the people doing this are using extreme examples to make a point.1) there was no violation, criminally. 2) if not crime has been committed, the investigation is over. #)if the officers have established no crime, there is no legal justification to produce identification. The movement is intentionally causing people to think from the explicite Constitutional point of view. As a former police officer, I see the point that it is necessary to educate, using extreme examples to make a point.
I'm sorry but if you want to change society or affirm your rights why go out and hares police offices who were more than patient with you? You are just being a dick.
@Pafoofnik1 It matters not who approached who, what's wrong with providing ID when open carrying? How is a police officer to know your allowed to carry a gun or not? Should a person who had a licence to posses a firearm revoked be allowed to open carry? How about a person who threatened to kill someone? The list could go on but you get the point right? The police need to establish who is behind the gun.
Just because somebody calls the police does not mean the cops have the right to detain you unless it was a call that you were committing a crime. Here no crime has not been committed or suspicion of a crime. He does not have to disclose any information or display an ID.
Please correct your description. Rights aren't "PROVIDED by the US Constitution," they are PROVIDED by our Creator (be that God or Nature), INHERENT in our humanity, and GUARANTEED by the Constitution.
Only in America, my god your country just gets more stupid everyday. Hey everybody, lets walk around with handguns showing in public, and then we'll complain when police ask us if we are friggen lunatics or criminals. This aint the fuckin wild west and if he did shoot ppl, the public would blame the cops. And who gives a fuck if hes a soldier, if anything that accounts for his stupidity, as we all know soldiers are the most braindead ppl in the world( oops US, as they think there the world)
@Pafoofnik1 What has the law got to do with right and wrong? People arming themselves in public is a step in the wrong direction in a civilized society. But the US is not the most civilized society is it?
Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada... take a peek. I'm thankful that we have officer out there that respond to calls, check out idiots openly carrying a weapon.
Officer's had a right to ask for his ID because they were received a compliant, went to the location, saw the gun, politely detain him long enough to ascertain that he is not a convicted felony, which is for the officers safety. Is this guy retarded? He has to ask like 100x the same gay questions, what a dumb fuck loser.
Holy god. The cop has EVERY right to detain ANYONE he thinks is suspicious. He told his he was suspicious. Thats ALL he needs to detain him. Illegally detained? LOL
@13tommy1 you can not be detained for being suspicious. the have to have reasonable suspicion that you committed a specific crime. do some reading and know your rights because you have no idea what your talking about
@rngr121 BULLSHIT!!! Im an on the job moron. Being suspicious you CAN be detained. And another thing, it is AGAINST the law to refuse to show an office your ID. You can be arrested just for that. SO all you morons can say what you want. Obviously NONE of you are on the job or even know the law.
@13tommy1 no you cannot detain for being suspicious. your state might be a stop and id state mine is not. if your on the job then your one of the cops that make all the rest look bad
@rngr121 WHY DONT YOU FUCKING MORONS LISTEN TO THE VIDEO. YOU ARE ALL SO SMART. THE COPS HAD A CALL FOR HIM MORON. THAT GIVE THE COP EVERY RIGHT TO DETAIN HIM, ID HIM, AND BRING HIM IN FOR QUESTIONING. THAT IS A COLD HARD FACT!!! LIKE IT OR FUCKING NOT.
@rngr121 Make the rest look bad? LOL SO the cop should NOT do his job and ignore the call he received? He got a call to check out a suspicious person moron. Cop is 100% in the right. 100%!!!!
@Pafoofnik1 I am NOT incorrect. I am on the job you moron. I can ask ANYBODY for ID and THEY MUST provide it. If they dont, I have the right to detain that person, even if they were doing NOTHING wrong, until that person can be ID'd.
So again, learn about the law BEFORE posting dumb untrue comments.
@Pafoofnik1 OK genius. A call came in. The guy is a SUSPECT. Police have to INVESTIGATE. They have EVERY right to detain, ID AND even cuff him and bring him in for questioning. Its 100% legal. If you dont like it, its tough shit. Learn the fucking law.
@13tommy1: Only if the officer is in a legal performance of his duty or the exercise of his rights under the laws of the United States or of this state.
New Mexico does not allow a detention or questioning just because someone is open carrying a weapon.
@Pafoofnik1 keep repeating yourself. They have EVERY right to stop him. If they didnt, then why didnt this guy file a report? LOL He prob was like you morons and tried. They laughed at him.
@13tomabram: Couldn't find any legal backing, so decided to go ad-hominem, then a backpeddle, then caps shouting, then changing the subject from the question to the video, then regressive repeating, and finally shotgun commenting in an attempt to cloud the issue.
@tapper45 probable cause is HE IS SUSPICIOUS!!! And someone called the police on him. The cop has EVERY right to detain him, question him, and even bring him in for questioning.
@tapper45 ANd you are wrong again. ANY OFFICER CAN LEGALLY DEMAND ID ANYTIME!! That is the law. Guess you didnt know on EVERY call the officer gets he MUST ID the people involve? Learn the law BEFORE you make a dumb comment.
you're outta your mind with inaccuracies and half truths.
leos are not allowed to collect information on citizens UNLESS they are a plaintiff/victim (and then they volunteer the id) or when they have ARRESTED a suspect and have PROBABLE CAUSE.
maybe you should "Learn the law BEFORE you make a dumb comment."
(or continue to demonstrate your reduced ability to comprehend the rather simple world that you live in).
@tapper45 Are you kidding me? An officer cant ID someone unless they arrest them? AAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.......What the fuck planet are you on buddy? They have been called because of this guy. They are REQUIRED to obtain his ID. Key word, REQUIRED. Again, learn the fucking law.
yup, you should refer to paloofnik1, captcocaine and the other 5 or 6 guys who actually know the law (at least better than you anyway).
some nervous idiots, such as yourself, who don't know the law, called the police and the leos showed up and have the right to TALK to the law abiding citizen.
that's about it.
while they are observing and communicating with him they may force the production of id if and only if the legal requirement for probable cause is met.
@tapper45 obviously they AND you dont. SO nice try. Learn about the law. Why would I call the police dumbass . Learn how to fucking read. IM ON THE FUCKING JOB YOU UNEDUCATED COCK!!!! The cop could of and SHOULD of cuffed him and brought him back to headquarters until he was id'd. Law says you can hold him for 24 hours. So nice try toolbag. Again, read a book.
@Pafoofnik1 Guess? LOL Yes the law allows us to hold douchebags like you for 24hours WITHOUT being arrested. Just like we can DETAIN someone AND hold them in lockup if they are intoxicated. They dont get arrested either. DUHHH Its a hold. Smart guy. Again, learn the fucking law.
@13tomabram: I said I'd sure like to see that law. It may well exist.
I just won't take it as fact just because you say it is.
Who said anything about intoxication? I usually find that when a person is asked to confirm a statute that he says exists, and then starts changing the parameters instead of providing it, it's because his original comment wasn't correct.
@Pafoofnik1 You said you cant hold anyone without being arrested. Being intoxicated is ANOTHER example. With holding ID is probable cause to hold them. Up to 24 hours if necessary. And if you get held for 48 hours, what would you do? Nothing. Good luck. You will loose.
@Pafoofnik1 What did I hear? Did he curse? LOL I would of locked him up for that right there. Now tell me you cant get arrested for that. Yet something else you dumb civilians dont know. LOL
@Pafoofnik1 holy shit. They got a call. 100% probable cause to investigate and hold EVERYONE and ANYONE they find that is involved. END OF STORY!!!! Cops were 100% in the right. Now go argue with the other dumbass's.
@13tomabram said: "They got a call. 100% probable cause to investigate and hold EVERYONE and ANYONE they find that is involved."
CITE: Alamogordo police officers who were dispatched to the Theater in response to a call from Theater manager... Mr. St. John's lawful possession of a loaded firearm in a crowded place could not, by itself, create a reasonable suspicion sufficient to justify an investigatory detention.
SOURCE: St. John v. McColley 653 F.Supp.2d 1155 (2009)
@Pafoofnik1 Yet again, do you know what the caller said when they called in? Nope. So until you do, STFU. And Sorry dipshit, I can detain EVERYONE involved in an investigation. SO until you fucking learn the law, go suck a dick.
@Pafoofnik1 CITE: Alamogordo police officers who were dispatched to the Theater in response to a call from Theater manager... Mr. St. John's lawful possession of a loaded firearm in a crowded place lead to his immediate arrest.
