on;y took you about a day to go ad-hominem.
Not bad.
If you don't want to see email notifications of my comments, then turn the feature off, or ignore me.
Until then, I will continue to call people out when I think they have the facts wrong, and I'll still bring proof with me.
Pafoofnik1 1 day ago
you quoted 2 case laws,1 was a sante fe case that had different circumstance which ive repeated 20 times and you have ignored just like every other time i prove you wrong. the 2nd was terry search case law that any idiot who took the very first criminal justice class at community college knows, and a terrry frisk doesnt even pretain to this case...so please stop acting like you wrote the book on this cause you have no idea....congrats your batting .000 with case laws
spurs8550 1 day ago
@spurs8550:
Irrelevant. I said Terry stop,. not frisk.
But you just go right on talking now, if it makes you feel better.
Pafoofnik1 1 day ago
I never said the city lost McColley, u never originally said the case name u just said a case.... I as generalizing that most cases are settled out of court and the city doesn't admit guilt....and like I also said about ur McColley cause it was different cirumstances
spurs8550 1 day ago
@spurs8550 said: "I never said the city lost McColley"
Yes, you did. Here are your own words:
"It's not true the city lost the case, they settle out of court for less money without admitting guilt."
Pafoofnik1 1 day ago
What planet are you from? I studied criminal justice along with passed the police academy and I deal with these laws and situations on a daily basis, I know legally what I'm allowed to do and not do... I explained to you 50 times why it's justified and legal, u just keep ignoring it,... Like I said about your case laws your bringing up they are I'm favor of my argument.... You are misunderstanding and misinterpreting them
spurs8550 1 day ago
@spurs8550: Thanks for sharing your academic achievements.
I'm interested in facts and laws, not your 'explanations'.
Pafoofnik1 1 day ago
These guys think they are being all cute and funny with there movement but their eventually gonna fuck with the wrong guy
spurs8550 1 day ago
@spurs8550: I think you don't like what the pedestrian did,and think he should be punished. Yet you cannot find a legal avenue to justify your wish.
So you made up some stuff, like the city lost McColley, the person was obstrucing, and that I said N.M. doesn't have an obstructing statute.
Now you have some bloke calling you on it, bringing court decisions and statutes.
And your ego won't let you admit to yourself that someone doesn't agree with you,
So you talk and talk and talk.
Pafoofnik1 1 day ago
And I'll tell u what a guy comes up behind me on a MV stop with a gun, I'm taking him down. First thing they teach you as a cop is your own safety comes first. I'd rather violate his right to carry a fire arm than lose my right to stay alive. I'm not gonna turn my back on him and wait and see what he's gonna do. He's obviously approaching with a motive he doesn't just wanna say hello.
spurs8550 1 day ago
@spurs8550: So you would murder a person for following the law?
Pafoofnik1 1 day ago
Knowingly is the most important word there. He knew he was going to approach that cop and try to get involved in the invest with the gun on his hip. He says it right in the beginning " I spotted them, I'm gonna park and walk up" he knew exactly what he was doing. He didn't turn the corner and the cop was accidentally there in front of him
spurs8550 1 day ago
@spurs8550: Thanks for sharing your opinions of what happened in this video.
Pafoofnik1 1 day ago
Ok you worded it differently, know i understand what your trying to say, but just because he walked back to the sidewalk doesnt cancel out the fact that the officer felt threatened by his first actions. This gives him reasonable suspicion to detain.
spurs8550 1 day ago
@spurs8550 sadi: "This gives him reasonable suspicion to detain."
Are you going to back up this assertion you keep spouting, or just talk some more?
Pafoofnik1 1 day ago
Your misunderstanding and interpretation of the law is not my fault. there's not a judge in the world that wouldn't say that cop had enough suspicion to detain an possible even enough cause to arrest depending on what info was gathered while he was detained. And New Mexico is one of the states that has the stop and identify law, if your detained (which they had enough suspicion to detain) you must identify yourself
spurs8550 1 day ago
@spurs8550: More talk I see.
