These guys are what is known as the Gestapo. "Let me see your papers" That was said a lot in Nazi germany. This country is going to shit because everyone gives the cops too much authority, then they get used to citizens complying with them, so they think they can do what they want. Sue their asses!!!
This cop appears to have violated your 4A rights and it would be very educational for all people for you to post a follow up. Did your lawyer get you some cash for these cops fucking with you?
Why give these cop idiots opportunity to fuck with you?? Like he said, carry concealed and I don't mean jump through bullshit hoops to get a "permit." Just conceal the gun with the 2A as your "permit."
How can you justify some dick face with a made in china tin badge EVER coming up to you and just snatching away your gun like you're some 7 year old school girl caught with a Hustler mag?? All you open carry guys are lame.
OC is also tactically unsound as you don't want others thinking you're a cop. It's a good way to catch a round in the back of the head by folks that hate cops.(that # is growing exponentially)
Carry loaded, concealed and take your chances catching a misdemeanor. Big whup.
@rayray5340 ANyone carrying exposed is stupid as hell as well. You don't want people thinking you may be a cop because a lot of folks hate cops...good way to get shot by a crip (You wouldn't tell your wife to walk around with her $144k diamond and necklace, eh? But, you have no problem showing off your shiny pistol you just spent $1500 on??
@Aryangod40 you are completely right and I will give you give you that but i'm speaking from 12 yrs of exp as a highway patrol officer. Since the cops where and they arrived to investigate then yes the male subject is being detained until they clear that call. If the subj resist, delay or obstruct then cuff him stuff him and charge'em. This 20 min back and forth tap dance is crazy. This is why I made my statement. maybe inexperience would have been a better word.
United nations Staging Shootings all over USA and world. United nations in control of US Media. Creating staged events and shootings to Disarm the American PEOPLE.... So get ready for it..
Lets see Hypgateically speaking I call the Washington D.C. police and report a 6'3" Black man @ 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue is paceing
in the oval office with an arsenal at his disposal, I think he is planing a hit on an American citizen will you please
send officers to investigate. Do you think these officers go to investigate and ask for his ID? If they did do you think this person will give show ID?
The police do have the right to ask for I.d . And for the gun permit if all is ok then this man could have went about his day !
The person was bieng a jerk to the police ,because even if your allowed to carry ,this man could have commuted a felony in the last week which dents him a right to carry a gun .
With him providing I.D. the cops could find out he was law abiding citizen and let him walk ( the cop was within his legal obligation )
Camera and a gun that does look suspicious... You getting ready to videotape a drive by. Did you just commit murder? Aggravated robbery, assault? People don't know and the officers don't know.
It depeneds on the state law.. in Texas reasonable suspicion is all an officer needs to detain someone and make it lawful for someone to identify... I don't know what the carrying laws are in this state but if your such a bill of rights enthusiast you should believe in the 10th amendment. The supreme court said the power of the the 2nd amendment is based on the individual states. Which is how it should be. I'm not familar with this states laws, but when someone calls the police for man with a
@saucermonkey320 said: "I don't know what the carrying laws are in this state"
The right to open carry is written right in New Mexico's constitution. Officers cannot legally stop and question a person just because he is open carrying.
@redsoxguy18 The cop didn't hinder your right to carry, you retard!!! He responded to a call re: a suspicious person carrying a firearm. Don't be a pansy about it!!!
@MikeJS81 ok, just to clarify, that wasn't me in the vid you dumbass. and this man committed no crime, so he didn't have to say anything to the police. you're just another liberal panzy who hates guns.
its your own fault this cop was ok till you played dumb like a 7 year old talking to his mom, if you havent done anything why are you scared of giving them your id ?
@thelucky225 or detained. If not driving a motor vehicle one should never verbally identify oneself, or present ID unless and until the officer tells you are are being detained or are under arrest.
of its authenticity. Using this construction, the U.S. Supreme Court held the law to be void for vagueness in Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352 (1983).[27]
“Stop and identify” laws in different states that appear to be nearly identical may be different in effect because of interpretations by state courts. For example, California’s “stop and identify” law, Penal Code §647(e) had wording[26] similar to the Nevada law upheld in Hiibel, but a California appellate court, in People v. Solomon (1973), 33 Cal.App.3d 429 construed the law to require “credible and reliable” identification that carries a “reasonable assurance” (cont)
There's no investigation until there is something to investigate.(crime) asshole
Hope he got humiliated by his superiors over this.
The problem is the cops could be spending their time positive educating the public. Ask the person complaining, were they waving a gun around. If they say no, explain to them that person is legal. Please don't call again. By the, were you arrested?
@c6rocks "There's no investigation until there is something to investigate.(crime)"
WRONG -- you dont understand what the term investiage means.... if someone make a complaint ( for whatever reason) police have to inveistage to see if the complaint is vaild or not.
This dose not imply that there is a crime -- rather they are invesitaging to see wheather or not a crime was commited
@c6rocks "There's no investigation until there is something to investigate.(crime) asshole"
There is an investigation if there is a complaint.. If someone claimed for instance that you were threathening someone with a gun.. police need to invesitage wheather or not it was illegal. This dose not imply a crime was commited
@badpanda84: What country do you live in that allows arrest based only on reasonable suspicion? We need much more than that here in the U.S.:
"...upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
holy shit being a police officer has to be hard why to people everyday try to make it harder and harder..... the officers are just trying to make sure he is not a wanted person and to make sure the gun is not stolen
It continues to concern me that police officers are ignorant of the law. If open carry and the right to refuse to provide identification interferes with an officer's ability to do his job, change the law.
Good luck with that, though. Individual rights are protected for a reason.
The fact of the matter is that these guys are walking with an OC hoping that someone will call the police so they can get there "cause" on YT. I call Bullshit on all of it. Like I said, we are becoming a nation of narcissitic pansies in which its all about me and what I want rather than helping your fellow man and being a decent human friggin being. Im sick of it. Im sick of drug users getting 20yrs and rapists getting 20months. We need to help each other, not fuck with each other.
Great video man. These cops don't know shit. Hey sat whatever, why do you have to bring color into this? Who's the racist now? And your trying to become a cop? Your part of the problem douche.
anybody else notice this white as can be officer's last name is "Blackmon"???...LMAO!!!! U know this deserves a thumbs up!...No disrespect to police! Im in school to become one!
this guy is an idiot. he should join the police department so he can see that these guys have one of the hardest jobs in the u.s. hes just fucking with them because he is just some pecker wood with to much time on his hands. he should comply with the officers. he isnt cooperating at all. your just showing all of us youtubers that your a fag.
@Tinkerstien - well its true and dont be telling me that kind of stuff i have my every right to my opinion just like you telling me what you just said\, so everybody says oh the cops are wrong, i have my opinion to say the carrier was in the wrong. so i have my opinion just like you do. CAUSE PEOPLE DONT UNDERSTAND WHAT COPS DO EVERY DAY FOR CITIZENS SUCH AS US .
this guy is a hero-what folks don't seem to realize is that America is turning into a police state, why should you go ahead and produce an ID-Why? if you are not suspected of a crime then they don't have the right to be asking for your ID-we still have a constitution and bill of rights in America--for just a lil while longer anyways,,,
Some states do NOT allow recording LEOs: For More Info YouTube Search: "Courageous Illinois Man Faces 75 Years In Prison For Recording Cops" "As long as the police officer is in public, there is no state where recording a police officer is illegal. If it is a PRIVATE CONVERSATION, 12 states require all parties to consent to recording voice: California Connecticut Florida Illinois Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Montana Nevada New Hampshire Pennsylvania Washington" ~Answers.yahoo.com
@samsung427 Do you understand that he does not have to produce identification or tell them his name unless he has been accused of a crime? That's the law. And the officer said many times, he was NOT accused of a crime. So he wouldnt need to produce id.
@billydunwoody Actually Fl (BCSO i believe is refering to Broward County Sheriffs Office) does have a "Stop And Identify Law" so in other words he does by law have to show ID in some states you don't have to technically but it sure does make things easier on both ends of the spectrum, And even though he didnt "break any laws" he was under investigation since they received a call that a man was walking down the street with a gun so they do have to look at the situation
@samsung427 Apparently you don't understand. Number 1, this is in Bernallino County, NM. Second, “Stop and identify” statutes are laws in the United States that allow police to detain persons reasonably suspected of involvement in a crime and require persons so detained to identify themselves to the police. For the stop and identify law to be used, he has to be SUSPECTED of a crime. The police officer clearly said he wasn't suspected comitting a crime. Look at Wikipedia.
When someone is alarmed enough to call the police, they MUST investigate. If they dont, then you would complain that the police were negligent in performing their duties. I agree that in that state, walking with a firearm isnt illegal, but the police performing a stop and making sure everything is ok isnt the definition of an illegal detention. I cant believe I have to explain this to people, ya'll cant be that stupid.
Supreme court ruled in Terry cd Ohio that it is not illegal for police to detain you for investigation of suspicious activity. Obviously walking down the street with a gun strapped to your leg alarmed someone enough to call the police. Learn the law before you walk around trying to bait cops.
@macoflaf Except the fact that walking down the street with an open carry weapon is not suspicious activity,it is completely legal.So maybe you should learn the law.
@shadowr434 to you it may be normal to walk down the street with a handcannon strapped to your leg, not to everyday citizens. It isnt out of the ordinary for one to call the police and for him (under his mandate to answer citizen calls) to check out the situation. This includes identifying you, makeing sure your ccw is legite, your firearm isnt stolen. If you dont like this being done, too bad. It states in your ccw that you must submit and comply to this. Stop baiting and hating police!!!