SOURCE: St. John v. McColley 653 F.Supp.2d 1155 (2009)
yeah you're half-assing the job if anything and you know as little of the law as the leo in the video.
my degrees in aviation electronics, electronic engineering, criminal science and psychology probably don't amount to much compared to your "on the job" training but i get by.
bring him back to "headquarters"?
i thought you were trying to imply that you were a leo.
nobody says headquarters poser.
if he had been detained without probable cause the aclu would fry the leo.
@tapper45 Nobody says headquarters? LOL How would you know? Dumbass. When you work at headquarter, that EXACTLY what you call it you stupid fuck. FYI dick, thats EXACTLY what the detective squad is called.
looking suspicious is cause (and not legal cause) to approach and engage in conversation without violating the citizen's 4th ammendment rights.
if, after approaching the citizen the leo becomes aware of some TANGIBLE FORM OF EVIDENCE that would legally constitute PROBABLE CAUSE and BE UPHELD AS SUCH DURING AN ARRAIGNMENT the leo is well within the law to ARREST the citizen and can THEN AND ONLY THEN legally demand the id.
@tapper45 ANOTHER stupid kid heard from. Guess you didnt watch the video. Just so quick to make a fucking comment moron. Somebody called the police on him moron. And BULLSHIT!!!! In an investigation moron he can demand ID no problem. Nobody has to be fucking collared you dumb moron. Do you have to show ID if you get stopped on a traffic stop? YES. Are you arrested? NO!! So your dumb theory of being arrested before showing ID just went out the window. LOL
@tapper45 WRONG yet again. Where the fuck do you make this shit up from? Show me where I said "drivers license". You cent even read you uneducated cunt. I said ID you dumb twit. And when I stop a car I have the right by law, to get ID from EVERY adult in the vehicle, even if they are not driving. So yet another dumb made up comment by you just went out the window. LOL Learn the fucking law ya dumb cunt.
@13tomabram said: "And when I stop a car I have the right by law, to get ID from EVERY adult in the vehicle"
Please quote and cite the law you say exists that requires me as a passenger to identify myself every time the vehicle I am in is stopped by law enforcement.
I think you are a liar. Quoting and citing this law you say exists will prove me wrong.
Not doing so will lay the blame on you.
I love watching those frail egos make a person look a fool.
@13tomabram its kinda funny after reading your comments, it seems like all you're trying to do is start a fight. and then you say "See all you can do is "think". I actually :know" you may THINK you know, but you're prolly just 12.? no... therefor you dont KNOW shit, you also just THINK it.. please stop proving how stupid you really are. because all these people here think the same thing. you're just an ignorant little kid talking shit.
if you were a professional law enforcement officer you wouldn't be demonstrating such poor judgement and decision making skills here on youtube by calling people with higher degrees of education than you "cunts".
i applaud your best efforts with as much enthusiasm as they deserve:
can you hear me clapping?
you didn't NEED to say driver's license when you stated "TRAFFIC STOP".
it is implied.
i'm sure an AARP or blockbuster rental card would suffice.
@tapper45 you didn't NEED to say driver's license when you stated "TRAFFIC STOP".
it is implied."
WHAT??? Nice try to dig yourself out of that hole. It wont work. I CLEARLY SAID ID. Obviously your such a dumb cunt you cant even read you uneducated faggot. And so dumb you dont even know what ID is. Blockbuster card is ID now? LOL Fucking toolbag. DO you know what id is? Guess not. Dumb cunt of a kid you are. Again. learn the law faggot.
someone who cared about presenting a courteous, professional and intelligent image and not bringing discredit upon himself, his brothers in law enforcement and the reputation of law enforcement everywhere. would have responded appropriately.
you don't seem to grasp the simple fact that a DRIVER'S LICENSE is WIDELY recognized as a form of GOVERNMENT ISSUED IDENTIFICATION...
@tapper45 ummm yes I am you dumb piece of shit. And how dumb are you? First off I NEVER said drivers license. I said ID you dumb cunt. No matter how hard you try you cant dig out of the hole you are in so stop trying. Actually you just dug yourself even deeper saying a drivers license recognized as a form of government issued ID. How can it be government issued when the state issued drivers licenses? LOL Its STATE ID YOU DUMB CUNT!! LMFAO!!!!!! Keep digging yourself deeper.
let me guess, the "department" doesn't pay you to play on youtube, right?
you are a fraud.
i don't even believe that you are actually a real person.
i think you may be the alter ego of some scared little person who does not possess the intestinal fortitude to interact with real people in the real world so you are resigned to picking arguments on youtube that you can neither substantiate nor win.
@Pafoofnik1 Dumb ass. SOMEBODY CALLED THE COPS ON HIM. HE HAS NOT ILLEGALLY DETAINED. You can argue this shit all day. You obviously know NOTHING about the law or criminal justice.
@13tommy1: I'm not arguing. I think you are wrong and bringing proof:
CITE: "officers who were dispatched to the Theater in response to a call... Mr. St. John's lawful possession of a loaded firearm in a crowded place could not, by itself, create a reasonable suspicion sufficient to justify an investigatory detention.
SOURCE: ST. JOHN v. McCOLLEY.653 F.Supp.2d 1155 (2009)
@13tommy1 said: "The cop has EVERY right to detain ANYONE he thinks is suspicious."
New Mexico courts have already held that you are wrong.
CITE:Mr. St. John's lawful possession of a loaded firearm in a crowded place could not, by itself, create a reasonable suspicion sufficient to justify an investigatory detention.
SOURCE: St. John v. McColley 653 F.Supp.2d 1155 (2009)
@Pafoofnik1 You left out the part where the cops got a call about the guy first dumbass. WATCH THE VIDEO AND LEARN HOW TO FUCKING LISTEN OF WHAT HAPPENED FIRST SHITHEAD.
@13tommy1: Please see one of my recent comments to you where I show the New Mexico courts held that a person cannot be detained and questioned just because someone called in about a person open carrying a weapon.
@Pafoofnik1 do you know why someone called? NO you do NOT. SO stop assuming you know what is going on. They could of had a call that the guy pointed his gun at somebody. Guess the cops have no right to stop him either. LOL Your such a moron.
@13tommy1 It doesn't matter that someone called the cops alerting of a suspicious person. That doesn't give police authority to detain the suspect. They may certainly observe, approach, and converse with him, REQUEST to see ID and yes, even demand his name. But that is it. Without a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed a crime, an officer may not detain and individual or demand to see ID. Just like muscles, every right you don't exercise diminishes over time.
@CaptainCocaine it SURE does matter. Plus the cops can detain ANYONE at ANYTIME during an investigation. You should learn the law. And demand his name? LOL Try they MUST get his ID. They can hold him at headquarters until they can id him. Perfectly legal.
i wanna know who called the cops on him. Cause that person who called is an idiot and obviously a foreign or something because EVERYBODY should know their rights. Guns should be in all our hands
i'm soldier (12b) & i fuckin HATE cops, but this soldier was not cooperating, officer duschebag made himself clear, police got a call so they have to check it out, this ain't harrasment, i'm from cali, i have been harrassed by pigs, dumb ass white kids always think talking back to a pig about their rights wont get them in trouble, just put urself in the pigs boots... how would of u handled this if this was your job? personally i woulda not been so nice to the soldier
anyone judging this man for walking down open carrying i'm sorry is a complete idiot! different states have different laws regarding carrying a weapon! odds are you arent from this city or state so with that in mind shut your ignorant faces! Bottom line the cop openly admitted in this particular area it is entirely legal to open carry. He was harrassing him. Police were only trying to use fear as a tactic to get him to cooporate! In scenarios like this i say fuck the cop take me in and i'll sue!
Who in their right mind walks down the street open carring if they don't have a permit ?,This officer is pretty much ,ignorant of the carriers constitutional rights only someone stupid would walk around like that without a permit
That cop should be fired, no discussion. The officer had not reasonable suspicion and the fella didn't need to identify himself. He was only guilty of contempt of Cop which these days calls for capital punishment.
I cannot wait for the time when soldiers roam the street of the U.S. and everyone has lost their rights and have no means to defend themselves against the tyrant of the society. I hope when that day comes I am long out of this land along with the people that lives by the Constitution. Those that oppose the Constitution, I pray for you and your next generations to suffer from your own ignorant. After this country collapse because of it, and it will, we will come back and rule it once more!
@tycer18 I was being sarcastic. Maybe the Anti-constitutionalists see this video and comments and wake up and change their mind. History does not always teach people. Sometimes the best way to learn is when you actually learned it the hard way!
Read that crap you signed to get your DL! It is not a violation of anything to ask for your ID. When you signed your application for a DL or State ID, you agreed to provide it to any officer of the court or law enforcement upon request!