Thanks for sharing your hypothetical conclusions with us.
Pafoofnik1 1 day ago
I know all about terry but quoting it actually helps my case.... Reasonable suspicion is less than probable cause. Reasonable suspicion is used to detain and invest to build probable cause for an arrest. So cause is clearly present let alone suspicion..... And u sound rediculous saying that he lost the opportunity to invoke the law only minutes later
spurs8550 1 day ago
@spurs8550: I see that you are just talking some more.
I'll be back in a bit to see if you will bringing anything more concrete to this discussion.
And you say: "rediculous saying that he lost the opportunity to invoke the law only minutes later"
That's not what I said. I said the officer lost the ability to invoke the impeding law because of the pedestrians actions at 00:22.
I'll be happy to explain it again if you didn't grasp the meaning of the word 'knowingly; the first time.
Pafoofnik1 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Just cause he was walking minding his own business after the fact doesn't erase what he did minutes earlier... It's idiotic for you to suggest that.... Your going off what you feel the laws should be instead of what they actually are
spurs8550 1 day ago
Just cause he was walking minding his own business after the fact doesn't erase what he did minutes earlier... It's idiotic for you to suggest that.... Your going off what you feel the laws should be instead of what they actually are
spurs8550 1 day ago
@spurs8550: Facts that the pedestrian has or is violating what laws?
I have already shown the New Mexico impeding law and the time stamp where the officer lost the opportunity to invoke this law.
It's not what I feel, it's what I quoted.
Would you like to see it again, and then compare it to the quotes and cites you provided.
Oh that's right. You didn't quote or cite any...
Which leaves what? Be specific. Quote and cite, not just more of your opinion.
Pafoofnik1 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
They clearly had more than enough reasonable suspicion. If this led to his arrest All you have to do is build probable cause. is it reasonable that this officer felt threatened that this man with a gun approaching him could possibly harm him? Yes he stated it and that's enough probable cause right there...lock him up and let the courts take over... The street is not a court room u don't have to prove guilt just enough probable cause to make an arrest
spurs8550 1 day ago
They clearly had more than enough reasonable suspicion. If this led to his arrest All you have to do is build probable cause. is it reasonable that this officer felt threatened that this man with a gun approaching him could possibly harm him? Yes he stated it and that's enough probable cause right there...lock him up and let the courts take over... The street is not a court room u don't have to prove guilt just enough probable cause to make an arrest
spurs8550 1 day ago
@spurs8550:
"And, in justifying the particular intrusion, the police officer must be able to point to specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant that intrusion....
good faith on the part of the arresting officer is not enough"
Terry
Pafoofnik1 1 day ago
This convo is going In circles, I don't know how many times I have to explain it, and when u get proven wrong you tell me I'm making stuff up.... Go do your own dirty work and look it up, I already went to school for this shit.
spurs8550 1 day ago
@spurs8550: I have a different opinion than you do, and I bring legal backing to support my opinion.
Of course you have not proven me wrong. You just are presenting your facts, and I am presenting mine.
Pafoofnik1 1 day ago
It's not an opinion, your obviously not involved with criminal justice for your career. If he was minding his own business walking then the cop had no right to stop him. But all the facts build probable cause to detain him and invest what his intentions were. What are those facts? Was he involved with the invest? No. Does he approach a cop with a fire arm? Yes. Did the officer feel threatened ? Yes he states that. Did he have a legitimate purpose for doing this? Not sure, that's why you detain
spurs8550 1 day ago
@spurs8550 said: "If he was minding his own business walking then the cop had no right to stop him"
He was minding his own business waking when the officer stopped him.
and you say "But all the facts build probable cause to detain him and invest what his intentions were. "
Apparently you are also obviously not involved with criminal justice. Officers do not need probable cause.
But they do need reasonable suspicion.
Read up on "Terry Search".