@Pafoofnik1 again, the police are mandated to investigate (crime or not) when a citizen calls in a complaint. In the course of the investigation it isnt unconstitutional for the officer to ask for id. How does he know who and what he's dealing with?? Remember, criminals lie. Walking down the street with a gun, ccw or not may alarm some people. They have the right to call law enforcement to investigate and the police are MANDATED BY LAW to investigate.
@Pafoofnik1 Let me understand your points. First, are you actually trying to say that the police are able to "pick and choose" whatever calls are made. I call Bullshit. Thats their job, citizens call, they go period no exception. Stop looking for friggin laws and use some common sense. Hiibel CLEARLY states that the officer has the right to ask for ID in the course of an INVESTIGATION. They are there to determine if a law may have been broken, THEY HAVE TO KNOW who theyre dealing with.
@macoflaf: I was not trying to say a thing. I stated a fact, which is that police must be investigating a crime before they can require a person to identify himself.
I then asked you to cite the statute that you think is being violated here.
Looks like you've read Hibbel... So we both know they can't demand ID just because someone called in about someone following the law.
You are now off on a tangent. I will be happy to discuss this tangent once we finish with the original topic.
@Pafoofnik1 So a cop automatically knows whether a crime has been commited BEFORE he asks for ID?????? Is that what youre "stating". I call Bullshit. And this isnt a tangent, this is me trying to get people to understand that cops have procedures and one is to investigate to DETERMINE if a crime has been commited. I know that if I were a cop, Im going to damn well know who Im dealing with and verify it. Like I said earlier, people lie.
@Pafoofnik1 If I reading everything correctly every state should have a law that states that a police officer must fulfill the duties of a police officer, this includes answering calls (im not stating 50 laws so get over it) Second, Hiibell only rules its not unconstitutional / against the law for the officer to require ID in his investigation. Its up to each individual state to enact a law in support of Hiibel.
I dont think any statute was violated by the police officer or the "suspect". I think the cop was doing his job and the suspect was generaly being a moron for walking up and down the street with a gun strapped to his side and videoing people. I mean, you HAVE to expect a reaction from the public if you do abnormal stuff like that.
@macoflaf: If there is no suspicion of criminal activity, then Terry doesn't come into play, nor does Hiibel. While an officer is free to ask for ID he cannot use Terry to keep the person from leaving, nor can he use Hibbel to require the person from IDing himself. So your "This includes identifying you, makeing sure your ccw is legite, your firearm isnt stolen." is invalid here.
Define abnormal. My neighbors and I walk down my streets here armed all of the time. Feral hogs and the such about.
@Pafoofnik1 The suspicion of criminal activity comes into play when a citizen calls in a complaint. It is the officers mandate to 1. Respond 2. Investigate 3. Enforce 4. Report. Suspicion of criminal activity doesnt mean its taking place, but it does mean the officer must investigate which means identifying parties. The ccw is actually one of things he SHOULD VERIFY. If you have a ccw, then you know youre mandated to present it to any officer that requests it. If not, dont carry the gun.
@Pafoofnik1 were not talking about walking around in the country or in area's like I live in Louisiana where hunting, fishing and the sort are part of everyday life. Im talking about walking the streets of Tuscon AZ, New York City, mid to large cities where the only people that walk around with guns are cops or crooks. You are being waay to literal. I agree, if a cop walks up to me and demands ID, he better be investigating something because I will not live in a "papers please" state.
@macoflaf: Doesn't matter what we're talking about with regards to location. What matters is what is lawful when it comes to suspicion of criminal activity.
I believe this video was taken in New Mexico. The right to open carry is written in their constitution.
By the way, open carry is legal in Tuscon, AZ as well.
Open carry is not legal in my state, but then again, I never said I was in the public when I am walking on my streets.
@Pafoofnik1 I am going to state policy from my state of Louisiana. If you have a CCP, you are mandated to do the following when in contact with a LEO, first state you have a weapon, submit your CCP to the officer (which is a state issued ID, its ID number is the same as your DL), submit your weapon if requested by the officer, submit to a breathalizer if applies. Failure to do so results in immediate revokation of CCP. No charges filed,carrying a weapon(in public) is a privelige not a right.
@Pafoofnik1 We are not going to agree on this issue my friend, I brought up LA because MOST states model there policies after one another so GENERALLY speaking everything should be similar. But again, 8years of law enforcement background (former), tells me that its not normal to walk down the street videoing everyone with a gun strapped on you. Also, SOMEONE felt the same as I do because they called the police to investigate the suspect, thus allowing a Terry stop and Hiibell request.
@Pafoofnik1 When did I EVER say it was illegal to walk down the street video taping someone with a OC? That would be never. Police officers use words like investigate, this doesnt mean, nor have i said there was, a crime commited. Suspect is a term to describe someone on the other end of the investigation, I find it suspect you didnt know that. Now the whole firearm petunias question, neither is illegal, but which is more likely to alarm a citizen? Your arguement in this round is BS Sorry
@macoflaf: "When did I EVER say it was illegal to walk down the street video taping someone with a OC? "
When did I say you did? Why do you expect me to justify saying something I never said?
So you think I have toy provide ID because you think 'it's not normal its not normal to walk down the street videoing everyone with a gun strapped on you"?
Sorry. Unless you can articulate actual criminal activity that you are investigating..
@Pafoofnik1 I notice you didnt have a response to the petunias and handgun response. Im growing tired of your play on words, lets just agree to disagree. You want to walk down your street with a gun video taping people, do it. You have that right, just as anyone has the right to call and report what they believe is suspicious behavior. Then the police will come and "harass" you because you are the only one in the county that wants to OC/VID.
@macoflaf: You are correct, I didn't have a response. Neither did you for that matter. Well, you danced around is by answering a question with another question.
Now you say: "You want to walk down your street with a gun video taping people, do it". Thanks, but I don't really need your blessing.
The rest of your comment ("harass" you because you are the only one in the county that wants to OC/VID. ) and the like is a lot of guessing.
@Pafoofnik1 (cont) then you can refuse to give the cop your ID, the cop (knowing Hiibel) will demand it, you will refuse, cop will arrest you, then you can take it alllllllll the way up to the SCOTUS and then when they kick it back because theyve ruled on this with Hiibel, all of your smug word play arguementative dialetic will be for naught and I, being a quite humble Lousianian will not gloat, or bask in the sunshine of right. I'll just know what I know now.........Im right, your wrong. ;o)~
@Pafoofnik1 Our whole argument has been based on hypothetical because obviously the law wasnt broken here on either side. The police officer, to my knowledge, wasnt challenged in court over his action nor was he reprimanded (as far as we know) or worse. The fact is, until someone decides to bring this particular video to the supreme court, we can speculate and argue (which is fun for some of us) on what the outcome should be. While I enjoy your point of view, still think your wrong my friend
@macoflaf: Our whole debate has been based on my request for you to please cite the statute you think is being violated here. Be specific. Remember, your words are not the law.
@Pafoofnik1 I dont think a law has been violated on either side. As I said, if you want to walk up and down the street with an OC and videoing people, its not against the law - Just expect a police officer to be called by a citizen. Second, its not against the law for the police officer to stop, investigate and identify after THE call was made. No laws broke on either side. Now, if no call was made, its not illegal for the officer to detain until a brief investigation takes place.
@macoflaf said: "Second, its not against the law for the police officer to stop, investigate and identify after THE call was made."
"the Court found that unless an officer can point to specific facts that allow him to reasonably believe that the individual is engaged in criminal activity, the individual's Fourth Amendment rights allow him to walk the streets without fear of police confrontation."
@Pafoofnik1 So what state STATUTE was violated and why werent these rogue, obviously corrupt and out of control officers, brought up on charges? The video is there, why isnt a prosecutor running out to balance the scales of justice? Why isnt this HUGE news coverage? Normally if a cop does anything corrupt and violates the essence of the foundation of our judicial system, everyone is out for blood. So why havent they been prosecuted and charged?
@macoflaf: The officer's could be brought up on charges, if the individual chooses to do so. Mr. St. John did. I'll have to split the cite up to keep under the character limit here:
CITE: Alamogordo police officers who were dispatched to the Theater in response to a call from Theater manager Robert Zigmond. Upon arrival, Mr. Zigmond informed Officer McColley that an individual, later identified as Mr. St. John, had entered the Theater wearing a holstered handgun...
Moreover, 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...
Defendants' motion for summary judgment is also denied with regard to qualified immunity...
SOURCE: St. John v. McColley, 653 F. Supp. 2d 1155 - Dist. Court, D. New Mexico 2009
@Pafoofnik1: Qualified immunity being denied means that the officers could not claim that they were in law enforcement so were immune from this lawsuit. Therefore, they were held personally responsible for violating Mr. St. John's rights. No offense intended when stating this. I was not sure if you knew what it meant..
@Pafoofnik1 I agree with you that had the police just rolled up, Terry would apply but not Hiibel. But because they were called Hiibel comes into play. I also do not agree with states that have OC with out permits. There has to be Firearms training, knowledge of the laws, and reprecussions for not following the criteria of the permit. I think its a dangerous practice to say, Ok if youre not a convicted felon, strap a gun on your hip and walk around your local walmart.
@macoflaf The police have a mandate to investigate in a Legal manner. The officer can ask for ID, but under some circumstances, the individual can legally refuse to give it. In an Open Carry state, one is not breaking a law by walking down the street with a gun in plain view. Police can respond to the complaint, but if they do not view illegal activity, they can not demand anything. Just because a citizen was "alarmed" doesn't require the police to detain/demand ID.