@mcamodell said: "It is not a violation of anything to ask for your ID"
It is, however a violation of the law for an officer to stop and question a person in New Mexico just because someone called about a man open carrying a weapon.
"When you signed your application for a DL or State ID, you agreed to provide it to any officer of the court or law enforcement upon request!"
Have a cite to this law you just misquoted, or made up?
@mcamodell upon a LAWFUL REQUEST. Looks like you need to read up on it. And for you to say that people live in a dream world if they think cops are here to protect them is very ignorant. They are here to protect. My uncle lost his life trying to save a child from a car accident.
@tycer18 I looked it back up, just to be certain, at least here in AZ, it says "request of an officer" it does NOT say "lawful". If you read that MVD application you will see you give up many rights when you sign that application. And at least according to the Supreme Court of the United States of America they are NOT here to protect nor are they obligated to protect.
13-2412. Refusing to provide truthful name when lawfully detained; classification
A. It is unlawful for a person, after being advised that the person's refusal to answer is unlawful, to fail or refuse to state the person's true full name on request of a peace officer who has lawfully detained the person based on reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime.
@Pafoofnik1 Your either not listening or not paying attention. I am not referring to the statute, i know the statute says that, but you relinquish that when you sign the application for a DL. On the application for your DL you agreed to provide it to any officer of the court or law enforcement upon request! This supersedes the law since you signed the application and traded your right for the privilege of driving.
@mcamodell said: "but you relinquish that when you sign the application for a DL"
I seriously doubt that. Please quote and cite your legal backing that says I must presnt my ID "on request of an officer".
You won't find it.
What you may find is that you must show your license if you are operating a motor vehicle that requires a license on a street that requires a license to drive on.
But not just on "the request of an officer". Such a law is unconstitutional.
In this case you should have either better explained the point you where tying to get across to them, but at the same time they CLEARLY stated the cause for your questioning weather it be "technically" correct or not, OR you could have simply complied with the simple request and told them why you are not comfortable with any further questions. fighting bureaucracy with bureaucracy does not lead any where, you have to use word and spell out the logic for them.
Its pretty simple. In America you can own a gun. Well done America, you have very high gun crime levels. Obviously you havent learnt from that lesson. BUT to walk around to "enforce my right" for open carry. Come on FFS...you walk around with a gun and you dont think this will upset people and make them worry. Morons!!!!
@mcamodell If you dont understand that people would be upset, worried and scared by someone walking down the street with a gun after all the cases of people going on gun rampages. Then i feel sorry for you.
COMMON CRIMINAL AND THESE OFFICERS SHOULD BE ASHAMED I GIVE THEM CREDIT FOR NOT VIOLATING HIS RIGHTS SOONER BUT THE CAMERA WAS ROLING.GREAT COURAGE STANDING UP TO TYRANNY,TYRANNY,TYRANNY,TYRANNY....
THIS POOR GUY FULLY COMPLIED WITH THE OFFICERS REQUESTS HE COULD HAVE GIVEN HIS ID BUT THATS NOT THE POINT,THIS IS TYRANNICAL UNCONSTITUTIONAL BEHAVIOR OF THE POLICE DEPT.THEY HAVE TAKEN AN OATH TO UP HOLD THE CONSTITUTION AND ARE THE GREATEST VIOLATORS THE ARREST IS PARAMOUNT TO KIDNAPPING UNLAWFUL DETENTION/IMPRISIONMENT THE 2ND IS CLEAR IT CANNOT BE INFRINGED.............................................
NO CRIME NO ID,OPEN CARRY IS NOT ILLEGAL,WHEN BEING DETAINED BY A POLICE OFFICER YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE SILENT SO ANY THING YOU SAY CANNOT BE USED IN A COURT OF LAW THE COPS JUST WANTED TO HAVE CONTROL,SOME ONE SCARED OF ME WALKING MY DOG WOULD NOT COMPEL THE POLICE TO ASK FOR YOU.RE ID OR LICENSE FOR THE DOG THE COPS ARE TRYING TO INTIMIDATE ANY ONE WHO OPEN CARRY IT A CAMPAIGN(TIN BADGE GODS WITH GUNS COWARDS,BULLIES)
good job for standing up for your rights hear in califronia theyd shoot us for this i hope when the men over seas come home they see the harassment i hope things change
This cop OWNED you. It's actually amusing near the end, how stupid you sound, and he calls you out on the youtube post. Yet you still posted it. Great stuff, thanks for giving the anti's more ammunition to take away our rights.
It's legal to walk down the street with a gun. However, if the cop has reasonable suspicion, he can legally request ID and detain for a reasonable amount of time.
The question becomes, does a call from a "concerned citizen" amount to reasonable suspicion? It depends on the circumstances.
If this man wasn't carrying at all... and there was a call from a citizen about a suspicious person, police arrived and asked for ID because they have reasonable suspicion he may be a suspect (say, there were a rash of burglaries in the area and the caller didn't recognize the man), then he would be required to produce ID, gun or no gun.
You are bringing up a hypothetical. I responded with a fact to make sure no one misunderstood you and though that a person can be stopped just because of a call from a concerned citizen in this scenario.
Of course the gun is the issue in this stop, because it is why they stopped him. Can you find the time stamps where the officers say this. Start at about 01:50.
@Pafoofnik1 The hypothetical is based on fact. It's called a neighborhood watch program, where people call the police when they see individuals who do not live in a neighborhood in the neighborhood, acting suspicious.
The cop said they got a call from a citizen about a suspicious person, who had a gun. If he had a hammer, or a hoodie, or a fishing pole, then that would be the descriptor.
@Pafoofnik1 You do plenty to belittle yourself, with your blatant manipulation of the situation to fit your pompous agenda, ignoring what is explicitly stated in the video, and outright lack of knowledge about the law and legal standards.
@silvermediastudio: OK. Your just here to insult, rather than discuss the facts.
Good to see that you are man enough to admit it to everyone here.
"Alamogordo police officers who were dispatched to the Theater in response to a call from Theater manager... Mr. St. John's lawful possession of a loaded firearm in a crowded place could not, by itself, create a reasonable suspicion sufficient to justify an investigatory detention."
@Pafoofnik1 I'm not disputing the St. John v. McColley decision. However, in this case, the officer may have had other compounding events or information that led to reasonable suspicion. This is what you fail to realize, and it may be irrelevant that he was carrying a gun.
But you can have it your way. It's perfectly legal to walk through a neighborhood at night with a ski mask and a crowbar. See how that works out for you, claim you weren't breaking the law, just "out for a walk."
@silvermediastudio: The decision in St. John was pretty clear in itself.
And you say "it may be irrelevant that he was carrying a gun."
of course it's relevant. The officer himself admitted it at 01:50.
"It's perfectly legal to walk through a neighborhood at night with a ski mask and a crowbar." While you may think this is true, you certainly didn't get this from me.
@Pafoofnik1 You're completely off the deep end, and have clearly never taken a formal course in law or the judicial system. A case ruling does not make law, it is a decision based on a set of circumstances. Another judge may rule differently, regardless of precedent.
Furthermore, the officer didn't "admit" anything. He was not under oath. You have a seriously misguided idea about how the world works, and how the law is applied. I wish you the best living in a dream world.
@silvermediastudio: said: "A case ruling does not make law", it decides what is lawful. What St John decided was that "lawful possession of a loaded firearm in a crowded place could not, by itself, create a reasonable suspicion sufficient to justify an investigatory detention."
Of course he admitted that it was a call about a man with a gun. Your disagreement with the conditions when he said it doesn't mean he didn't say it.
@silvermediastudio One of the big problems is EVERYONE has a seriously misguided idea about how the world works, and how the law is applied, none more so than the police! We are all living in a dream world if we think these people are here to protect anyone.
As of 2011 New Mexico can stop you and ask for ID, N.M. Stat. Ann. §30-22-3, however, the cop is ignorant of the law and it is therefore unenforceable as there is no law to the cops knowledge.
@Dancerpro1 said: "New Mexico can stop you and ask for ID, N.M. Stat. Ann. §30-22-3, "
Not completely true. Maybe you missed the part that says: "...to obstruct the due execution of...any public officer or any other person in a legal performance of his duty..."
2006 New Mexico Statutes - Section 30-22-3 — Concealing identity.
N.M. does not allow a stop based only on open carry.
lets make this simple guys. first of all you can carry open guns.
the police have the right to ID you if they get a call or conduct a investigation.
THE FACT THAT YOU DONT NORMALLY SEE PEOPLE CARRY OPEN GUNS EVERYDAY will make you specious. just fucking corporate please so it wont be hard on you nor the cops.