Pafoofnik1 1 day ago
It's not what someone's thinking, if that person stopped is over 18 he has no legal right to walk up and try and get involved, if he would have stayed across the street fine. But he approached the officer with a weapon. The officer doesn't know his intentions and for his own safety is legally allowed to detain and invest. The officer says how he feels, he says "he's protecting himself" so that means at one point he felt threatened
spurs8550 1 day ago
It's not what someone's thinking, if that person stopped is over 18 he has no legal right to walk up and try and get involved, if he would have stayed across the street fine. But he approached the officer with a weapon. The officer doesn't know his intentions and for his own safety is legally allowed to detain and invest. The officer says how he feels, he says "he's protecting himself" so that means at one point he felt threatened
spurs8550 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@spurs8550 said: "The officer doesn't know his intentions and for his own safety is legally allowed to detain and invest."
You keep saying this like it's more than just an opinion of yours.
It's not.
Pafoofnik1 1 day ago
Wether the gun is legal or illegal it all goes off of how the victim takes its presence. If the victim feels threatened its enough to be detained, ID'd, and even charged. Even if the gun is never Un holstered or if there is no verbal threat to use it.
spurs8550 1 day ago
@spurs8550: Do you have any legal cites behind all this stuff you just made up?
Or are you just winging it as you go here?
Pafoofnik1 1 day ago
How is it an opinion that he did not belong in the invest? The only ways legally he would be involved is if he was a witness and was asked for input, which he was not cause he showed up after, or I'd it involved his underage child which it did not
spurs8550 1 day ago
@spurs8550 Of course it's just your opinion. You are making a guess about what someone is thinking.
Unless of course you have proof that he had prior knowledge of something at a particular point.
Do you?
Pafoofnik1 1 day ago
Like I said early all the cop had to say is he felt threatened by the guy walking up behind him to his scene carrying a gun. That's enough to detain and ID. That word knowingly is what gets him, he knew he didn't belong walking up to the investigation and he did it anyway
spurs8550 1 day ago
@spurs8550: Yup. Of course you are now introduction a hypothetical situation.
They all could have locked arms and riverdanced to a bar.
See, there's another hypothetical situation.
Now you said: "he knew he didn't belong walking up to the investigation." This is a baseless opinion of yours.
Now, back to the facts...
Pafoofnik1 1 day ago
I looked up the statue under New Mexico law just so you will shut up, section 30-22-1 covers resisting, evading, or obstructing and officer. Goodbye
spurs8550 1 day ago
@spurs8550: It sure does.
What it stipulates is that a person be "...knowingly obstructing, resisting or opposing any officer".
This is why the events at 00:22 negated the ability to invoke the impeding statute.
Glad we cleared that up.
Pafoofnik1 1 day ago
Your honestly going to sit here and try to say New Mexico has no obstruction of justice charge? Your stupider than I thought. Its not even worth replying to your nonsense anymore
spurs8550 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@spurs8550 said: "Your honestly going to sit here and try to say New Mexico has no obstruction of justice charge?"
I did not say that. If you wish to comment to me, comment on what I wrote, not what you guess about.
I suggest you read New Mexico Statutes - Section 30-22-1. The first word in section "A" should help you understand why the action at 00:22 was important.
Pafoofnik1 1 day ago
Nopedawg said: Poofnik1 you are ignorant beyond belief. A. It is unlawful for person, after being advised that the person's refusal to answer is unlawful, to fail or refuse officer who has lawfully detained the person based on "Reasonable Suspicion" the person has committed is committing or is about to commit a crime. So like I said before if the cop was smart he should have detained him as a suspicious person. Whether or not the person is being detained illegally depends. Face bitch...
TheNopedawg 1 day ago
@TheNopedawg: Suspicion of what, exactly?
Open carry doesn't work.
Obstruction doesn't work.
What else did the officer mention?
Pafoofnik1 1 day ago
@Pafoofnik1 Just bow down bitch cause I got you in checkmate... Your not even on my level homie.
TheNopedawg 1 day ago
@TheNopedawg: I see you are unable to answer the question. That's OK. It's been answered the same way many times.