@dmedicFF I dont disagree with what youre saying except that in order to investigate properly, you have to ask questions and verify answers. Remember some people LIE. They are mandated to answer calls from the public, they dont know if the activity is legal or not until they have all of the information. Its ignorant to think that anybody, cop or not, would go into a situation and not want to know who he's dealing with. Why is it so hard for everyone to view it from the police side???
@macoflaf Well my background is in LE, and as such I am an ardent LE supporter, and am not arguing against the Police (ask Pafoofnik1 how I argue pro-Police).
@dmedicFF I am former LE so thats why I am so passonite in my views. I spent the last two days debating on this issue with Pafoofnik1. I will always believe that police officers (99% of the time) act for the good of the community. I also know that their #1 goal is to go home every nite. I believe the supreme court understands that so they sided with Hiibel vs Nevada. If the officer is acting in good faith, its his duty to have all the facts to determine if a crime has taken place.
@macoflaf But, as I said, the officer can not violate the rights of citizens while doing so. That's my point. As a former LE you know as much as I do it's not easy. You have gone on calls where a citizen was afraid and found that no law was violated. You also know a subject is indeed a dirtbag loser, but you have no legal grounds to detain/ID/arrest them.
@macoflaf The Police are mandated to answer calls. But they can not deprive citizens of their rights or break the Law in the process. I don't like many of restrictions on police either, but that's the way it is. Facts are, this person is doing a lawful activity. The Police can request info or ID, but cant detain, or demand it. I will say, I have no problem with OC. But, some do it just because they can, and when confronted by PD, they play these games just to get it on video.
@macoflaf Lots of people lie. And, some who call 911 lie, or are mistaken about if what they are observing is a crime. The Police have a (sometimes difficult and confusing) job to strike a balance between public safety and the rights of citizens. You can have the police called on you, and have done nothing wrong. That is where rights come into play, and professional police officers understand that (continued)
@macoflaf That's not to say the deputies in this video are unprofessional at all. Many times, the police have acted in a manner that was characterized as unreasonable, heavy handed, and illegal (Miranda v. Arizona), but when all was done, the SCOTUS actually passed laws allowing that police action (Terry v. Ohio). It's a "living" Constitution, subject to interpretation and amendment, based on changes in our society.
@macoflaf It is always, every single time, in an officer's best interest to protect the rights of a suspect.....because fact is, if he/she doesn't, a criminal can get off the hook and be back on the streets to endanger other people. This is one of the many difficult aspects of the officer's job, and I am not arguing against them, it's just the facts.
@dmedicFF This is where I disagree. We cannot sacrifice the rights of victims to protect the interest of the suspects rights. We have turned into a country of pansies that allow the murderers, rapists, burglars etc to have 3 squares a day, cable tv, a/c, paid gym membership and we shit on the victims rights. We have become a people of me me me, instead of looking out for people. We want to push the police as far as we can instead of being good citizens and helping out. Its friggin madening
@macoflaf I cant disagree either with most of that. But here, someone called the PD on someone open carrying. There was no victim per se. When there is, there is usually a potent amount of suspicion to stop and ID legally. And its not a matter of sacrificing victim's rights. Its doing the job correctly- 100% legally- to ensure that the bad guys go to jail and stay there. That works to ensure victim's rights, not violate them.
@dmedicFF While I agree that there was no victim in the particular situation, you and I both know that the ordinary citizen is an ignorant rash human being. It is up to the officer to determine whether this is a legit ccp, common street thug, or a mental person brandishing a weapon. IN THE CASE, I dont find it unreasonable that a LEO wants to verify the weapon, the ccp and the identity of the person. I dont see where it blatantly violates is consitutional rights vs. police officer safety.
@macoflaf You are right- it is up to the officer. But he swore an Oath to uphold the Law- that means operating within it. If the OC'er consents to the ID and check, then its legal. Otherwise, the officer needs a reasonable suspicion to compel these things. There is judgment involved. However, walking down the street OC is not illegal.
@macoflaf OC is not new, but it is unusual- thus the citizen calls to police. Many citizen calls do not warrant police action. This guy is not violating the law. The PD can not detain or ID him without suspicion that he is. Like it or not- that's the Law. People are free as long as they are not violating the law. We can not have police ID'ing citizens performing lawful (but unusual) activity. I see where the fear is since its a gun- but Welcome to America.
@dmedicFF Disagree on many citizen calls not warranting police action. ALL CALL warrant some kind of police action. I never said that the guy with the OC was violating the law, I said that it is the officers duty to make sure everything is ok. If you want an OC, then you have to accept a bit of personal responsibility. Going with the background, training and soforth. But they (in most states required by law) must submit to an officer investigtion (Id, ser# check)no rights violated!!
@macoflaf said: "...If you want an OC, then you have to accept a bit of personal responsibility. Going with the background, training and soforth..." and "...(in most states required by law) must submit to an officer investigtion (Id, ser# check)..."
New Mexico does not require any prerequisites before a person can open carry. Accepting "Personal responsibility" does not mean a person has to give up any of his rights in my book.
@macoflaf I mean police action as in confrontation/detainment/arrest. In most OC calls, perhaps a drive by with brief observation is all that is warranted, because it is legal activity. The OC law varies. In California, an officer has the right to check the weapon to ensure it is unloaded....but NOT to demand ID from the carrier. Again, police can not stop and investigate you for legal activity.
@dmedicFF In a suspicious person with a gun call (which is most likely how this call went out), He should verify everything. on your cali officer has the right to check to see if the guns UNLOADED?? Whats the point of an oc?. Most OCP I have read demands that the carrier submit his weapon for serial verification, ID check and that its being (the weapon) being displayed properly. If not, they are in violation of the law. I still stick by citizen/victims rights come first before criminals.
@macoflaf Again- the call could have been handled better at dispatch. Suspicious? What is he doing that is suspicious? What one sees as suspicious can easily be innocuous (and Legal) -I'm sure you know that. If the caller states observations that lead to a suspicion of crime, then the PD can detain. If I were an officer on duty in an OC state, while enroute to the call I would ask dispatch to find out what he is doing. That's important information for many reasons.
@dmedicFF Youve made my point for me. An officer NEVER 100% knows what he's responding to even with dispatch. Albeit I agree that dispatch has a responsibility to gather as much intel as possible, it doesnt always happen. THATS why an officer must be on high alert. His number on goal is to what??????????????????????????? GO HOME. Sorry sorry to the ones that disagree with us, fuck you and your ID. you want to go home, so does the cop.
@macoflaf Of course safety is number one. Its legal to OC in many states. You are stretching things a bit. The danger in policing involves many things, and its something you accept when you sign up.
@macoflaf If dispatch doesnt get the info, that's where the officer's experience, knowledge of the Law, and professionalism comes into play. It involves things not taught at the Academy.
@macoflaf I think your (and many others) argument against OC is because of the spectre of a gun in plain view. That's understandable. As an officer I am more concerned about dangers I can't see. Concealed firearms. Or, other legally carried things that could kill or seriously injure me- combs, pens, knives- it goes on and on.
@dmedicFF I think you have misunderstood my stance on OC. That is our rights as Americans and will NEVER be against the right to bear arms. What my point is, is that when carrying an OC, you have to expect that a certain group of citizens who are often irrational, impestuous and love to have government intrustion (what do they call those???????? oh, right - democrats!!!! ) and will call the police. I beleive if you have an OC, you should want to be responsible and help a LEO do his job.
@macoflaf I suspect that most of the time, any OC'er approached by police is a cordial encounter. But, its not illegal to not want to cooperate when you are not required to, nor is it illegal to want to be a dickhead. There's really nothing police can do about those, unless violating the law.
@dmedicFF I agree, I guess what Im trying to say is that an OC comes with not only the responsibility of following the law, but also comes with a moral responsibility. Yes, it isnt a crime to be a dick, but why do so when its not necessary. The LEO has a job to do, let him do it quickly so you can get on your way. I remember when I was a cop writing a ticket, If I was asked to hurry up, you can bet your house I was taking my time. Same thing applies here on being a dick, be nice-go home.
@dmedicFF And I also couldnt agree more about being more concerned about what you see. Thats why the public is so harsh on police "demenor or attitude" because they dont understand that there are people that want to do you harm and will hide weapons and lie about who they are in order to do so. I for one thank you for what you do, I miss being a cop everyday and oneday will go back. And I will always back the badge!!!!!!
@macoflaf Well they carry mags seperately, no mag inserted and barrel clear, so one can argue that in an emergency the gun is delayed significantly, so whats the point? I think the Law was developed to satisfy gun advocates, and some semblance of safety. Although I have no problem with it because its the Law, I suspect people OC simply out of the desire to exercise the right, rather than any concern for their safety.
@macoflaf Criminals can conceal themselves while doing" legal" things. A suspended driver can drive a car illegally. The only way an officer can find this out is if he sees a violation, stops him and ID's and runs the info. Not a congruous example but the same concept. Yes, its possible an inappropriate person can OC. But, that's the compromise we have to "accept" in order to enjoy the freedoms we have.
@dmedicFF Thats why we have a responsibility as Americans to get back where the victims and ordinary citizens have more rights than criminals (or suspected). If youre not doing anything wrong, then you should have no problem helping a LEO do his job and make sure our communities are safe instead of trying to push the limits of the LEO, the judicial system and the community. We are so far away from helping your fellow man, its pathetic.
@macoflaf I dont disagree. But, many OC'ers see themselves as ordinary citizens, who are law abiding and exercising their rights. Should not a police officer respect their rights too? Not everyone is a concealed criminal or maniac.
@dmedicFF I think I may have made you and Pafoofnic1 think I have a different view. I am for OC, I dont think that they are problem seekers generally speaking, What I do think is that in this particular video, he was trying to get police called on him so that he could test the limits, I find this reprehensible. I think that carry an OC comes with responsibility and maturity and the respect for the law and those who enforce it.