@Pafoofnik1 yes i would. so i implant it to my knowledge. i know the fact in 2012 you cannot carry open pistol anymore. i think the person who pass it is jerry brown
@BlueRice: "Mr. St. John's lawful possession of a loaded firearm in a crowded place could not, by itself, create a reasonable suspicion sufficient to justify an investigatory detention." ST. JOHN v. McCOLLEY 653 F.Supp.2d 1155 (2009)
Reading the case will reveal that the person was detained because someone called the police.
Last I looked, New Mexico's constitution still said that people can open carry in New Mexico, where this incident took place. Maybe you were thinking California?
Officer you are not paid to think, that is what your handbook and statute book does for you. If he hasn't broken any law/statute then why are you talking to him? Other peoples concerns/comfort level are not his concern, his rights are, go away servant.
Cops advising conceal permit vs open carry..nice..smart call there. Not doing anything illegal but we can still detain you for NOT breaking the law. Do the police not get a law class at the academy?
the people doing this are using extreme examples to make a point.1) there was no violation, criminally. 2) if not crime has been committed, the investigation is over. #)if the officers have established no crime, there is no legal justification to produce identification. The movement is intentionally causing people to think from the explicite Constitutional point of view. As a former police officer, I see the point that it is necessary to educate, using extreme examples to make a point.
gyrperegrine 52 minutes ago
This was translated from German to English. This actually happened in 1930's Germany. Think about it!
bionerdization 14 hours ago
I'm sorry but if you want to change society or affirm your rights why go out and hares police offices who were more than patient with you? You are just being a dick.
jaydee040 1 day ago
@jaydee040: I thought the officers approached him, not vice-verse.
Pafoofnik1 21 hours ago
@Pafoofnik1 It matters not who approached who, what's wrong with providing ID when open carrying? How is a police officer to know your allowed to carry a gun or not? Should a person who had a licence to posses a firearm revoked be allowed to open carry? How about a person who threatened to kill someone? The list could go on but you get the point right? The police need to establish who is behind the gun.
jaydee040 34 minutes ago
@jaydee040: Of course it matters who approached who. It establishes if the stop is consensual or not.
There's nothing wrong with providing ID. What is wrong is an officer requiring a person to answer just because he is open carrying a weapon.
There is no license needed to open carry in N.M.
"The police need to establish who is behind the gun." They can't stop and require a person to answer questions about it though.
How about you read up a bit before asking me to do your research?
Pafoofnik1 26 minutes ago
This jackass would have been in cuffs a long time ago in Canada. Thank christ we don't have idiots allowed to carry guns here
eddymandiedie 1 day ago
@eddymandiedie Yes we do, they just have badges to go with them. Ever hear of officer Bubbles. lol
jaydee040 33 minutes ago
Just because somebody calls the police does not mean the cops have the right to detain you unless it was a call that you were committing a crime. Here no crime has not been committed or suspicion of a crime. He does not have to disclose any information or display an ID.
RYANFSAMUELS 1 day ago
That's scary. I think he would be best off using that gun to protect himself from this violent, deadly assaulter.
clunkymonk 2 days ago
Please correct your description. Rights aren't "PROVIDED by the US Constitution," they are PROVIDED by our Creator (be that God or Nature), INHERENT in our humanity, and GUARANTEED by the Constitution.
CaptainCocaine 2 days ago
@CaptainCocaine: Well said.
I can't count the times I have had someone say "Prove the Constitution gives us that right".
Then I have to spend the time showing them the error while their egos put up a losing fight.
Pafoofnik1 2 days ago
Only in America, my god your country just gets more stupid everyday. Hey everybody, lets walk around with handguns showing in public, and then we'll complain when police ask us if we are friggen lunatics or criminals. This aint the fuckin wild west and if he did shoot ppl, the public would blame the cops. And who gives a fuck if hes a soldier, if anything that accounts for his stupidity, as we all know soldiers are the most braindead ppl in the world( oops US, as they think there the world)
sirpsychoj 2 days ago
@sirpsychoj; What did he do that was illegal again?
Pafoofnik1 2 days ago
@Pafoofnik1 What has the law got to do with right and wrong? People arming themselves in public is a step in the wrong direction in a civilized society. But the US is not the most civilized society is it?
jaydee040 29 minutes ago
@jaydee040: Why ask me? Do you need an answer about something I never brought up?
Pafoofnik1 23 minutes ago
Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada... take a peek. I'm thankful that we have officer out there that respond to calls, check out idiots openly carrying a weapon.
sj702 2 days ago
If you want to know the law take a look at Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada. Thank God we have officers out there doing their job.
sj702 2 days ago
@sj702: Maybe you should follow your own advice.
Hibbel requires the constrictions of a Terry stop. N.M. does not allow a Terry stop based only on a phone call about open carry
Pafoofnik1 2 days ago
Officer's had a right to ask for his ID because they were received a compliant, went to the location, saw the gun, politely detain him long enough to ascertain that he is not a convicted felony, which is for the officers safety. Is this guy retarded? He has to ask like 100x the same gay questions, what a dumb fuck loser.
sj702 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@sj702 said: "Officer's had a right to ask for his ID because they were received a compliant, "
They cannot legally stop him to ask though here in New Mexico.
Pafoofnik1 2 days ago
I want cops out there checking on people carrying a sidearm. This dumbass filming is another ass hole trying to start shit to get a response.
sj702 2 days ago
WELCOME TO THE USA!
mjknet 2 days ago
"we need to investigate you walking..."
tapper45 2 days ago
Holy god. The cop has EVERY right to detain ANYONE he thinks is suspicious. He told his he was suspicious. Thats ALL he needs to detain him. Illegally detained? LOL
13tommy1 2 days ago
@13tommy1 you can not be detained for being suspicious. the have to have reasonable suspicion that you committed a specific crime. do some reading and know your rights because you have no idea what your talking about
rngr121 2 days ago
@rngr121 BULLSHIT!!! Im an on the job moron. Being suspicious you CAN be detained. And another thing, it is AGAINST the law to refuse to show an office your ID. You can be arrested just for that. SO all you morons can say what you want. Obviously NONE of you are on the job or even know the law.
13tommy1 2 days ago
@13tommy1 no you cannot detain for being suspicious. your state might be a stop and id state mine is not. if your on the job then your one of the cops that make all the rest look bad
rngr121 2 days ago
@rngr121 WHY DONT YOU FUCKING MORONS LISTEN TO THE VIDEO. YOU ARE ALL SO SMART. THE COPS HAD A CALL FOR HIM MORON. THAT GIVE THE COP EVERY RIGHT TO DETAIN HIM, ID HIM, AND BRING HIM IN FOR QUESTIONING. THAT IS A COLD HARD FACT!!! LIKE IT OR FUCKING NOT.
13tommy1 2 days ago
@13tommy1: Sorry, but this is not correct in New Mexico.
Even if you shout.
Pafoofnik1 2 days ago
@Pafoofnik1 your so dumb.
13tomabram 1 day ago
@13tomabram TROLL
OKCYUKONOMAHAMEDIC 7 hours ago
@rngr121 Make the rest look bad? LOL SO the cop should NOT do his job and ignore the call he received? He got a call to check out a suspicious person moron. Cop is 100% in the right. 100%!!!!
13tommy1 2 days ago
@13tommy1 said: "it is AGAINST the law to refuse to show an office your ID"
You are also incorrect. I can legally refuse to show ID top an officer in my state.
Pafoofnik1 2 days ago
@Pafoofnik1 I am NOT incorrect. I am on the job you moron. I can ask ANYBODY for ID and THEY MUST provide it. If they dont, I have the right to detain that person, even if they were doing NOTHING wrong, until that person can be ID'd.
So again, learn about the law BEFORE posting dumb untrue comments.
13tommy1 2 days ago
@13tommy1: Please cite the legal backing that you say exists that authorizes you to detain me for refusal to ID myself. I'm in Texas.
Thanks.
Pafoofnik1 2 days ago
@Pafoofnik1 OK genius. A call came in. The guy is a SUSPECT. Police have to INVESTIGATE. They have EVERY right to detain, ID AND even cuff him and bring him in for questioning. Its 100% legal. If you dont like it, its tough shit. Learn the fucking law.
13tomabram 1 day ago
@13tomabram INTERNET TROLL!!!!
OKCYUKONOMAHAMEDIC 7 hours ago
@Pafoofnik1 Then you CAN legally be cuffed and taking in to the squad until you are id'd. True hurts dont it? LOL
13tommy1 2 days ago
@13tommy1: Only if the officer is in a legal performance of his duty or the exercise of his rights under the laws of the United States or of this state.