Pafoofnik1 1 day ago
@Pafoofnik1 you told me to show you the statue... which I did but you blind to the facts. So you should really not debate topics you have know knowledge about. Maybe read a book, or take a Criminal Justice course or something... Anyway Papoopdik1 quite wheezing off this dudes gig and admit your gay and the guy in the vid is your boyfriend...
TheNopedawg 1 day ago
@TheNopedawg: I did not see a single statute in any of your 4 comments.
What you did provide was some words about showing ID...
From an Arizona statute.
This incident took place in New Mexcio.
And my request was the statute that this person was suspected of violating
Not what Arizona feels about it.
Who's blind again?
Pafoofnik1 1 day ago
The cop does not "lose his chance to investigate" just cause the guys walks away while the cops still busy
spurs8550 1 day ago
If he was walking down the street minding his own business and the cop tried to ID him for carrying your absolutely right....but that's not what happened here
spurs8550 1 day ago
If u get involved in an investigation you don't belong in it is called obstructing. Once the officer finished the first invest he moved on to invest this idiot who walked up behind him with a gun. All that officer had to do was say he felt threatened by him walking up with a gun during an investigation and it would have been justified to detain and possibly even arrest him.
spurs8550 1 day ago
@spurs8550 said: "If u get involved in an investigation you don't belong in it is called obstructing." not according to New Mexico law.
Pafoofnik1 1 day ago
@spurs8550 -Not true, the gun card does not work because the gun was legal. He did not make contact with the police, he stood at a distance filming, perfectly legal.
Hughster49 1 day ago
That's a different case with different circumstances like i said, obviously they didn't rule on random. They didn't stop the guy solely for carrying, they stopped him because he walked up in the investigation, it's the combination. If you wanna carry your gun and but your nose were it doesn't belong u deserve to be checked out. I meant random as they didnt just say "hey how about we stop this guy and harass him for no reason" this idiot put himself in that situation
spurs8550 1 day ago
@spurs8550 SAID: "they stopped him because he walked up in the investigation, "
The gentleman was not violating any law at that point. The officer lost the chance for investigating a possible impeding violation by the person's response to the officers instructions at 00:22.
Now you say: "If you wanna carry your gun and but your nose were it doesn't belong u deserve to be checked out."
Of course, but officers do not have the authority to detain and question while doing so.
Pafoofnik1 1 day ago
It's not true the city lost the case, they settle out of court for less money without admitting guilt. And u don't know the circumstances, every case is different... This cop didn't just pick on this random guy carrying a gun walking down the street. That idiot walked up on the cops investigation. And yes a motor vehicle stop is an investigation. This asshole asked to be fucked with by the cops... And where I'm from noone can carry, u have a gun here cops are shooting your ass not asking for ID
spurs8550 2 days ago
@spurs8550: Yes, the city lost in court. "Mr. St. John's motion for summary judgment is granted with regard to liability on Plaintiff's claims under the Fourth Amendment and New Mexico Constitution." (McColley)
McColley didn't rule on 'random'. It ruled on being detained for carrying a weapon.
Please read the case for more information.
It doesn't matter what the laws are in your state in this incident.
Pafoofnik1 2 days ago
Same thing happened in Dickson City, Pa. The district attorney agreed it was a violation of civil rights for the officer to demand ID for open carry. Period.
cds12271 3 days ago
If you do get arrested is it really worth all the time and money spent on fighting the case just to say I told you so?... Don't forget all those cops, judges , and lawyers will be getting paid to be there
spurs8550 3 days ago
@spurs8550: One gentleman did not take you advice and instead filed suit.
The city lost the case and settled for $21,000.
What was much more important is that now that man can do something lawful like open carry without fear of the same police department violating his rights again.
Also, the court decision can be reference when other police decide to step outside the law in this way.
I'd say that's a win all around.