@Pafoofnik1 Look, Im not really going to debate this issue much, you arent going to sell me that this guy carrying a gun on his side walking down the street filming everyone isnt going to alarm 'someone". He set out looking to do this. The only other arguement is that he is either a voyeur, or a film student. Which that argument is sort of shot down by the tone and wording he uses with the officer. Most people are willing to comply ESPECIALLY if the have an OC and theyre responsible.
@Pafoofnik1 Now before you go on a tangent, I am totally for the right to bear arms, you have the right as an American to defend yourself, your home, family, country and community. What I dont agree with is strapping a firearm to your hip just because. If you have the CCP, then it means youve not only gone under some kind of training, but also a class on the law and morality. I think in the video, the "suspect" had less than honorable intentions and he succedded in getting cops called on him.
@macoflaf Here's another thing. The caller to 911 should have been asked for more details. What is this guy doing-specifically? That's a simple question that will help responding officers decide how to act. Is he threatening people or acting disorderly? If so- it is legal to detain and ID.
@Pafoofnik1 If he doesnt have a CCP then my point is made. Normal Americans do not walk around carrying their firearms in plain sight because it does disturb people. If he DOES have a CCP then he is mandated (in my state of LA and I suspect in others the same protocol) to notify the officer he has a weapon and give is CCP to the officer, which is a state issued ID. Refusal to submit your weapon results in a loss of the CCP, refusal to submit CCP - loss, breathalizer refusal - Loss (continued)
@macoflaf I think you may be misapplying Terry. In that case, a plainclothes officer observed two guys casing an establishment continuously. Walking back and forth, looking in window, conversing and arguing, then going back to the store, all when the store was closed. They were evasive when confronted. That's much different from someone OC'ing in an OC state, walking down the street, absent suspicious, disorderly behavior.
He said you were being detained because someone called the cops. What if someone called the cops and said some dude had a plaid shirt on? Would they have the right to detain you then? No. The fact is walking down the street with a holstered sidearm is no more illegal than walking down the street with a plaid shirt. How many times have you heard a cop say "ignorance of the law isn't an excuse to break it"? Ignorance of the law isn't an excuse to harrass some dude legally bearing arms.
Its a slippery slope, and the ignorance of our society has created a steep one at that. Don't let the social stigma drown the [dwindling] freedom filled future for your children too.
It is not appropriate in this society to walk down the street carrying a gun. Why do you think people called in a complaint? It freaks people out when they seen some dude walking down the street holding a gun. You know this. Sounds like you are the one doing the provoking. You may have the right in your backward country to carry a hand gun down the street. But think of your reasons for walking down the street with that firearm, and don't say self defense. its not like you're going deer hunting..
@Lagmire what does deer hunting have to do with self defense? If I walk around my street I may in fact need a gun. If it is on display I am less likely to need to use it. I will observe the law. If it scares people they need to be better educated.
@Lagmire First off he was not holding a gun which would be a perfectly valid reason for the police to stop and arrest him.He was carrying a firearm in a holster,not brandishing it. Secondly we have the right to carry said weapon if we are law abiding ,its in our constitution.Just because you have no rights in whatever country your from doesnt mean our country is backward. We hold very dear our rights under the constitution and we will continue to fight for them .
The first mistake he did was say "ya its ok to take it..." He should had said, "no I refuse search of my person or property as per the 4th amendment. what law am I breaking?"
Cops all have that excuse and say "Oh yeah it's not illegal for you to open carry, but someone reported you as suspicious, so we have to investigate." It's BULLSHIT. They have no right to ask you who you are, or detain you without suspicion of you actually doing anything illegal. This cop is a moron. Just because someone calls, doesn't constitute probable cause or reasonable suspicion to be detained and questioned.
These two coward ass cops would cry like little bitches in Afghanistan. Not so tough no huh?
msk1911 1 week ago in playlist OPEN CARRY
were you ever read your Miranda?
thejbwood003 1 week ago
I really hoped you sued and got these dumbass cops fired!
CNDshooter94 2 weeks ago
These guys are what is known as the Gestapo. "Let me see your papers" That was said a lot in Nazi germany. This country is going to shit because everyone gives the cops too much authority, then they get used to citizens complying with them, so they think they can do what they want. Sue their asses!!!
g30mike 1 month ago
I bet the sob put the cuffs on really tight and left you in the back seat for a good 2 hours. Hope you got $50k for this.
Aryangod40 1 month ago
This cop appears to have violated your 4A rights and it would be very educational for all people for you to post a follow up. Did your lawyer get you some cash for these cops fucking with you?
Why give these cop idiots opportunity to fuck with you?? Like he said, carry concealed and I don't mean jump through bullshit hoops to get a "permit." Just conceal the gun with the 2A as your "permit."
Aryangod40 1 month ago
How can you justify some dick face with a made in china tin badge EVER coming up to you and just snatching away your gun like you're some 7 year old school girl caught with a Hustler mag?? All you open carry guys are lame.
OC is also tactically unsound as you don't want others thinking you're a cop. It's a good way to catch a round in the back of the head by folks that hate cops.(that # is growing exponentially)
Carry loaded, concealed and take your chances catching a misdemeanor. Big whup.
Aryangod40 1 month ago
these cops are stupid as hell
rayray5340 1 month ago
@rayray5340 ANyone carrying exposed is stupid as hell as well. You don't want people thinking you may be a cop because a lot of folks hate cops...good way to get shot by a crip (You wouldn't tell your wife to walk around with her $144k diamond and necklace, eh? But, you have no problem showing off your shiny pistol you just spent $1500 on??
Aryangod40 1 month ago
@Aryangod40 you are completely right and I will give you give you that but i'm speaking from 12 yrs of exp as a highway patrol officer. Since the cops where and they arrived to investigate then yes the male subject is being detained until they clear that call. If the subj resist, delay or obstruct then cuff him stuff him and charge'em. This 20 min back and forth tap dance is crazy. This is why I made my statement. maybe inexperience would have been a better word.
rayray5340 1 month ago
Please tell me you filed a lawsuit
bopoole 1 month ago
Did you sue? what happened?
adam3176 1 month ago
United nations Staging Shootings all over USA and world. United nations in control of US Media. Creating staged events and shootings to Disarm the American PEOPLE.... So get ready for it..
adam3176 1 month ago
Lets see Hypgateically speaking I call the Washington D.C. police and report a 6'3" Black man @ 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue is paceing
in the oval office with an arsenal at his disposal, I think he is planing a hit on an American citizen will you please
send officers to investigate. Do you think these officers go to investigate and ask for his ID? If they did do you think this person will give show ID?
HIMOTEP2012 1 month ago
report this video to the sheriffs office and get these officers discharged for breaking 3 laws
kelsoks 1 month ago
The police do have the right to ask for I.d . And for the gun permit if all is ok then this man could have went about his day !
The person was bieng a jerk to the police ,because even if your allowed to carry ,this man could have commuted a felony in the last week which dents him a right to carry a gun .
With him providing I.D. the cops could find out he was law abiding citizen and let him walk ( the cop was within his legal obligation )
The man was a jerk .
2210lynn 1 month ago
@2210lynn said: "The police do have the right to ask for I.d"
But they don't have the authority to stop him to do so.
and said: "...And for the gun permit"
New Mexico does not require permits to open carry.
and said: "this man could have.."
People in the U.S. are not required to prove absence of hypothetical situations on demand.
And so one...
Pafoofnik1 1 month ago
Camera and a gun that does look suspicious... You getting ready to videotape a drive by. Did you just commit murder? Aggravated robbery, assault? People don't know and the officers don't know.
saucermonkey320 1 month ago
@saucermonkey320 you're whats wrong with this country, fuckin pathetic
krypekeeper 1 month ago
@krypekeeper lol :)
saucermonkey320 1 month ago
It depeneds on the state law.. in Texas reasonable suspicion is all an officer needs to detain someone and make it lawful for someone to identify... I don't know what the carrying laws are in this state but if your such a bill of rights enthusiast you should believe in the 10th amendment. The supreme court said the power of the the 2nd amendment is based on the individual states. Which is how it should be. I'm not familar with this states laws, but when someone calls the police for man with a
saucermonkey320 1 month ago
@saucermonkey320 said: "I don't know what the carrying laws are in this state"
The right to open carry is written right in New Mexico's constitution. Officers cannot legally stop and question a person just because he is open carrying.
Pafoofnik1 1 month ago
The person(s) who called the police have a right to ask the police to investigate a suspicious person walking down the street with a gun!
MikeJS81 2 months ago
@MikeJS81 fuck you. i have the right to carry a firearm per the second amendment. go back to a communist country like china or cuba.
redsoxguy18 1 month ago
@redsoxguy18 The cop didn't hinder your right to carry, you retard!!! He responded to a call re: a suspicious person carrying a firearm. Don't be a pansy about it!!!
MikeJS81 1 month ago
@MikeJS81 ok, just to clarify, that wasn't me in the vid you dumbass. and this man committed no crime, so he didn't have to say anything to the police. you're just another liberal panzy who hates guns.
redsoxguy18 1 month ago
@MikeJS81: New Mexico courts have recognized that officers do not have the authority to stop and question people just because they are open carrying.
Pafoofnik1 1 month ago
..Sooo, what happended? This was a while ago now. What was the final outcome?
flyboy172r 2 months ago
its your own fault this cop was ok till you played dumb like a 7 year old talking to his mom, if you havent done anything why are you scared of giving them your id ?