New Mexico does not allow a detention or questioning just because someone is open carrying a weapon.
Not even if someone calls in about it.
Pafoofnik1 2 days ago
@Pafoofnik1 keep repeating yourself. They have EVERY right to stop him. If they didnt, then why didnt this guy file a report? LOL He prob was like you morons and tried. They laughed at him.
13tomabram 1 day ago
@13tomabram: Couldn't find any legal backing, so decided to go ad-hominem, then a backpeddle, then caps shouting, then changing the subject from the question to the video, then regressive repeating, and finally shotgun commenting in an attempt to cloud the issue.
Got it.
Pafoofnik1 1 day ago
@13tommy1
wrong answer son.
the leo needs probable cause.
the only reason the leo got the weapon legally was because the citizen voluntarily gave it to him (which was a mistake).
the citizen was not brealing ANY law.
the leo fast talked his way to getting control of the weapon and the citizen made the mistake of giving it up.
the leo cannot legally demand the production of id.
ONLY when the citizen HAS a chl/ccw is he required by law to inform the leo and provide id.
tapper45 2 days ago
@tapper45 probable cause is HE IS SUSPICIOUS!!! And someone called the police on him. The cop has EVERY right to detain him, question him, and even bring him in for questioning.
13tommy1 2 days ago
@tapper45 ANd you are wrong again. ANY OFFICER CAN LEGALLY DEMAND ID ANYTIME!! That is the law. Guess you didnt know on EVERY call the officer gets he MUST ID the people involve? Learn the law BEFORE you make a dumb comment.
13tommy1 2 days ago
@13tommy1
you're outta your mind with inaccuracies and half truths.
leos are not allowed to collect information on citizens UNLESS they are a plaintiff/victim (and then they volunteer the id) or when they have ARRESTED a suspect and have PROBABLE CAUSE.
maybe you should "Learn the law BEFORE you make a dumb comment."
(or continue to demonstrate your reduced ability to comprehend the rather simple world that you live in).
tapper45 2 days ago
@tapper45 Are you kidding me? An officer cant ID someone unless they arrest them? AAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.......What the fuck planet are you on buddy? They have been called because of this guy. They are REQUIRED to obtain his ID. Key word, REQUIRED. Again, learn the fucking law.
13tommy1 2 days ago
@13tommy1
yup, you should refer to paloofnik1, captcocaine and the other 5 or 6 guys who actually know the law (at least better than you anyway).
some nervous idiots, such as yourself, who don't know the law, called the police and the leos showed up and have the right to TALK to the law abiding citizen.
that's about it.
while they are observing and communicating with him they may force the production of id if and only if the legal requirement for probable cause is met.
the end.
tapper45 1 day ago
@tapper45 obviously they AND you dont. SO nice try. Learn about the law. Why would I call the police dumbass . Learn how to fucking read. IM ON THE FUCKING JOB YOU UNEDUCATED COCK!!!! The cop could of and SHOULD of cuffed him and brought him back to headquarters until he was id'd. Law says you can hold him for 24 hours. So nice try toolbag. Again, read a book.
13tomabram 1 day ago
@13tomabram said: "Law says you can hold him for 24 hours."
Without being arrested?
I'd sure like to see that law.
Of course I'd like to see the legal backing behind these other guess you've been tossing out as well.
Pafoofnik1 1 day ago
@Pafoofnik1 Guess? LOL Yes the law allows us to hold douchebags like you for 24hours WITHOUT being arrested. Just like we can DETAIN someone AND hold them in lockup if they are intoxicated. They dont get arrested either. DUHHH Its a hold. Smart guy. Again, learn the fucking law.
13tomabram 1 day ago
@13tomabram: I said I'd sure like to see that law. It may well exist.
I just won't take it as fact just because you say it is.
Who said anything about intoxication? I usually find that when a person is asked to confirm a statute that he says exists, and then starts changing the parameters instead of providing it, it's because his original comment wasn't correct.
Maybe you won't be one that does this.
Pafoofnik1 1 day ago
@Pafoofnik1 You said you cant hold anyone without being arrested. Being intoxicated is ANOTHER example. With holding ID is probable cause to hold them. Up to 24 hours if necessary. And if you get held for 48 hours, what would you do? Nothing. Good luck. You will loose.
13tomabram 1 day ago
@13tomabram said: "You said you cant hold anyone without being arrested"
I never said any such thing. Is this your chosen method of debate now, to lie?
Where are those New Mexico statutes you keep talking about?
Pafoofnik1 1 day ago
@Pafoofnik1 What did I hear? Did he curse? LOL I would of locked him up for that right there. Now tell me you cant get arrested for that. Yet something else you dumb civilians dont know. LOL
13tomabram 1 day ago
@13tomabram: Ok. Thanks for telling everyone here what you would do.
What was the original reason for the stop again?
Pafoofnik1 1 day ago
@Pafoofnik1 holy shit. They got a call. 100% probable cause to investigate and hold EVERYONE and ANYONE they find that is involved. END OF STORY!!!! Cops were 100% in the right. Now go argue with the other dumbass's.
13tomabram 1 day ago
@13tomabram said: "They got a call. 100% probable cause to investigate and hold EVERYONE and ANYONE they find that is involved."
CITE: Alamogordo police officers who were dispatched to the Theater in response to a call from Theater manager... Mr. St. John's lawful possession of a loaded firearm in a crowded place could not, by itself, create a reasonable suspicion sufficient to justify an investigatory detention.
SOURCE: St. John v. McColley 653 F.Supp.2d 1155 (2009)
Pafoofnik1 1 day ago
@Pafoofnik1 Yet again, do you know what the caller said when they called in? Nope. So until you do, STFU. And Sorry dipshit, I can detain EVERYONE involved in an investigation. SO until you fucking learn the law, go suck a dick.
13tomabram 1 day ago
@13tomabram: Neither you not I know what the caller said. However we all know what the officer said
A 2 minute video search finds that at 2:33 and 2:58 the officer says the person was stopped because he was open carrying.
Please try to remain civil. There's no reason to insult a person just because he does not share your opinions.
Pafoofnik1 1 day ago
@Pafoofnik1 CITE: Alamogordo police officers who were dispatched to the Theater in response to a call from Theater manager... Mr. St. John's lawful possession of a loaded firearm in a crowded place lead to his immediate arrest.
SOURCE: St. John v. McColley 653 F.Supp.2d 1155 (2009)
13tomabram 1 day ago
@13tomabram: You are a lair.
CITE: The undisputed facts indicate that he was not arrested
SOURCE: St. John v. McColley 653 F.Supp.2d 1155 (2009)
Pafoofnik1 1 day ago
@Pafoofnik1 YOU are a liar you dumb cunt.
13tomabram 1 day ago
@13tomabram: You caused your own problem. Let me take a guess, 13? 15? I can tell by your ego.
Pafoofnik1 1 day ago
@Pafoofnik1 Mad bro? Cause your wrong? LOL
13tomabram 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Pafoofnik1 CITE: The undisputed facts indicate that he was arrested
SOURCE: St. John v. McColley 653 F.Supp.2d 1155 (2009)
13tomabram 1 day ago
@13tomabram
yeah you're half-assing the job if anything and you know as little of the law as the leo in the video.
my degrees in aviation electronics, electronic engineering, criminal science and psychology probably don't amount to much compared to your "on the job" training but i get by.
bring him back to "headquarters"?
i thought you were trying to imply that you were a leo.
nobody says headquarters poser.
if he had been detained without probable cause the aclu would fry the leo.
tapper45 1 day ago
@tapper45 Nobody says headquarters? LOL How would you know? Dumbass. When you work at headquarter, that EXACTLY what you call it you stupid fuck. FYI dick, thats EXACTLY what the detective squad is called.
And leo? Who teh fuck says leo? LMFAO!!! Moron.
13tomabram 1 day ago
@13tomabram
i would know because i have worked at division headquarters and regional headquarters and we call it "desk" or "the office".
"Dumbass".
who says leo?
pretty much anyone in the le community who wants to save room while typing in a finite space.
phrases/titles like "Chief Law Enforcement Officer" take up a lot of room, CLEO/LEO saves a lot of space.
i don't care that you can't comprehend these acronyms, they are for use by normal individuals.
not for you remedials.
tapper45 1 day ago
@tapper45 he looked suspicious. Thats probable cause you stupid fuck. How little do you know.