Pafoofnik1 3 days ago
I don't see the point in all these new stupid videos testing the cops. You accomplish nothing and just waste your own time and create your own problems..... It's one thing if cops are coming to your house and following you around but when you do idiotic things like this you deserve whatever happens
spurs8550 3 days ago
You WERE testing them, however, you weren't in the wrong... Were you being an ass? Yes, but that doesn't make the cops right, either.
Well done, though.
khyea91 5 days ago 2
Just because its suspicious that he doesnt want to show his ID doesnt give them cause to look at it hahahah dumb fucking cops
atabs13 5 days ago
It snows in New Mexico?
ImOn2TheNext1 1 week ago
How Could anyone dislike this Video? This Guy is standing up for Anti-Corruption! Very Brave. I would have shivers in my voice as well with those guys with there hands on their guns, just waiting for an excuse to escalate. They really shouldn't be able to lie like that. You have Balls of steal man. Thx for doing what you're doing for this country.
TrippMan666 1 week ago
you did well mate you have rights and you used them good one now the cops are breaking the law.
the1calledbat 1 week ago
the cops were not out of line you are just going around intentionaly trying to attract attention
128726 1 week ago
@128726 They were out of line and they knew it. If they weren't they would have taken him in. So what if he is trying to attract attention, he's still showing people should stand up for themselves when they're in the right. Just because someone wears a badge doesn't mean you should automatically give in to them.
sonsofmosiah 5 days ago
@sonsofmosiah no but man they put there fucking life on the line for and i understand that you shouldnt let them push you around..(especially if there being dicks) but from what i saw they werent being disrespectful , ill go back and watch the video again to see if missed something but until then i think that cops in america are getting out of control but if you go around trying to entagnize them you are no better than they are
128726 5 days ago
Your an idiot
Stiffy807 1 week ago
It would be nice if they offered courses on what to do in situations with cops like this.
turnenginedidntU 1 week ago 3
i cant believe the balls some people have. if it were my with my luck, the cops would have just tackled me and hauled me away
nothadnotbad 1 week ago
I have a concealed weapons permit here in Oregon & I on occasion open carry, but under no circumstances do I look for on confrontaion from the police. The way I see it these idiots looking for a police altercations make the rest of us pissed off.
I respect all law enforcement and I would never put them in a position that would make them feel unsafe.
marineguy0311 1 week ago
First mistake this numb nutt did was show he supports Ron Paul. Ron Paul = Batshit Crazy
MrElkrick 1 week ago
@MrElkrick Ad hominem attack. How long did it take you to think of that brilliant statement. Why's he so "batshit crazy" as you say? Do you have a problem with the constitution?
RaytheonPwnsYou 1 week ago
@RaytheonPwnsYou Would you consider someone who would rather give in to our enemy's demands a sane person? Remember that Paul stated that 911 was our fault because the US was in Saudi Arabia on Muslim holy grounds, and that was why 911 attack happened. The man is totally insane, why would any normal person agree that Iran should have nuclear weapons just because it's their right.
MrElkrick 1 week ago
******Continued*******
Oh I see you would love to see Israel being wiped off the face of the earth, and if in fact you do agree then that speaks volumes of who and what you really are.
You see mister, I believe that God has his chosen people, they are the Jews, what Paul would like to see is the absolute destruction of our great nation by way of bowing down to radical nut jobs.
That is why this bastard is Batshit Crazy.
MrElkrick 1 week ago
@MrElkrick said: "I believe that God has his chosen people, they are the Jews, "
Oh, you are a religious bigot. Then never mind. Your own bigotry requires that you attack anyone that disagrees with you.
Pafoofnik1 1 week ago
@MrElkrick: Maybe Judeo-Christian are waging a holy war in the middle east, using the creation of Israel taken by force from Palestine as the christian foothold, and U.S. soldiers to do their dirty work.
Maybe. Maybe.
Pafoofnik1 1 week ago
@Pafoofnik1 Really? Are you aware that there was never a country called Palestine, and in fact the majority of Arab countries disown the Palestinians. And by the way it's not really the Juedo-Christian style to wage holy war, that would be a Muslim agenda. Good try though.