Ustra13 2 months ago
California's current law only requires you to give you name, dob & address if 'legally' arrested.
thelucky225 3 months ago
@thelucky225 or detained. If not driving a motor vehicle one should never verbally identify oneself, or present ID unless and until the officer tells you are are being detained or are under arrest.
greggh 2 months ago
of its authenticity. Using this construction, the U.S. Supreme Court held the law to be void for vagueness in Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352 (1983).[27]
thelucky225 3 months ago
“Stop and identify” laws in different states that appear to be nearly identical may be different in effect because of interpretations by state courts. For example, California’s “stop and identify” law, Penal Code §647(e) had wording[26] similar to the Nevada law upheld in Hiibel, but a California appellate court, in People v. Solomon (1973), 33 Cal.App.3d 429 construed the law to require “credible and reliable” identification that carries a “reasonable assurance” (cont)
thelucky225 3 months ago
kidnapping -
AMilitantAgnostic 4 months ago
There's no investigation until there is something to investigate.(crime) asshole
Hope he got humiliated by his superiors over this.
The problem is the cops could be spending their time positive educating the public. Ask the person complaining, were they waving a gun around. If they say no, explain to them that person is legal. Please don't call again. By the, were you arrested?
c6rocks 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@c6rocks "There's no investigation until there is something to investigate.(crime)"
WRONG -- you dont understand what the term investiage means.... if someone make a complaint ( for whatever reason) police have to inveistage to see if the complaint is vaild or not.
This dose not imply that there is a crime -- rather they are invesitaging to see wheather or not a crime was commited
badpanda84 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@c6rocks "There's no investigation until there is something to investigate.(crime) asshole"
There is an investigation if there is a complaint.. If someone claimed for instance that you were threathening someone with a gun.. police need to invesitage wheather or not it was illegal. This dose not imply a crime was commited
badpanda84 4 months ago
@c6rocks Also you do realise that the cops only need reasonable suspcion that a crime has occured to arrest someone --
badpanda84 4 months ago
@badpanda84: What country do you live in that allows arrest based only on reasonable suspicion? We need much more than that here in the U.S.:
"...upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
(4th Amendment)
Pafoofnik1 4 months ago
@badpanda84 reasonable suspicion to detain....to investigate. Probable Cause is needed to arrest, absent the officer witnessing the crime.
dmedicFF 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dmedicFF "reasonable suspicion to detain....to investigate. Probable Cause is needed to arrest, absent the officer witnessing the crime."
Yes and both probably cause and reasonable suspicion is whatever the fuck the cops write down on the police report
badpanda84 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I am not asking you again. Asks again, multiple times...
oldjonesy 4 months ago
you wanted the cops to come, they did. and now your complaining. your an idiot. you should go to jail for wasting the cops time.
josephseven 4 months ago
holy shit being a police officer has to be hard why to people everyday try to make it harder and harder..... the officers are just trying to make sure he is not a wanted person and to make sure the gun is not stolen
zccthelegend 4 months ago
It continues to concern me that police officers are ignorant of the law. If open carry and the right to refuse to provide identification interferes with an officer's ability to do his job, change the law.
Good luck with that, though. Individual rights are protected for a reason.
FAX
FAX335 4 months ago
The fact of the matter is that these guys are walking with an OC hoping that someone will call the police so they can get there "cause" on YT. I call Bullshit on all of it. Like I said, we are becoming a nation of narcissitic pansies in which its all about me and what I want rather than helping your fellow man and being a decent human friggin being. Im sick of it. Im sick of drug users getting 20yrs and rapists getting 20months. We need to help each other, not fuck with each other.
macoflaf 4 months ago
Great video man. These cops don't know shit. Hey sat whatever, why do you have to bring color into this? Who's the racist now? And your trying to become a cop? Your part of the problem douche.
nadbooker 4 months ago
anybody else notice this white as can be officer's last name is "Blackmon"???...LMAO!!!! U know this deserves a thumbs up!...No disrespect to police! Im in school to become one!
saltlife318 4 months ago
@saltlife318 lol nevermind...just finished watching the rest of it and clearly has a segment on it!!...lol
saltlife318 4 months ago
he made this cop seam like a dumbass lol
Slyder1212 4 months ago
It wasn't an Illegal seizure of his weapon because he consented.
Quote: "May I take this off you real quick?" "Yeah go ahead man."
Sorry just being devils advocate.
1994Juggernaut 5 months ago
WISH THAT NAZI GOON PIG DOING ALL THE TALKING COULD BE STAPPED DOWN IN ORDER SHAVE THAT STUPID IDIOT LOOKING FAGY HAIRDO OFF
Tinkerstien 5 months ago
YOUTUBE OR GOOGLE "VATICAN ASSASSINS"
IT'S AN EPIC WORK BY ERIC JON PHELPS THAT SHOULD BE A TOP BEST SELLER, IT TELLS THE WHOLE TRUTH GOING BACK TO 1540AD ON WHY AMERICA IS UPSIDE DOWN.
IT'S A STUDY OF THE JESUIT ORDER AND THE BLACK POPE.
Tinkerstien 5 months ago
this guy is an idiot. he should join the police department so he can see that these guys have one of the hardest jobs in the u.s. hes just fucking with them because he is just some pecker wood with to much time on his hands. he should comply with the officers. he isnt cooperating at all. your just showing all of us youtubers that your a fag.
TheGunny14 5 months ago
@TheGunny14 you need your retarded head pinched off and shuved up ur ass fucka.
Tinkerstien 5 months ago
@Tinkerstien - well its true and dont be telling me that kind of stuff i have my every right to my opinion just like you telling me what you just said\, so everybody says oh the cops are wrong, i have my opinion to say the carrier was in the wrong. so i have my opinion just like you do. CAUSE PEOPLE DONT UNDERSTAND WHAT COPS DO EVERY DAY FOR CITIZENS SUCH AS US .
TheGunny14 5 months ago
this guy is a hero-what folks don't seem to realize is that America is turning into a police state, why should you go ahead and produce an ID-Why? if you are not suspected of a crime then they don't have the right to be asking for your ID-we still have a constitution and bill of rights in America--for just a lil while longer anyways,,,
pugdogy 5 months ago 3
redknight808 5 months ago
hes fucking dumb... if he woulda just gave them his ID he woulda been on his way in like three minutes
samsung427 5 months ago
@samsung427 He is standing his constitutional ground. Why bend over to these oppressive liberal cops when you can exercise your rights!
furtjager117 5 months ago 3
@samsung427 Do you understand that he does not have to produce identification or tell them his name unless he has been accused of a crime? That's the law. And the officer said many times, he was NOT accused of a crime. So he wouldnt need to produce id.
billydunwoody 5 months ago 2
@billydunwoody Actually Fl (BCSO i believe is refering to Broward County Sheriffs Office) does have a "Stop And Identify Law" so in other words he does by law have to show ID in some states you don't have to technically but it sure does make things easier on both ends of the spectrum, And even though he didnt "break any laws" he was under investigation since they received a call that a man was walking down the street with a gun so they do have to look at the situation
samsung427 5 months ago
@samsung427 Apparently you don't understand. Number 1, this is in Bernallino County, NM. Second, “Stop and identify” statutes are laws in the United States that allow police to detain persons reasonably suspected of involvement in a crime and require persons so detained to identify themselves to the police. For the stop and identify law to be used, he has to be SUSPECTED of a crime. The police officer clearly said he wasn't suspected comitting a crime. Look at Wikipedia.
billydunwoody 5 months ago 2
When someone is alarmed enough to call the police, they MUST investigate. If they dont, then you would complain that the police were negligent in performing their duties. I agree that in that state, walking with a firearm isnt illegal, but the police performing a stop and making sure everything is ok isnt the definition of an illegal detention. I cant believe I have to explain this to people, ya'll cant be that stupid.
macoflaf 5 months ago
Supreme court ruled in Terry cd Ohio that it is not illegal for police to detain you for investigation of suspicious activity. Obviously walking down the street with a gun strapped to your leg alarmed someone enough to call the police. Learn the law before you walk around trying to bait cops.
macoflaf 5 months ago
@macoflaf Except the fact that walking down the street with an open carry weapon is not suspicious activity,it is completely legal.So maybe you should learn the law.
shadowr434 5 months ago
@shadowr434 to you it may be normal to walk down the street with a handcannon strapped to your leg, not to everyday citizens. It isnt out of the ordinary for one to call the police and for him (under his mandate to answer citizen calls) to check out the situation. This includes identifying you, makeing sure your ccw is legite, your firearm isnt stolen. If you dont like this being done, too bad. It states in your ccw that you must submit and comply to this. Stop baiting and hating police!!!
macoflaf 4 months ago
@macoflaf: Police must be investigating a crime before they can require a person to identify himself (Hiibel).
Please cite the statute you think is being violated here. Be specific. Remember, your words are not the law.
Please do not bring up CCW unless you are able to prove that this person has a CCW license and it specifically requires him to ID in this incident.
Pafoofnik1 4 months ago
@Pafoofnik1 again, the police are mandated to investigate (crime or not) when a citizen calls in a complaint. In the course of the investigation it isnt unconstitutional for the officer to ask for id. How does he know who and what he's dealing with?? Remember, criminals lie. Walking down the street with a gun, ccw or not may alarm some people. They have the right to call law enforcement to investigate and the police are MANDATED BY LAW to investigate.
macoflaf 4 months ago
@macoflaf: No cite then?\
Without a legal cite, then the Supreme Court, in the case known as Hiibel, disagrees with you.
Now you say: "police are MANDATED BY LAW to investigate."
I'll be happy to watch you not provide proof of this law just as soon as we verify that you won't be verifying your other guess at the law.