13tomabram 1 day ago
@13tomabram
looking suspicious is cause (and not legal cause) to approach and engage in conversation without violating the citizen's 4th ammendment rights.
if, after approaching the citizen the leo becomes aware of some TANGIBLE FORM OF EVIDENCE that would legally constitute PROBABLE CAUSE and BE UPHELD AS SUCH DURING AN ARRAIGNMENT the leo is well within the law to ARREST the citizen and can THEN AND ONLY THEN legally demand the id.
"you stupid fuck".
tapper45 1 day ago
@tapper45 ANOTHER stupid kid heard from. Guess you didnt watch the video. Just so quick to make a fucking comment moron. Somebody called the police on him moron. And BULLSHIT!!!! In an investigation moron he can demand ID no problem. Nobody has to be fucking collared you dumb moron. Do you have to show ID if you get stopped on a traffic stop? YES. Are you arrested? NO!! So your dumb theory of being arrested before showing ID just went out the window. LOL
13tomabram 1 day ago
@13tomabram
do your parents STILL call you MORON?
and you STILL RESPOND to it?
classic.
you should set up some webcams at the house , your homelife sounds entertaining.
if you could possibly pull your head out just long enough for reality to sink in you'd be able to understand simple shit like this.
when you're "DRIVING" you're obligated by "DRIVING LAW" (sarcasm) to prove with you DRIVER'S LICENSE that you are licensed by the state to drive.
it is part of the agreement for a dl.
tapper45 1 day ago
@tapper45 WRONG yet again. Where the fuck do you make this shit up from? Show me where I said "drivers license". You cent even read you uneducated cunt. I said ID you dumb twit. And when I stop a car I have the right by law, to get ID from EVERY adult in the vehicle, even if they are not driving. So yet another dumb made up comment by you just went out the window. LOL Learn the fucking law ya dumb cunt.
13tomabram 1 day ago
@13tomabram said: "And when I stop a car I have the right by law, to get ID from EVERY adult in the vehicle"
Please quote and cite the law you say exists that requires me as a passenger to identify myself every time the vehicle I am in is stopped by law enforcement.
I think you are a liar. Quoting and citing this law you say exists will prove me wrong.
Not doing so will lay the blame on you.
I love watching those frail egos make a person look a fool.
Pafoofnik1 1 day ago
@Pafoofnik1 Think what you want. See all you can do is "think". I actually :know". So sorry dumb kid. Keep putting your foot in your mouth. LOL
13tomabram 1 day ago
@13tomabram its kinda funny after reading your comments, it seems like all you're trying to do is start a fight. and then you say "See all you can do is "think". I actually :know" you may THINK you know, but you're prolly just 12.? no... therefor you dont KNOW shit, you also just THINK it.. please stop proving how stupid you really are. because all these people here think the same thing. you're just an ignorant little kid talking shit.
Fyreguy16 1 day ago
@13tomabram
if you were a professional law enforcement officer you wouldn't be demonstrating such poor judgement and decision making skills here on youtube by calling people with higher degrees of education than you "cunts".
i applaud your best efforts with as much enthusiasm as they deserve:
can you hear me clapping?
you didn't NEED to say driver's license when you stated "TRAFFIC STOP".
it is implied.
i'm sure an AARP or blockbuster rental card would suffice.
right out the window!
tapper45 1 day ago
@tapper45 you didn't NEED to say driver's license when you stated "TRAFFIC STOP".
it is implied."
WHAT??? Nice try to dig yourself out of that hole. It wont work. I CLEARLY SAID ID. Obviously your such a dumb cunt you cant even read you uneducated faggot. And so dumb you dont even know what ID is. Blockbuster card is ID now? LOL Fucking toolbag. DO you know what id is? Guess not. Dumb cunt of a kid you are. Again. learn the law faggot.
13tomabram 1 day ago
@13tomabram
you're obviously not a law enforcement officer.
someone who cared about presenting a courteous, professional and intelligent image and not bringing discredit upon himself, his brothers in law enforcement and the reputation of law enforcement everywhere. would have responded appropriately.
you don't seem to grasp the simple fact that a DRIVER'S LICENSE is WIDELY recognized as a form of GOVERNMENT ISSUED IDENTIFICATION...
try re-reading the previous sentence 1,000 times.
tapper45 1 day ago
@tapper45 ummm yes I am you dumb piece of shit. And how dumb are you? First off I NEVER said drivers license. I said ID you dumb cunt. No matter how hard you try you cant dig out of the hole you are in so stop trying. Actually you just dug yourself even deeper saying a drivers license recognized as a form of government issued ID. How can it be government issued when the state issued drivers licenses? LOL Its STATE ID YOU DUMB CUNT!! LMFAO!!!!!! Keep digging yourself deeper.
13tomabram 1 day ago
@13tomabram There is this thing called a "state" government. You know, like your governer and state representatives,state courts, etc...
Then there is this thing called the "federal" government, like the supreme court, the FBI, etc...
He simply said "government ID, not state or federal.
SOSLICK22 1 day ago
@tapper45 you loose you dumb dirty cunt.
13tomabram 1 day ago
@13tomabram
pardon...
did you mean "lose"?
undereducated individual.
the only "hole" we're talking about is the one your head is up.
tapper45 1 day ago
@13tomabram
come on genius...
where ya'at?
if you're going to prove to America your 3rd grade education trumps basic, general knowledge this is your chance.
what, is it past your bedtime?
it is only 2300 here in el paso, did mommy take away the computer?
hope she didn't catch you being naughty with the internet.
how embarrassing.
let us know how it turns out!
tapper45 1 day ago
@13tomabram
where ya'at, "officer"?
let me guess, the "department" doesn't pay you to play on youtube, right?
you are a fraud.
i don't even believe that you are actually a real person.
i think you may be the alter ego of some scared little person who does not possess the intestinal fortitude to interact with real people in the real world so you are resigned to picking arguments on youtube that you can neither substantiate nor win.
try eharmony, and find yourself a boyfriend.
tapper45 19 hours ago
@13tommy1 said: "ANY OFFICER CAN LEGALLY DEMAND ID ANYTIME!!"
They sure can,. they just can't always legally detain you to ask for it, nor reuire that you answer.
Pafoofnik1 2 days ago
@Pafoofnik1 Dumb ass. SOMEBODY CALLED THE COPS ON HIM. HE HAS NOT ILLEGALLY DETAINED. You can argue this shit all day. You obviously know NOTHING about the law or criminal justice.
13tommy1 2 days ago
@13tommy1: I'm not arguing. I think you are wrong and bringing proof:
CITE: "officers who were dispatched to the Theater in response to a call... Mr. St. John's lawful possession of a loaded firearm in a crowded place could not, by itself, create a reasonable suspicion sufficient to justify an investigatory detention.
SOURCE: ST. JOHN v. McCOLLEY.653 F.Supp.2d 1155 (2009)
Pafoofnik1 2 days ago
@13tommy1 said: "The cop has EVERY right to detain ANYONE he thinks is suspicious."
New Mexico courts have already held that you are wrong.
CITE:Mr. St. John's lawful possession of a loaded firearm in a crowded place could not, by itself, create a reasonable suspicion sufficient to justify an investigatory detention.
SOURCE: St. John v. McColley 653 F.Supp.2d 1155 (2009)
Pafoofnik1 2 days ago
@Pafoofnik1 You left out the part where the cops got a call about the guy first dumbass. WATCH THE VIDEO AND LEARN HOW TO FUCKING LISTEN OF WHAT HAPPENED FIRST SHITHEAD.
13tommy1 2 days ago
@13tommy1: Please see one of my recent comments to you where I show the New Mexico courts held that a person cannot be detained and questioned just because someone called in about a person open carrying a weapon.
Thanks.
Pafoofnik1 2 days ago
@Pafoofnik1 do you know why someone called? NO you do NOT. SO stop assuming you know what is going on. They could of had a call that the guy pointed his gun at somebody. Guess the cops have no right to stop him either. LOL Your such a moron.
13tomabram 1 day ago
@13tommy1 It doesn't matter that someone called the cops alerting of a suspicious person. That doesn't give police authority to detain the suspect. They may certainly observe, approach, and converse with him, REQUEST to see ID and yes, even demand his name. But that is it. Without a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed a crime, an officer may not detain and individual or demand to see ID. Just like muscles, every right you don't exercise diminishes over time.
CaptainCocaine 2 days ago
@CaptainCocaine it SURE does matter. Plus the cops can detain ANYONE at ANYTIME during an investigation. You should learn the law. And demand his name? LOL Try they MUST get his ID. They can hold him at headquarters until they can id him. Perfectly legal.
