BCSO ILLEGALLY DETAIN US SOLDIER FOR OPEN CARRYING!!!

MY YOUNGER BROTHER WAS STOPPED FOR WALKING DOWN THE STREET FOR OPEN CARRYING IN ALBUQUERQUE NM BY BCSO. DEPUTY NANCE, SGT.BLACKWELL, AND DEPUTY VOLK. THIS IS A VIOLATION OF HIS 2ND, AND 4TH AMENDMENT RIGHTS PROVIDED BY THE U.S. CONSTITUTION.

Category:

Nonprofits & Activism

Tags:

• POLICE
• BERNALILLO
• COUNTY
• SHERRIFFS
• OFFICE
• ARIZONA
• PRO
• 2ND
• AMMENDMENT
• RIGHT
• TO
• BEAR
• ARMS
• LIBERAL
• CONSERVATIVE
• AZ
• PHX
• PHOENIX
• BARRACK
• OBAMA
• GUNS
• AND
• AMMO
• PISTOL
• RIFLE
• AR
• 15

[SuperMefisto6666]

I see the problem here. In America, they have laws they can not control. If you tell a guy "It's OK to walk down the street with a gun", he will walk down the street with a gun. But if you then ask him "Why are you walking down the street with a gun?" he will get kind of confused. First you tell him it's legal, then you suspect him for being a criminal. Fuck logic.

[TheJDFLA]

That cop is totally unable to cite the statute that says the citizen has to produce i.d.after being repeatedly asked. The cop can't cite a law for detaining him either after being repeatedly asked why. If cops can't cite the law a person is breaking, then it is nothing but harassment.

[alreadypro]

In this case you should have either better explained the point you where tying to get across to them, but at the same time they CLEARLY stated the cause for your questioning weather it be "technically" correct or not, OR you could have simply complied with the simple request and told them why you are not comfortable with any further questions. fighting bureaucracy with bureaucracy does not lead any where, you have to use word and spell out the logic for them.

[Pafoofnik1]

@silvermediastudio: said: "A case ruling does not make law", it decides what is lawful. What St John decided was that "lawful possession of a loaded firearm in a crowded place could not, by itself, create a reasonable suspicion sufficient to justify an investigatory detention."

Of course he admitted that it was a call about a man with a gun. Your disagreement with the conditions when he said it doesn't mean he didn't say it.

Please stop trying to tell me what I think.

[azraelbum]

Its pretty simple. In America you can own a gun. Well done America, you have very high gun crime levels. Obviously you havent learnt from that lesson. BUT to walk around to "enforce my right" for open carry. Come on FFS...you walk around with a gun and you dont think this will upset people and make them worry. Morons!!!!

[TheChimneyPro]

THIS MAN IS BEING TREATED AS A

COMMON CRIMINAL AND THESE OFFICERS SHOULD BE ASHAMED I GIVE THEM CREDIT FOR NOT VIOLATING HIS RIGHTS SOONER BUT THE CAMERA WAS ROLING.GREAT COURAGE STANDING UP TO TYRANNY,TYRANNY,TYRANNY,TYRANN­Y....

[TheChimneyPro]

THIS POOR GUY FULLY COMPLIED WITH THE OFFICERS REQUESTS HE COULD HAVE GIVEN HIS ID BUT THATS NOT THE POINT,THIS IS TYRANNICAL UNCONSTITUTIONAL BEHAVIOR OF THE POLICE DEPT.THEY HAVE TAKEN AN OATH TO UP HOLD THE CONSTITUTION AND ARE THE GREATEST VIOLATORS THE ARREST IS PARAMOUNT TO KIDNAPPING UNLAWFUL DETENTION/IMPRISIONMENT THE 2ND IS CLEAR IT CANNOT BE INFRINGED.....................­........................

[TheChimneyPro]

THE POLICE WANT TO BE THE ONLY ONE S TO OPEN CARRY ITS A PURE POWER TRIP

[TheChimneyPro]

NO CRIME NO ID,OPEN CARRY IS NOT ILLEGAL,WHEN BEING DETAINED BY A POLICE OFFICER YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE SILENT SO ANY THING YOU SAY CANNOT BE USED IN A COURT OF LAW THE COPS JUST WANTED TO HAVE CONTROL,SOME ONE SCARED OF ME WALKING MY DOG WOULD NOT COMPEL THE POLICE TO ASK FOR YOU.RE ID OR LICENSE FOR THE DOG THE COPS ARE TRYING TO INTIMIDATE ANY ONE WHO OPEN CARRY IT A CAMPAIGN(TIN BADGE GODS WITH GUNS COWARDS,BULLIES)

[silvermediastudio]

@Pafoofnik1 You're completely off the deep end, and have clearly never taken a formal course in law or the judicial system. A case ruling does not make law, it is a decision based on a set of circumstances. Another judge may rule differently, regardless of precedent.

Furthermore, the officer didn't "admit" anything. He was not under oath. You have a seriously misguided idea about how the world works, and how the law is applied. I wish you the best living in a dream world.

[Pafoofnik1]

@silvermediastudio: The decision in St. John was pretty clear in itself.

And you say "it may be irrelevant that he was carrying a gun."

of course it's relevant. The officer himself admitted it at 01:50.

"It's perfectly legal to walk through a neighborhood at night with a ski mask and a crowbar." While you may think this is true, you certainly didn't get this from me.

Because I never said it.