Pafoofnik1 4 months ago
@Pafoofnik1 Let me understand your points. First, are you actually trying to say that the police are able to "pick and choose" whatever calls are made. I call Bullshit. Thats their job, citizens call, they go period no exception. Stop looking for friggin laws and use some common sense. Hiibel CLEARLY states that the officer has the right to ask for ID in the course of an INVESTIGATION. They are there to determine if a law may have been broken, THEY HAVE TO KNOW who theyre dealing with.
macoflaf 4 months ago
@macoflaf: I was not trying to say a thing. I stated a fact, which is that police must be investigating a crime before they can require a person to identify himself.
I then asked you to cite the statute that you think is being violated here.
Looks like you've read Hibbel... So we both know they can't demand ID just because someone called in about someone following the law.
You are now off on a tangent. I will be happy to discuss this tangent once we finish with the original topic.
Pafoofnik1 4 months ago
@Pafoofnik1 So a cop automatically knows whether a crime has been commited BEFORE he asks for ID?????? Is that what youre "stating". I call Bullshit. And this isnt a tangent, this is me trying to get people to understand that cops have procedures and one is to investigate to DETERMINE if a crime has been commited. I know that if I were a cop, Im going to damn well know who Im dealing with and verify it. Like I said earlier, people lie.
macoflaf 4 months ago
@macoflaf said:"So a cop automatically knows whether a crime has been commited BEFORE he asks for ID"
I never said that.
Let's stick to what i said, not what you wish I said.
Pafoofnik1 4 months ago
@Pafoofnik1 If I reading everything correctly every state should have a law that states that a police officer must fulfill the duties of a police officer, this includes answering calls (im not stating 50 laws so get over it) Second, Hiibell only rules its not unconstitutional / against the law for the officer to require ID in his investigation. Its up to each individual state to enact a law in support of Hiibel.
macoflaf 4 months ago
@macoflaf: Thanks for the info.
I don't know why you presented it to me though.
I asked you to cite the statute that you think is being violated here.
Pafoofnik1 4 months ago
I dont think any statute was violated by the police officer or the "suspect". I think the cop was doing his job and the suspect was generaly being a moron for walking up and down the street with a gun strapped to his side and videoing people. I mean, you HAVE to expect a reaction from the public if you do abnormal stuff like that.
macoflaf 4 months ago
@macoflaf: If there is no suspicion of criminal activity, then Terry doesn't come into play, nor does Hiibel. While an officer is free to ask for ID he cannot use Terry to keep the person from leaving, nor can he use Hibbel to require the person from IDing himself. So your "This includes identifying you, makeing sure your ccw is legite, your firearm isnt stolen." is invalid here.
Define abnormal. My neighbors and I walk down my streets here armed all of the time. Feral hogs and the such about.
Pafoofnik1 4 months ago
@Pafoofnik1 The suspicion of criminal activity comes into play when a citizen calls in a complaint. It is the officers mandate to 1. Respond 2. Investigate 3. Enforce 4. Report. Suspicion of criminal activity doesnt mean its taking place, but it does mean the officer must investigate which means identifying parties. The ccw is actually one of things he SHOULD VERIFY. If you have a ccw, then you know youre mandated to present it to any officer that requests it. If not, dont carry the gun.
macoflaf 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@macoflaf: Please cite the statute that you think is being violated here.
I think you know where I am going here. There is nothing to investigate since there is no indication of unlawful activity here.
I've asked you before not to bring up CCW, unless you can prove it comes into play as well.
Pafoofnik1 4 months ago
@Pafoofnik1 were not talking about walking around in the country or in area's like I live in Louisiana where hunting, fishing and the sort are part of everyday life. Im talking about walking the streets of Tuscon AZ, New York City, mid to large cities where the only people that walk around with guns are cops or crooks. You are being waay to literal. I agree, if a cop walks up to me and demands ID, he better be investigating something because I will not live in a "papers please" state.
macoflaf 4 months ago
@macoflaf: Doesn't matter what we're talking about with regards to location. What matters is what is lawful when it comes to suspicion of criminal activity.
I believe this video was taken in New Mexico. The right to open carry is written in their constitution.
By the way, open carry is legal in Tuscon, AZ as well.
Open carry is not legal in my state, but then again, I never said I was in the public when I am walking on my streets.
Pafoofnik1 4 months ago
@Pafoofnik1 I am going to state policy from my state of Louisiana. If you have a CCP, you are mandated to do the following when in contact with a LEO, first state you have a weapon, submit your CCP to the officer (which is a state issued ID, its ID number is the same as your DL), submit your weapon if requested by the officer, submit to a breathalizer if applies. Failure to do so results in immediate revokation of CCP. No charges filed,carrying a weapon(in public) is a privelige not a right.
macoflaf 4 months ago
@macoflaf said: "I am going to state policy from my state of Louisiana. "
Why would you want to do that? Louisiana laws have absolutely nothing to do with this incident.
Pafoofnik1 4 months ago
@macoflaf: "carrying a weapon(in public) is a privelige not a right. "
Not in New Mexico.
Why do you want to keep talking about other state laws? Why don't you talk about the laws of the state this video was taken in?
Tangents.
Pafoofnik1 4 months ago
@Pafoofnik1 We are not going to agree on this issue my friend, I brought up LA because MOST states model there policies after one another so GENERALLY speaking everything should be similar. But again, 8years of law enforcement background (former), tells me that its not normal to walk down the street videoing everyone with a gun strapped on you. Also, SOMEONE felt the same as I do because they called the police to investigate the suspect, thus allowing a Terry stop and Hiibell request.
macoflaf 4 months ago
@macoflaf said: "tells me that its not normal to walk down the street videoing everyone with a gun strapped on you"
Thanks for the info. It doesn't alter the fact that the armed person was doing nothing illegal.
and said: "investigate the suspect"
There is no suspect.
A person calls in a man carrying a sidearm.
A person calls in a man carrying petunias.
Which scenario is illegal here?
Pafoofnik1 4 months ago
@Pafoofnik1 When did I EVER say it was illegal to walk down the street video taping someone with a OC? That would be never. Police officers use words like investigate, this doesnt mean, nor have i said there was, a crime commited. Suspect is a term to describe someone on the other end of the investigation, I find it suspect you didnt know that. Now the whole firearm petunias question, neither is illegal, but which is more likely to alarm a citizen? Your arguement in this round is BS Sorry
macoflaf 4 months ago
@macoflaf: "When did I EVER say it was illegal to walk down the street video taping someone with a OC? "
When did I say you did? Why do you expect me to justify saying something I never said?
So you think I have toy provide ID because you think 'it's not normal its not normal to walk down the street videoing everyone with a gun strapped on you"?
Sorry. Unless you can articulate actual criminal activity that you are investigating..
Pafoofnik1 4 months ago
@Pafoofnik1 I notice you didnt have a response to the petunias and handgun response. Im growing tired of your play on words, lets just agree to disagree. You want to walk down your street with a gun video taping people, do it. You have that right, just as anyone has the right to call and report what they believe is suspicious behavior. Then the police will come and "harass" you because you are the only one in the county that wants to OC/VID.
macoflaf 4 months ago
@macoflaf: You are correct, I didn't have a response. Neither did you for that matter. Well, you danced around is by answering a question with another question.
Now you say: "You want to walk down your street with a gun video taping people, do it". Thanks, but I don't really need your blessing.
The rest of your comment ("harass" you because you are the only one in the county that wants to OC/VID. ) and the like is a lot of guessing.
Pafoofnik1 4 months ago
@Pafoofnik1 (cont) then you can refuse to give the cop your ID, the cop (knowing Hiibel) will demand it, you will refuse, cop will arrest you, then you can take it alllllllll the way up to the SCOTUS and then when they kick it back because theyve ruled on this with Hiibel, all of your smug word play arguementative dialetic will be for naught and I, being a quite humble Lousianian will not gloat, or bask in the sunshine of right. I'll just know what I know now.........Im right, your wrong. ;o)~
macoflaf 4 months ago
@macoflaf: No need. It's already been all the way to SCOTUS, and they agree with me.
Of course you are free to think that you are right and I am wrong. Have at it.
Pafoofnik1 4 months ago
@macoflaf: By the way...
You said: "then you can refuse to give the cop your ID, the cop (knowing Hiibel) will demand it, you will refuse, "
I never said I always refuse, but thanks for describing a hypothetical situation that will probably never happen.
Pafoofnik1 4 months ago
@Pafoofnik1 Our whole argument has been based on hypothetical because obviously the law wasnt broken here on either side. The police officer, to my knowledge, wasnt challenged in court over his action nor was he reprimanded (as far as we know) or worse. The fact is, until someone decides to bring this particular video to the supreme court, we can speculate and argue (which is fun for some of us) on what the outcome should be. While I enjoy your point of view, still think your wrong my friend
macoflaf 4 months ago
@macoflaf: Our whole debate has been based on my request for you to please cite the statute you think is being violated here. Be specific. Remember, your words are not the law.
Pafoofnik1 4 months ago
@Pafoofnik1 I dont think a law has been violated on either side. As I said, if you want to walk up and down the street with an OC and videoing people, its not against the law - Just expect a police officer to be called by a citizen. Second, its not against the law for the police officer to stop, investigate and identify after THE call was made. No laws broke on either side. Now, if no call was made, its not illegal for the officer to detain until a brief investigation takes place.
macoflaf 4 months ago
@macoflaf said: "Second, its not against the law for the police officer to stop, investigate and identify after THE call was made."
"the Court found that unless an officer can point to specific facts that allow him to reasonably believe that the individual is engaged in criminal activity, the individual's Fourth Amendment rights allow him to walk the streets without fear of police confrontation."