MrElkrick 1 week ago
@MrElkrick Like I said. Your own bigotry requires that you attack anyone that disagrees with you.
Pafoofnik1 1 week ago
@Pafoofnik1 So your point is......
MrElkrick 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrElkrick. My point is that maybe Judeo-Christian are waging a holy war in the middle east, using the creation of Israel taken by force from Palestine as the christian foothold, and U.S. soldiers to do their dirty work.
Maybe. Maybe.
Pafoofnik1 1 week ago
@MrElkrick If you don't know what the point of that video is you don't deserve basic human rights!
sonsofmosiah 5 days ago
@sonsofmosiah Question, please answer; Do you have Downs Syndrome?
MrElkrick 3 days ago
@MrElkrick All fox news talking points. Al qaeda SPECIFICALLY said thats why they attacked us. Iran wouldn't nuke Israel. They aren't stupid. They never said "they'd wipe Israel off the map". Iran hasn't attacked a single country in over 2 centuries. So you really think they'd nuke Israel and flush 5000 years of Persian history down the shitter?
You have access to the internet, obviously, use it to better your understanding and I mean that in the most respectful way, man.
RaytheonPwnsYou 1 week ago
@RaytheonPwnsYou Humm, seems to me that Iran attacked Iraq some time in the past two thousand years, oh lets not forget Greece now, or how about Mongolia?
And the leader of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has made several threats to destroy Israel....so, where have you been? All respect back at ya.
MrElkrick 1 week ago
@MrElkrick One other thing, Iran is not at all stupid....they do however have a completely different out look on human life then we do, you see death to them, (especially during Jihad conflict), means a ticket to heaven. I don't know where your getting your information friend but man it is totally wrong.
MrElkrick 1 week ago
@MrElkrick A century is 100 years... a millennium is 1000. So 200 years, they haven't attacked anyone. Iraq attacked Iran with our support and backing. Remember all the biological weapons we gave saddamn then went back in to get in 2003?
As for Ahmadinejad he said "Zionism will be wiped from the pages of history." you can google that. He never said anything about wiping Israel off the map. That is noe-conservitive/Liberal globalist propaganda. You do know what Zionism is?
RaytheonPwnsYou 1 week ago
Why do all these 'open carry' guys get nervous and stumble and stutter their words when confronted by police officers? I still think the cops are barking up the wrong tree with you and often wonder why they can't just let you be on your way. It becomes a pissing match, especially when you appear to be nervous. If you smiled and laughed and didn't stutter things would go so much better.
jalag 1 week ago
These videos are the most ignorant things I've ever seen.
They are just attempting to start a confrontation.
Walking up to traffic stop with a handgun is ridiculous.
ThaCrabapple 1 week ago
Stupid move to walk up unannounced on a traffic stop with a pistol on your hip. I would of drawn down on him and the lady in the car. An ambush would look the same way. The cops have rights also. Right number 1 is to go home alive at the end of their shift. Comman sence people.
Currahee05GT 2 weeks ago
Keep up the great work on the videos.
Glad to see someone standing up for the rights of citizens.
TKO52286 2 weeks ago
Did I just hear that correctly? The officer said "I feel that I have the right to check on you..." First off an officer can not do anything just because they "feel" like it. Secondly as an officer your "feelings" are not substitutes of a law, which in this case does not exist, because if this person had broken a law the officer would, then, have that right or authority. Not I feel I have the right. Its either you have the authority to do so or you don't.. Clearly they didn't.
nopegetbent 2 weeks ago
If you value your privacy then stay the fuck inside your house asshole! Since you want to be Mr. Big shot; do us all a favor and don't call the police when you can't or don't know how to handle a situation in the future. I am surprised they didn't bring you in under investigative purposes. It's fine if you want to record but how stupid are you to walk up to him with a gun??? How old r u? Do u have any common sense?
JDE5STI 2 weeks ago
@JDE5STI what did he do wrong?
jadx21 2 weeks ago
@JDE5STI -They have to have reasonable suspicion of a REAL crime before they can investigate!
