Thread: Police confront man for lawful open carry -- man stands his ground.

Originally Posted by GeddonM3

i think this guy was looking for a confrontation, pretty stupid honestly. i can see why the cop was in a sense maybe a lil worried. guy was within his rights though, but i think he stupid for flashing it. to me the guy with the camera seems like an attention whore.

While I agree on the surface, the OP has it right. The officer issued a lawful order to not interfere and the citizen went across the street. Once the traffic stop was over, the citizen left the scene. The officer escalated after that. Both are culpable here.

Originally Posted by Tipper101

I personally think that cops should have the right to ask for I.D. when that person is bearing a firearm and voluntarily enters into their presence. The reason being that, regardless of the person's disposition towards the cop, the presence of the gun puts the officer in a vulnerable position. In this particular instance, the cop's back was even turned towards him in the process of conducting his traffic stop.

where the cop enters of his own accord into the presence of the gun carrier or any circumstance otherwise, I.D. should not be legally required for lawful activity. This would be one of the rare exceptions in which I'd support the cops asking for I.D. for lawful activity.

None of that protects the cop. It only supplants the 4th Amendment. If the guy in the film were breaking the law by carrying concealed, the cop would never have even known he had a gun... just a video camera. The cop may have been more comfortable, but certainly no safer -- which is not to say his safety was threatened in any way in this instance in the first place.

Originally Posted by GeddonM3

im sorry but its simply common sense that you dont just walk up to a cop and brandish a weapon.

Weapon was holstered. I have a Swiss Army knife in my pocket. I'm not pulling it out of my pocket or waving it in front of a cop anymore than this guy was unholstering his side arm.

Originally Posted by Bow To The Robots

None of that protects the cop. It only supplants the 4th Amendment. If the guy in the film were breaking the law by carrying concealed, the cop would never have even known he had a gun... just a video camera. The cop may have been more comfortable, but certainly no safer -- which is not to say his safety was threatened in any way in this instance in the first place.

Of course it would protect the cop, because he would be legally capable of ascertaining whether or not there is a credible threat (i.e. checking I.D.) for which the person entered his presence for, before turning his back to that person.

Not really sure what you're logic is on concealed guns: that because cops won't be able to do anything to protect themselves from concealed guns means that they shouldn't be able to do anything to protect themselves from open carry guns? Doesn't make much sense to me. Let them do what they can to reasonably protect themselves, and there's nothing unreasonable about asking for I.D. from a person open carrying a gun directly into their presence.

Originally Posted by JoeSixpack

The law also says they can detain you for 24 hours without any reason and on suspicion alone. The fact he approached them, placed him in the offensive. In some cases they could have gotten away with detaining him, claiming to assume the worst. Then it would have been up to him to prove otherwise.

Then he placed himself on the defensive by walking away. The patrolman escalated it and went on the offensive.

It may be reasonable to ask for ID but its not illegal to say no to a cop either. These cops were thinking lawsuit in the back of their mind, that why they let him go because he was recording everything they were saying.

Originally Posted by Bow To The Robots

I'm not going to believe cops are going to shoot a guy for videotaping them.

don't then. But last year some guy got the h beat out of him for doing it.

Originally Posted by Tipper101

I personally think that cops should have the right to ask for I.D. when that person is bearing a firearm and voluntarily enters into their presence. The reason being that, regardless of the person's disposition towards the cop, the presence of the gun puts the officer in a vulnerable position. In this particular instance, the cop's back was even turned towards him in the process of conducting his traffic stop.

where the cop enters of his own accord into the presence of the gun carrier or any circumstance otherwise, I.D. should not be legally required for lawful activity. This would be one of the rare exceptions in which I'd support the cops asking for I.D. for lawful activity.

This is america, not freaking nazi germany. No American should HAVE to show their Papers. The guy did nothing. He was WITHIN the law. NM law. It's too stinking bad the cops either don't know it or lied about it. I'm all for respecting cops but not when they're violating my rights.

Originally Posted by Bow To The Robots

Originally Posted by Jebediah

Just because you have a "right" to do something doesn't mean it is a wise thing to do.

Agree.

If you agree I don't know why you started this thread. The guy is an idiot.

Originally Posted by Bow To The Robots

I'm not sure I see how videotaping constitutes harassment.

Walking up to someone doing their job correctly with a gun hanging off your hip and without introduction or explanation and shoving a camera in their face is harassment.

Originally Posted by Bow To The Robots

Originally Posted by Jebediah

Why does the guy keep saying "I want to hold everybody accountable?" Seriously it is bizarre behavior.

Well, I can't speak for the guy, but my guess is he said that because he wants to hold everybody accountable.

Walking up to complete strangers and saying repeatedly "I want to hold everybody accountable" is strange and disturbing. There is no indication anyone was doing anything wrong. What exactly was he "holding everybody accountable" for?

Originally Posted by Bow To The Robots

We've all seen the cellphone videos of cops doing some pretty bad things--probably not a bad idea to remind them from time-to-time that we are watching, and that they work for us.

What?! Sounds like a troll with too much time on their hands. Jag offs like that need to leave law enforcement alone. That was not the Rodney King tape. That was an idiot making a fool of himself.

Originally Posted by Bow To The Robots

You only need to know one law: the 4th Amendment.

You might want to look up a few more hombre...

Originally Posted by wikipedia.com

The name disclosure was considered by the U.S. Supreme Court in Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, 542 U.S. 177 (2004), which held that the name disclosure did not violate the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures.

Originally Posted by MisLed

No American should HAVE to show their Papers. The guy did nothing. He was WITHIN the law. NM law. It's too stinking bad the cops either don't know it or lied about it. I'm all for respecting cops but not when they're violating my rights.

Well good luck with that attitude. I am going to enjoy watching you or your widow on the news.