13tomabram 1 day ago
i wanna know who called the cops on him. Cause that person who called is an idiot and obviously a foreign or something because EVERYBODY should know their rights. Guns should be in all our hands
Leerske 2 days ago
They open carry for a reason and I do the same for the same reason and thats
to get to my gun fast if I need to.Tell them they open carry so you want to see there ID as well.
LOSERS!!!!!!!!!!
leroyshaw61 2 days ago
7:30-7:39 he made you the liar there ;) lol
rbrtpmntl 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
i'm soldier (12b) & i fuckin HATE cops, but this soldier was not cooperating, officer duschebag made himself clear, police got a call so they have to check it out, this ain't harrasment, i'm from cali, i have been harrassed by pigs, dumb ass white kids always think talking back to a pig about their rights wont get them in trouble, just put urself in the pigs boots... how would of u handled this if this was your job? personally i woulda not been so nice to the soldier
UacusechaSavage 2 days ago
Comment removed
UacusechaSavage 2 days ago
walk down the street with a gun in your hand haha ahh ok fuck the police, he just got abducted
MadSativa 2 days ago
anyone judging this man for walking down open carrying i'm sorry is a complete idiot! different states have different laws regarding carrying a weapon! odds are you arent from this city or state so with that in mind shut your ignorant faces! Bottom line the cop openly admitted in this particular area it is entirely legal to open carry. He was harrassing him. Police were only trying to use fear as a tactic to get him to cooporate! In scenarios like this i say fuck the cop take me in and i'll sue!
herreracarlos16 2 days ago
That mother fucker cop just violate his right!
sonico73 2 days ago
PIGS!
rs173abn 3 days ago
Who in their right mind walks down the street open carring if they don't have a permit ?,This officer is pretty much ,ignorant of the carriers constitutional rights only someone stupid would walk around like that without a permit
JohnnyMoonShooter 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JohnnyMoonShooter said: "Who in their right mind walks down the street open carring if they don't have a permit ?"
Well, anyone in this state for starters.
People in N.M. dont need permits to open carry.
Pafoofnik1 3 days ago
Honestly this guy was asking for it. He should of just cooperated
ImmaSean 3 days ago
That cop should be fired, no discussion. The officer had not reasonable suspicion and the fella didn't need to identify himself. He was only guilty of contempt of Cop which these days calls for capital punishment.
yachtzzuuup 3 days ago
Please update us of what happened.
oogiemaster 3 days ago
SGT.BLACKWELL and cops like you, you are creating cop killers. I feel sorry for the good, educated cops because their name is being disgraced.
oogiemaster 3 days ago
I cannot wait for the time when soldiers roam the street of the U.S. and everyone has lost their rights and have no means to defend themselves against the tyrant of the society. I hope when that day comes I am long out of this land along with the people that lives by the Constitution. Those that oppose the Constitution, I pray for you and your next generations to suffer from your own ignorant. After this country collapse because of it, and it will, we will come back and rule it once more!
oogiemaster 3 days ago
@oogiemaster Why can you "not wait" for that moment to come? Why don't you just want people to become educated?
tycer18 3 days ago in playlist AM
@tycer18 I was being sarcastic. Maybe the Anti-constitutionalists see this video and comments and wake up and change their mind. History does not always teach people. Sometimes the best way to learn is when you actually learned it the hard way!
oogiemaster 3 days ago
Read that crap you signed to get your DL! It is not a violation of anything to ask for your ID. When you signed your application for a DL or State ID, you agreed to provide it to any officer of the court or law enforcement upon request!
mcamodell 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mcamodell said: "It is not a violation of anything to ask for your ID"
It is, however a violation of the law for an officer to stop and question a person in New Mexico just because someone called about a man open carrying a weapon.
"When you signed your application for a DL or State ID, you agreed to provide it to any officer of the court or law enforcement upon request!"
Have a cite to this law you just misquoted, or made up?
Thanks.
Pafoofnik1 3 days ago
@mcamodell upon a LAWFUL REQUEST. Looks like you need to read up on it. And for you to say that people live in a dream world if they think cops are here to protect them is very ignorant. They are here to protect. My uncle lost his life trying to save a child from a car accident.
tycer18 3 days ago in playlist AM
@tycer18 I looked it back up, just to be certain, at least here in AZ, it says "request of an officer" it does NOT say "lawful". If you read that MVD application you will see you give up many rights when you sign that application. And at least according to the Supreme Court of the United States of America they are NOT here to protect nor are they obligated to protect.
mcamodell 3 days ago
@mcamodell: Nope. Arizona requires lawful detainment:
13-2412. Refusing to provide truthful name when lawfully detained; classification
A. It is unlawful for a person, after being advised that the person's refusal to answer is unlawful, to fail or refuse to state the person's true full name on request of a peace officer who has lawfully detained the person based on reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime.
Pafoofnik1 3 days ago
@Pafoofnik1 Your either not listening or not paying attention. I am not referring to the statute, i know the statute says that, but you relinquish that when you sign the application for a DL. On the application for your DL you agreed to provide it to any officer of the court or law enforcement upon request! This supersedes the law since you signed the application and traded your right for the privilege of driving.
mcamodell 3 days ago
@mcamodell said: "but you relinquish that when you sign the application for a DL"
I seriously doubt that. Please quote and cite your legal backing that says I must presnt my ID "on request of an officer".
You won't find it.
What you may find is that you must show your license if you are operating a motor vehicle that requires a license on a street that requires a license to drive on.
But not just on "the request of an officer". Such a law is unconstitutional.
Pafoofnik1 3 days ago
@Pafoofnik1 He would need to produce an ID if he had a CCW. But open carry does not require an individual to identify.
yachtzzuuup 3 days ago
@mcamodell You are dead wrong. You are required to produce a license only upon request when you are operating a motor vehicle.
yachtzzuuup 3 days ago
In this case you should have either better explained the point you where tying to get across to them, but at the same time they CLEARLY stated the cause for your questioning weather it be "technically" correct or not, OR you could have simply complied with the simple request and told them why you are not comfortable with any further questions. fighting bureaucracy with bureaucracy does not lead any where, you have to use word and spell out the logic for them.
alreadypro 4 days ago
Its pretty simple. In America you can own a gun. Well done America, you have very high gun crime levels. Obviously you havent learnt from that lesson. BUT to walk around to "enforce my right" for open carry. Come on FFS...you walk around with a gun and you dont think this will upset people and make them worry. Morons!!!!
azraelbum 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@azraelbum said: "you walk around with a gun and you dont think this will upset people and make them worry. Morons!!!!"
I cannot control how other people perceive the world. I can. however, require that officers obey the law when they interact with me.
Pafoofnik1 4 days ago
@azraelbum The fact that people get upset and worry when someone is doing nothing wrong is the problem, the people who called in should be cited!
mcamodell 3 days ago
@mcamodell If you dont understand that people would be upset, worried and scared by someone walking down the street with a gun after all the cases of people going on gun rampages. Then i feel sorry for you.
azraelbum 3 days ago
THIS MAN IS BEING TREATED AS A
COMMON CRIMINAL AND THESE OFFICERS SHOULD BE ASHAMED I GIVE THEM CREDIT FOR NOT VIOLATING HIS RIGHTS SOONER BUT THE CAMERA WAS ROLING.GREAT COURAGE STANDING UP TO TYRANNY,TYRANNY,TYRANNY,TYRANNY....
TheChimneyPro 4 days ago
THIS POOR GUY FULLY COMPLIED WITH THE OFFICERS REQUESTS HE COULD HAVE GIVEN HIS ID BUT THATS NOT THE POINT,THIS IS TYRANNICAL UNCONSTITUTIONAL BEHAVIOR OF THE POLICE DEPT.THEY HAVE TAKEN AN OATH TO UP HOLD THE CONSTITUTION AND ARE THE GREATEST VIOLATORS THE ARREST IS PARAMOUNT TO KIDNAPPING UNLAWFUL DETENTION/IMPRISIONMENT THE 2ND IS CLEAR IT CANNOT BE INFRINGED.............................................