State v. Jones Summer, 1994 24 N.M.L. Rev. 463
Why was he stopped for? Open carry is legal.
Pafoofnik1 4 months ago
@Pafoofnik1 So what state STATUTE was violated and why werent these rogue, obviously corrupt and out of control officers, brought up on charges? The video is there, why isnt a prosecutor running out to balance the scales of justice? Why isnt this HUGE news coverage? Normally if a cop does anything corrupt and violates the essence of the foundation of our judicial system, everyone is out for blood. So why havent they been prosecuted and charged?
macoflaf 4 months ago
@macoflaf: The officer's could be brought up on charges, if the individual chooses to do so. Mr. St. John did. I'll have to split the cite up to keep under the character limit here:
CITE: Alamogordo police officers who were dispatched to the Theater in response to a call from Theater manager Robert Zigmond. Upon arrival, Mr. Zigmond informed Officer McColley that an individual, later identified as Mr. St. John, had entered the Theater wearing a holstered handgun...
(cont)
Pafoofnik1 4 months ago
(cont)
Moreover, 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...
Defendants' motion for summary judgment is also denied with regard to qualified immunity...
SOURCE: St. John v. McColley, 653 F. Supp. 2d 1155 - Dist. Court, D. New Mexico 2009
Pafoofnik1 4 months ago
@Pafoofnik1: Qualified immunity being denied means that the officers could not claim that they were in law enforcement so were immune from this lawsuit. Therefore, they were held personally responsible for violating Mr. St. John's rights. No offense intended when stating this. I was not sure if you knew what it meant..
Pafoofnik1 4 months ago
@Pafoofnik1 I agree with you that had the police just rolled up, Terry would apply but not Hiibel. But because they were called Hiibel comes into play. I also do not agree with states that have OC with out permits. There has to be Firearms training, knowledge of the laws, and reprecussions for not following the criteria of the permit. I think its a dangerous practice to say, Ok if youre not a convicted felon, strap a gun on your hip and walk around your local walmart.
macoflaf 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@macoflaf said "But because they were called Hiibel comes into play."
Why do you think Hiibel come into play? What criminal activity, exactly, do you think these officers are investigating?
and you said: "I also do not agree with states that have OC with out permits."
OK. Of course you are free to have such an opinion. It doesn't alter the law here though.
Pafoofnik1 4 months ago
@macoflaf The police have a mandate to investigate in a Legal manner. The officer can ask for ID, but under some circumstances, the individual can legally refuse to give it. In an Open Carry state, one is not breaking a law by walking down the street with a gun in plain view. Police can respond to the complaint, but if they do not view illegal activity, they can not demand anything. Just because a citizen was "alarmed" doesn't require the police to detain/demand ID.
dmedicFF 4 months ago
@dmedicFF: Well said.
Pafoofnik1 4 months ago
@dmedicFF I dont disagree with what youre saying except that in order to investigate properly, you have to ask questions and verify answers. Remember some people LIE. They are mandated to answer calls from the public, they dont know if the activity is legal or not until they have all of the information. Its ignorant to think that anybody, cop or not, would go into a situation and not want to know who he's dealing with. Why is it so hard for everyone to view it from the police side???
macoflaf 4 months ago
@macoflaf Well my background is in LE, and as such I am an ardent LE supporter, and am not arguing against the Police (ask Pafoofnik1 how I argue pro-Police).
dmedicFF 4 months ago
@dmedicFF I am former LE so thats why I am so passonite in my views. I spent the last two days debating on this issue with Pafoofnik1. I will always believe that police officers (99% of the time) act for the good of the community. I also know that their #1 goal is to go home every nite. I believe the supreme court understands that so they sided with Hiibel vs Nevada. If the officer is acting in good faith, its his duty to have all the facts to determine if a crime has taken place.
macoflaf 4 months ago
@macoflaf But, as I said, the officer can not violate the rights of citizens while doing so. That's my point. As a former LE you know as much as I do it's not easy. You have gone on calls where a citizen was afraid and found that no law was violated. You also know a subject is indeed a dirtbag loser, but you have no legal grounds to detain/ID/arrest them.
dmedicFF 4 months ago
@macoflaf The Police are mandated to answer calls. But they can not deprive citizens of their rights or break the Law in the process. I don't like many of restrictions on police either, but that's the way it is. Facts are, this person is doing a lawful activity. The Police can request info or ID, but cant detain, or demand it. I will say, I have no problem with OC. But, some do it just because they can, and when confronted by PD, they play these games just to get it on video.
dmedicFF 4 months ago
@macoflaf Lots of people lie. And, some who call 911 lie, or are mistaken about if what they are observing is a crime. The Police have a (sometimes difficult and confusing) job to strike a balance between public safety and the rights of citizens. You can have the police called on you, and have done nothing wrong. That is where rights come into play, and professional police officers understand that (continued)
dmedicFF 4 months ago
@macoflaf That's not to say the deputies in this video are unprofessional at all. Many times, the police have acted in a manner that was characterized as unreasonable, heavy handed, and illegal (Miranda v. Arizona), but when all was done, the SCOTUS actually passed laws allowing that police action (Terry v. Ohio). It's a "living" Constitution, subject to interpretation and amendment, based on changes in our society.
dmedicFF 4 months ago
@macoflaf It is always, every single time, in an officer's best interest to protect the rights of a suspect.....because fact is, if he/she doesn't, a criminal can get off the hook and be back on the streets to endanger other people. This is one of the many difficult aspects of the officer's job, and I am not arguing against them, it's just the facts.
dmedicFF 4 months ago
@dmedicFF This is where I disagree. We cannot sacrifice the rights of victims to protect the interest of the suspects rights. We have turned into a country of pansies that allow the murderers, rapists, burglars etc to have 3 squares a day, cable tv, a/c, paid gym membership and we shit on the victims rights. We have become a people of me me me, instead of looking out for people. We want to push the police as far as we can instead of being good citizens and helping out. Its friggin madening
macoflaf 4 months ago
@macoflaf I cant disagree either with most of that. But here, someone called the PD on someone open carrying. There was no victim per se. When there is, there is usually a potent amount of suspicion to stop and ID legally. And its not a matter of sacrificing victim's rights. Its doing the job correctly- 100% legally- to ensure that the bad guys go to jail and stay there. That works to ensure victim's rights, not violate them.
dmedicFF 4 months ago
@dmedicFF While I agree that there was no victim in the particular situation, you and I both know that the ordinary citizen is an ignorant rash human being. It is up to the officer to determine whether this is a legit ccp, common street thug, or a mental person brandishing a weapon. IN THE CASE, I dont find it unreasonable that a LEO wants to verify the weapon, the ccp and the identity of the person. I dont see where it blatantly violates is consitutional rights vs. police officer safety.
macoflaf 4 months ago
@macoflaf You are right- it is up to the officer. But he swore an Oath to uphold the Law- that means operating within it. If the OC'er consents to the ID and check, then its legal. Otherwise, the officer needs a reasonable suspicion to compel these things. There is judgment involved. However, walking down the street OC is not illegal.
dmedicFF 4 months ago
@macoflaf OC is not new, but it is unusual- thus the citizen calls to police. Many citizen calls do not warrant police action. This guy is not violating the law. The PD can not detain or ID him without suspicion that he is. Like it or not- that's the Law. People are free as long as they are not violating the law. We can not have police ID'ing citizens performing lawful (but unusual) activity. I see where the fear is since its a gun- but Welcome to America.
dmedicFF 4 months ago
@dmedicFF Disagree on many citizen calls not warranting police action. ALL CALL warrant some kind of police action. I never said that the guy with the OC was violating the law, I said that it is the officers duty to make sure everything is ok. If you want an OC, then you have to accept a bit of personal responsibility. Going with the background, training and soforth. But they (in most states required by law) must submit to an officer investigtion (Id, ser# check)no rights violated!!
macoflaf 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@macoflaf said: "...If you want an OC, then you have to accept a bit of personal responsibility. Going with the background, training and soforth..." and "...(in most states required by law) must submit to an officer investigtion (Id, ser# check)..."
New Mexico does not require any prerequisites before a person can open carry. Accepting "Personal responsibility" does not mean a person has to give up any of his rights in my book.
Pafoofnik1 4 months ago
@macoflaf I mean police action as in confrontation/detainment/arrest. In most OC calls, perhaps a drive by with brief observation is all that is warranted, because it is legal activity. The OC law varies. In California, an officer has the right to check the weapon to ensure it is unloaded....but NOT to demand ID from the carrier. Again, police can not stop and investigate you for legal activity.
dmedicFF 4 months ago
@dmedicFF In a suspicious person with a gun call (which is most likely how this call went out), He should verify everything. on your cali officer has the right to check to see if the guns UNLOADED?? Whats the point of an oc?. Most OCP I have read demands that the carrier submit his weapon for serial verification, ID check and that its being (the weapon) being displayed properly. If not, they are in violation of the law. I still stick by citizen/victims rights come first before criminals.
macoflaf 4 months ago
@macoflaf Again- the call could have been handled better at dispatch. Suspicious? What is he doing that is suspicious? What one sees as suspicious can easily be innocuous (and Legal) -I'm sure you know that. If the caller states observations that lead to a suspicion of crime, then the PD can detain. If I were an officer on duty in an OC state, while enroute to the call I would ask dispatch to find out what he is doing. That's important information for many reasons.
dmedicFF 4 months ago
@dmedicFF Youve made my point for me. An officer NEVER 100% knows what he's responding to even with dispatch. Albeit I agree that dispatch has a responsibility to gather as much intel as possible, it doesnt always happen. THATS why an officer must be on high alert. His number on goal is to what??????????????????????????? GO HOME. Sorry sorry to the ones that disagree with us, fuck you and your ID. you want to go home, so does the cop.
macoflaf 4 months ago
@macoflaf said: "His number on goal is to what??????????????????????????? GO HOME. "
i don't disagree with this at all.