Hughster49 1 week ago
Dude kicked ass! Way to keep your composure good job man.
Just a tip for next time instead of asking am i legally required to do something, know the law by heart and state in the affirmative you are not obligated to comply. Good job tho man.
DELPHIIII 2 weeks ago
in most states, any law enforcement officer CAN ask u for ID, irregardless... dude way to tell them fucking cops off, here in Mississippi u would have got your ass beat by the cops for not complying....
4776yankee 2 weeks ago
You should have asked what the minimum boundary was between you and his traffic stop scene according to your states law.
CaptCrewSock 2 weeks ago
@CaptCrewSock: His state's law undoubtedly does not specify such a distance.
DavidForthoffer 2 weeks ago
Good job buddy.
DSOXBLADE 2 weeks ago
Ron Paul 2012
DSOXBLADE 2 weeks ago
ROFLMAO, "Per the law, if I'm not being detained, I have not broken any law, I do not need to produce identification. I'm gonna leave the scene, in a peaceful manner, I wish you guys a good day", and leave them in the dust. Well done.
ZangaroZen 3 weeks ago
Understandable? Spics should never be allowed authority over Caucasians. As you all can see in this video presentation, they don't have sufficient brain matter to interpret and uphold law. Cock fighting, yes...law enforcement, NO!
Deathwhisperer42 3 weeks ago
you tryed to go to a police officer? wtf
pcblah 3 weeks ago
Nice job - Yes!!!!
115southlinden 3 weeks ago
Yay, another open carry douschebag!
durgymp 3 weeks ago
YES. Way to go.
kilnsapper 3 weeks ago
you are a dick, i carry and idiots like you give all of us a bad name
MrSwamprat66 3 weeks ago
those just got bs
MrBldswtrs21 3 weeks ago
Ron Paul sticker! go Dr Paul!
robcole24 3 weeks ago
Do you have any respect for Law Enforcement??? In St. Louis you would have been killed
mizzoufan1078 3 weeks ago
@mizzoufan1078 -So you are saying that St Louis law enforcement has no respect of peoples rights? and you BRAGG about this?
Hughster49 3 weeks ago
try this stunt in chicago and you would of been killed. stay near the border asshole
tfennell7386 3 weeks ago
I have to admit that you did approach that situation in a weird manner. You walked right up into the scene, packing no less, and since felons as well as those convicted of DV cannot carry, then the only way for him to determine this is to perform an ID check. I'm not saying that the law isn't on your side, but in this specific situation you acted really odd and without much common sense. For the record, I am pro open-carry, but I have to give you my honest take on this video.
GUMMYBEAYUH 3 weeks ago
@GUMMYBEAYUH: Of course the officer can ID check the pedestrian. He just cannot stop, question and detain the man just because he was open carrying.
Pafoofnik1 3 weeks ago
Rock on buddy! Keep the faith
dooley74 3 weeks ago
the vid proves if you don't know ur rights the lawful authorities would make up a false statement of the law to fool u into complying and give up ur rights. some people don't believe this truth. they will be like "sheeps for the slaughter."
cm1371 3 weeks ago
if u don't exercise ur rights u will lose them. the guy with camera is acting a bit extreme. but it is a wake up call to keep people like the govt from getting out of control. if the guy was a perp why did the cops not just apprehend him..because he was not in any violation of the law. the cops were stumped cause their perceived god like powers were questioned!
cm1371 3 weeks ago
Dude, I am all for carrying a weapon legally. I have done so for years with a VALID PERMIT. You sir, are an asshole. Fine, you want to be a big shot and open carry??? Go get a permit to conceal carry then you won't have any problems, but assholes like you like problems. As for not wanting to show an Id. " It is unlawful for a felon to receive, transport or possess any firearm or destructive device in this state. NMSA 1978, Section 30-7-16. how does a cop know if your a felon, what a tool.
bandbuggy2 4 weeks ago