TheChimneyPro 4 days ago
THE POLICE WANT TO BE THE ONLY ONE S TO OPEN CARRY ITS A PURE POWER TRIP
TheChimneyPro 4 days ago
NO CRIME NO ID,OPEN CARRY IS NOT ILLEGAL,WHEN BEING DETAINED BY A POLICE OFFICER YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE SILENT SO ANY THING YOU SAY CANNOT BE USED IN A COURT OF LAW THE COPS JUST WANTED TO HAVE CONTROL,SOME ONE SCARED OF ME WALKING MY DOG WOULD NOT COMPEL THE POLICE TO ASK FOR YOU.RE ID OR LICENSE FOR THE DOG THE COPS ARE TRYING TO INTIMIDATE ANY ONE WHO OPEN CARRY IT A CAMPAIGN(TIN BADGE GODS WITH GUNS COWARDS,BULLIES)
TheChimneyPro 4 days ago
good job for standing up for your rights hear in califronia theyd shoot us for this i hope when the men over seas come home they see the harassment i hope things change
sniperdaniel4207 4 days ago
i don't think criminals would open carry. just sayin'
paco291 4 days ago 12
@paco291 Look up "1997 North Hollywood Shootout."
silvermediastudio 4 days ago
@silvermediastudio **cough** i jizzed.
paco291 3 days ago
This cop OWNED you. It's actually amusing near the end, how stupid you sound, and he calls you out on the youtube post. Yet you still posted it. Great stuff, thanks for giving the anti's more ammunition to take away our rights.
silvermediastudio 4 days ago
It's legal to walk down the street with a gun. However, if the cop has reasonable suspicion, he can legally request ID and detain for a reasonable amount of time.
The question becomes, does a call from a "concerned citizen" amount to reasonable suspicion? It depends on the circumstances.
silvermediastudio 4 days ago
@silvermediastudiosaid: "The question becomes, does a call from a "concerned citizen" amount to reasonable suspicion? "
Not suspicion enough to stop and question when it comes to open carry in New Mexico.
Pafoofnik1 4 days ago
@Pafoofnik1 You completely miss the point.
If this man wasn't carrying at all... and there was a call from a citizen about a suspicious person, police arrived and asked for ID because they have reasonable suspicion he may be a suspect (say, there were a rash of burglaries in the area and the caller didn't recognize the man), then he would be required to produce ID, gun or no gun.
The gun isn't even the issue in this stop.
silvermediastudio 4 days ago
@silvermediastudio: And you are completely missing my point.
You are bringing up a hypothetical. I responded with a fact to make sure no one misunderstood you and though that a person can be stopped just because of a call from a concerned citizen in this scenario.
Of course the gun is the issue in this stop, because it is why they stopped him. Can you find the time stamps where the officers say this. Start at about 01:50.
Or do you need some help?
Pafoofnik1 4 days ago
@Pafoofnik1 The hypothetical is based on fact. It's called a neighborhood watch program, where people call the police when they see individuals who do not live in a neighborhood in the neighborhood, acting suspicious.
The cop said they got a call from a citizen about a suspicious person, who had a gun. If he had a hammer, or a hoodie, or a fishing pole, then that would be the descriptor.
Get your head out of your ass.
silvermediastudio 4 days ago
@silvermediastudi said: "The hypothetical is based on fact." but not based on the events of this video.
The courts were very clear about stopping a person who is carrying a weapon. Would you like to see this decision,
Or would you rather continue to try to belittle me?
Pafoofnik1 4 days ago
@Pafoofnik1 You do plenty to belittle yourself, with your blatant manipulation of the situation to fit your pompous agenda, ignoring what is explicitly stated in the video, and outright lack of knowledge about the law and legal standards.
silvermediastudio 4 days ago
@silvermediastudio: OK. Your just here to insult, rather than discuss the facts.
Good to see that you are man enough to admit it to everyone here.
"Alamogordo police officers who were dispatched to the Theater in response to a call from Theater manager... Mr. St. John's lawful possession of a loaded firearm in a crowded place could not, by itself, create a reasonable suspicion sufficient to justify an investigatory detention."
St. John v. McColley 653 F.Supp.2d 1155 (2009)
Pafoofnik1 4 days ago
@Pafoofnik1 I'm not disputing the St. John v. McColley decision. However, in this case, the officer may have had other compounding events or information that led to reasonable suspicion. This is what you fail to realize, and it may be irrelevant that he was carrying a gun.
But you can have it your way. It's perfectly legal to walk through a neighborhood at night with a ski mask and a crowbar. See how that works out for you, claim you weren't breaking the law, just "out for a walk."
silvermediastudio 4 days ago
@silvermediastudio: The decision in St. John was pretty clear in itself.
And you say "it may be irrelevant that he was carrying a gun."
of course it's relevant. The officer himself admitted it at 01:50.
"It's perfectly legal to walk through a neighborhood at night with a ski mask and a crowbar." While you may think this is true, you certainly didn't get this from me.
Because I never said it.
Pafoofnik1 4 days ago
@Pafoofnik1 You're completely off the deep end, and have clearly never taken a formal course in law or the judicial system. A case ruling does not make law, it is a decision based on a set of circumstances. Another judge may rule differently, regardless of precedent.
Furthermore, the officer didn't "admit" anything. He was not under oath. You have a seriously misguided idea about how the world works, and how the law is applied. I wish you the best living in a dream world.
silvermediastudio 4 days ago
@silvermediastudio: said: "A case ruling does not make law", it decides what is lawful. What St John decided was that "lawful possession of a loaded firearm in a crowded place could not, by itself, create a reasonable suspicion sufficient to justify an investigatory detention."
Of course he admitted that it was a call about a man with a gun. Your disagreement with the conditions when he said it doesn't mean he didn't say it.
Please stop trying to tell me what I think.
Pafoofnik1 4 days ago
@silvermediastudio One of the big problems is EVERYONE has a seriously misguided idea about how the world works, and how the law is applied, none more so than the police! We are all living in a dream world if we think these people are here to protect anyone.
mcamodell 3 days ago
As of 2011 New Mexico can stop you and ask for ID, N.M. Stat. Ann. §30-22-3, however, the cop is ignorant of the law and it is therefore unenforceable as there is no law to the cops knowledge.
Dancerpro1 4 days ago
@Dancerpro1 said: "New Mexico can stop you and ask for ID, N.M. Stat. Ann. §30-22-3, "
Not completely true. Maybe you missed the part that says: "...to obstruct the due execution of...any public officer or any other person in a legal performance of his duty..."
2006 New Mexico Statutes - Section 30-22-3 — Concealing identity.
N.M. does not allow a stop based only on open carry.
St. John v. McColley 653 F.Supp.2d 1155 (2009)
Pafoofnik1 4 days ago
lets make this simple guys. first of all you can carry open guns.
the police have the right to ID you if they get a call or conduct a investigation.
THE FACT THAT YOU DONT NORMALLY SEE PEOPLE CARRY OPEN GUNS EVERYDAY will make you specious. just fucking corporate please so it wont be hard on you nor the cops.
BlueRice 4 days ago
@BlueRice said: "the police have the right to ID you if they get a call or conduct a investigation."
Not for open carry they can't.
New Mexico courts have already affirmed that a person cannot be stopped and ID based only on open carry. Not even if someone calls it in.
Would you like cites?
Pafoofnik1 4 days ago
@Pafoofnik1 yes i would. so i implant it to my knowledge. i know the fact in 2012 you cannot carry open pistol anymore. i think the person who pass it is jerry brown
BlueRice 4 days ago
@BlueRice: "Mr. St. John's lawful possession of a loaded firearm in a crowded place could not, by itself, create a reasonable suspicion sufficient to justify an investigatory detention." ST. JOHN v. McCOLLEY 653 F.Supp.2d 1155 (2009)
Reading the case will reveal that the person was detained because someone called the police.
Last I looked, New Mexico's constitution still said that people can open carry in New Mexico, where this incident took place. Maybe you were thinking California?
Pafoofnik1 4 days ago
@Pafoofnik1 yeah California.
BlueRice 4 days ago
Officer you are not paid to think, that is what your handbook and statute book does for you. If he hasn't broken any law/statute then why are you talking to him? Other peoples concerns/comfort level are not his concern, his rights are, go away servant.
aenn13 5 days ago
fuck them sworn to up hold the laws.. but only what ever ones they see fit... fuck those cocksuckers
Duwayne86 5 days ago
bhahahahahahah god police are dumb put a fake police jacket on and then u wont be stopped that is what these dumb cops are telling me
matsta177 5 days ago
Cops advising conceal permit vs open carry..nice..smart call there. Not doing anything illegal but we can still detain you for NOT breaking the law. Do the police not get a law class at the academy?
BlackDeath2626 5 days ago
What happened?
Laplacet2 5 days ago
ok what happen once he want to jail. this cops are criminals he lied and bullied this guy!!
senyahel 5 days ago
they should explain to callers carrying a gun is not a crime in america!
and quit their whining
205solduc 5 days ago
i would rather people carry them out in the open
MountainManD