Officers have to obey the law as well.
Pafoofnik1 4 months ago
@macoflaf Of course safety is number one. Its legal to OC in many states. You are stretching things a bit. The danger in policing involves many things, and its something you accept when you sign up.
dmedicFF 4 months ago
@macoflaf If dispatch doesnt get the info, that's where the officer's experience, knowledge of the Law, and professionalism comes into play. It involves things not taught at the Academy.
dmedicFF 4 months ago
@macoflaf I think your (and many others) argument against OC is because of the spectre of a gun in plain view. That's understandable. As an officer I am more concerned about dangers I can't see. Concealed firearms. Or, other legally carried things that could kill or seriously injure me- combs, pens, knives- it goes on and on.
dmedicFF 4 months ago
@dmedicFF I think you have misunderstood my stance on OC. That is our rights as Americans and will NEVER be against the right to bear arms. What my point is, is that when carrying an OC, you have to expect that a certain group of citizens who are often irrational, impestuous and love to have government intrustion (what do they call those???????? oh, right - democrats!!!! ) and will call the police. I beleive if you have an OC, you should want to be responsible and help a LEO do his job.
macoflaf 4 months ago
@macoflaf I suspect that most of the time, any OC'er approached by police is a cordial encounter. But, its not illegal to not want to cooperate when you are not required to, nor is it illegal to want to be a dickhead. There's really nothing police can do about those, unless violating the law.
dmedicFF 4 months ago
@dmedicFF I agree, I guess what Im trying to say is that an OC comes with not only the responsibility of following the law, but also comes with a moral responsibility. Yes, it isnt a crime to be a dick, but why do so when its not necessary. The LEO has a job to do, let him do it quickly so you can get on your way. I remember when I was a cop writing a ticket, If I was asked to hurry up, you can bet your house I was taking my time. Same thing applies here on being a dick, be nice-go home.
macoflaf 4 months ago
@dmedicFF And I also couldnt agree more about being more concerned about what you see. Thats why the public is so harsh on police "demenor or attitude" because they dont understand that there are people that want to do you harm and will hide weapons and lie about who they are in order to do so. I for one thank you for what you do, I miss being a cop everyday and oneday will go back. And I will always back the badge!!!!!!
macoflaf 4 months ago
@dmedicFF I meant what you can not see in plain view
macoflaf 4 months ago
@macoflaf Well they carry mags seperately, no mag inserted and barrel clear, so one can argue that in an emergency the gun is delayed significantly, so whats the point? I think the Law was developed to satisfy gun advocates, and some semblance of safety. Although I have no problem with it because its the Law, I suspect people OC simply out of the desire to exercise the right, rather than any concern for their safety.
dmedicFF 4 months ago
@macoflaf Criminals can conceal themselves while doing" legal" things. A suspended driver can drive a car illegally. The only way an officer can find this out is if he sees a violation, stops him and ID's and runs the info. Not a congruous example but the same concept. Yes, its possible an inappropriate person can OC. But, that's the compromise we have to "accept" in order to enjoy the freedoms we have.
dmedicFF 4 months ago
@dmedicFF Thats why we have a responsibility as Americans to get back where the victims and ordinary citizens have more rights than criminals (or suspected). If youre not doing anything wrong, then you should have no problem helping a LEO do his job and make sure our communities are safe instead of trying to push the limits of the LEO, the judicial system and the community. We are so far away from helping your fellow man, its pathetic.
macoflaf 4 months ago
@macoflaf I dont disagree. But, many OC'ers see themselves as ordinary citizens, who are law abiding and exercising their rights. Should not a police officer respect their rights too? Not everyone is a concealed criminal or maniac.
dmedicFF 4 months ago
@dmedicFF I think I may have made you and Pafoofnic1 think I have a different view. I am for OC, I dont think that they are problem seekers generally speaking, What I do think is that in this particular video, he was trying to get police called on him so that he could test the limits, I find this reprehensible. I think that carry an OC comes with responsibility and maturity and the respect for the law and those who enforce it.
macoflaf 4 months ago
@macoflaf: How could he be "trying to get police called on him so that he could test the limits" in this incident? Be specific.
Pafoofnik1 4 months ago
@Pafoofnik1 Look, Im not really going to debate this issue much, you arent going to sell me that this guy carrying a gun on his side walking down the street filming everyone isnt going to alarm 'someone". He set out looking to do this. The only other arguement is that he is either a voyeur, or a film student. Which that argument is sort of shot down by the tone and wording he uses with the officer. Most people are willing to comply ESPECIALLY if the have an OC and theyre responsible.
macoflaf 4 months ago
@macoflaf: Why should I be penalized for someone else ignorance of what's lawful?
Now you repeat: "He set out looking to do this"
I guess it's your opinion, since you didn't provide proof. My opinion is that he was following the law.
And you say: "Most people are willing to comply "
More opinion. It doesn't really matter what most people do. What matters is what is lawful, and what isn't.
Pafoofnik1 4 months ago
@Pafoofnik1 Now before you go on a tangent, I am totally for the right to bear arms, you have the right as an American to defend yourself, your home, family, country and community. What I dont agree with is strapping a firearm to your hip just because. If you have the CCP, then it means youve not only gone under some kind of training, but also a class on the law and morality. I think in the video, the "suspect" had less than honorable intentions and he succedded in getting cops called on him.
macoflaf 4 months ago
@macoflaf said: "What I dont agree with is strapping a firearm to your hip just because"
and
"think in the video, the "suspect" had less than honorable intentions and he succedded in getting cops called on him."
OK. Thanks.
Pafoofnik1 4 months ago
@macoflaf Here's another thing. The caller to 911 should have been asked for more details. What is this guy doing-specifically? That's a simple question that will help responding officers decide how to act. Is he threatening people or acting disorderly? If so- it is legal to detain and ID.
dmedicFF 4 months ago
@Pafoofnik1 If he doesnt have a CCP then my point is made. Normal Americans do not walk around carrying their firearms in plain sight because it does disturb people. If he DOES have a CCP then he is mandated (in my state of LA and I suspect in others the same protocol) to notify the officer he has a weapon and give is CCP to the officer, which is a state issued ID. Refusal to submit your weapon results in a loss of the CCP, refusal to submit CCP - loss, breathalizer refusal - Loss (continued)
macoflaf 4 months ago
@macoflaf: I've already explained that this video was most likely taken in New Mexico, where no CCP or permit of any type is needed to open carry.
It doesn't really help to talk about laws elsewhere when talking about this encounter.
Pafoofnik1 4 months ago
@macoflaf I think you may be misapplying Terry. In that case, a plainclothes officer observed two guys casing an establishment continuously. Walking back and forth, looking in window, conversing and arguing, then going back to the store, all when the store was closed. They were evasive when confronted. That's much different from someone OC'ing in an OC state, walking down the street, absent suspicious, disorderly behavior.
dmedicFF 4 months ago
He said you were being detained because someone called the cops. What if someone called the cops and said some dude had a plaid shirt on? Would they have the right to detain you then? No. The fact is walking down the street with a holstered sidearm is no more illegal than walking down the street with a plaid shirt. How many times have you heard a cop say "ignorance of the law isn't an excuse to break it"? Ignorance of the law isn't an excuse to harrass some dude legally bearing arms.
markquimby82 5 months ago
Its a slippery slope, and the ignorance of our society has created a steep one at that. Don't let the social stigma drown the [dwindling] freedom filled future for your children too.
beyppah 5 months ago
It is not appropriate in this society to walk down the street carrying a gun. Why do you think people called in a complaint? It freaks people out when they seen some dude walking down the street holding a gun. You know this. Sounds like you are the one doing the provoking. You may have the right in your backward country to carry a hand gun down the street. But think of your reasons for walking down the street with that firearm, and don't say self defense. its not like you're going deer hunting..
Lagmire 5 months ago
@Lagmire what does deer hunting have to do with self defense? If I walk around my street I may in fact need a gun. If it is on display I am less likely to need to use it. I will observe the law. If it scares people they need to be better educated.
markquimby82 5 months ago
@Lagmire Whoa, holding and carrying are completely different in the context of the video. And what's wrong with practicing your 2nd amendment?
Danester01 5 months ago
@Lagmire First off he was not holding a gun which would be a perfectly valid reason for the police to stop and arrest him.He was carrying a firearm in a holster,not brandishing it. Secondly we have the right to carry said weapon if we are law abiding ,its in our constitution.Just because you have no rights in whatever country your from doesnt mean our country is backward. We hold very dear our rights under the constitution and we will continue to fight for them .
shadowr434 5 months ago
Comment removed
shadowr434 5 months ago
what the fuck the cops logic is so corrupt
albireoish 5 months ago
The first mistake he did was say "ya its ok to take it..." He should had said, "no I refuse search of my person or property as per the 4th amendment. what law am I breaking?"
jacobew2000 5 months ago
kill all cops
dimples8547 5 months ago
Cops all have that excuse and say "Oh yeah it's not illegal for you to open carry, but someone reported you as suspicious, so we have to investigate." It's BULLSHIT. They have no right to ask you who you are, or detain you without suspicion of you actually doing anything illegal. This cop is a moron. Just because someone calls, doesn't constitute probable cause or reasonable suspicion to be detained and questioned.
MetalHeadKLR650 5 months ago
sorry, mr conservative, but your just provoking
robsteries 6 months ago
@robsteries How is he provoking? He's doing nothing illegal but merely was walking to his parent's house.
damiion666 6 months ago