OT-Open Carry in Santa Fe
azotic
Robert Swinney
showed a terrific amount of forbearance for the officers to let him go, undetained. The overriding
question is why did he refuse to present ID confirming his citizenship and thus confirming his right
to carry? IMO, irrespective of "letter of the law", officers should have every right to demand ID
when there is the slightest chance the driver might be a felon. Civil liberties run amuck at times.
We should be ever vigilant not to extend them to felons.
Bob Swinney
.
RBnDFW
"Papers, please"
There is no law in the United States requiring everybody to carry ID, at
least not yet.
If there is a state law requiring citizens to identify themselves when
requested by LE, then they have to identify themselves, at least
verbally - full name and address.
Absent such a state law, you do not have to identify yourself to a
police officer. I do not know if NM has such a law.
Don Foreman
This twerp has an extreme case of "look at me, I'm special", baiting
and aggrivating a cop by approaching a routine stop with a video
camera while openly carrying a handgun. Within his legal rights?
Probably. That doesn't make it excusable behavior. He needs a
spanking.
Jim Stewart
As much as I dislike authority figures, I have to
agree. And I'd hate to see a bunch of young turks
go out and duplicate this guy's performance. I
predict pain.
Christopher Tidy
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BwQQSo9YX4&feature=player_embedded
I thought the cops were totally decent with that guy. I was expecting
them to take him in because he was acting weird.
Chris
Robert Swinney
"I was expecting them to take him in because he was acting weird. I thought the cops were totally
decent with that guy.
Yep! Acting weird in front of the law is a pretty good symptom of a felon.
Bob (if it looks, walks, like a duck . . .) Swinney
azotic
"Don Foreman" <dfor...@NOSPAMgoldengate.net> wrote in message
news:8rr4q5tnt9ns78jeb...@4ax.com...
What are the odds that guy is hooked up with some 1-800 lawyer
looking to file a civil rights law suit ?
Best Regards
Tom.
azotic
"Christopher Tidy" <cdt22...@cantabgold.net> wrote in message
news:4BA283B8...@cantabgold.net...
Yep, he is on a mission to provoke cops.
Best Regards
Tom.
cavelamb
Jim Chandler
What a frigging idiot! He was hoping that he would get one of them to
make a move on him so he could get his fifteen minutes of fame. I
think that he'd do well to re-read the law. I believe that one is
required to identify themselves to a police officer when asked. He
sounded like a real moron. He'll wind up in jail or dead.
Jim
Steve Be
> I know the driver
pedestrian
> was merely protecting his privacy in accordance with
> the "letter of the law".
So you believe the law should be interpreted on the fly by any officer
who disagrees with the "letter" of the law. Or you believe any officer
should just ignore the (letter of) the law whenever it suits him.
> It showed a terrific amount of forbearance for the officers to let him
> go, undetained.
And what specific crime was he suspected of that they had any cause at
all to detain or even question him? It sounds as if you believe
officers have the power to detain anyone anywhere any time for any
reason that seems "right." Any time you see a cop who fails to stop
you then, it's because he's showing a terrific amount of forbearance.
> The overriding question is why did he refuse to present ID confirming
> his citizenship and thus confirming his right to carry?
a) The overriding question is why you would expect him to show ID. Should
you, and would you, do absolutely anything requested by an LEO?
b) Is it your considered legal opinion then that one must be a citizen to
carry openly? Being here legally and in a state which allows open carry
isn't enough?
c) Is it your contention then that everyone should be required to carry a
passport at all times, subject to baseless detention and questioning, and
subject to mandatory display of passport, at the whim of any officer?
> IMO, irrespective of "letter of the
> law", officers should have every right to demand ID when there is the
> slightest chance the driver might be a felon.
a) How do police officers acquire their powers if not by the letter of the
law? Are you advocating that officers just make shit up on the fly that
they "feel" is "right?" (Letter of) the law be damned?
b) It sounds as if you would welcome checkpoints all across every city
where inhabitants should be herded like cattle in order to show their
passports, because after all...
c) "Slightest chance" means you have to check EVERYONE.
> Civil liberties run amuck at times. We should be ever vigilant not to
> extend them to felons.
Tryanny runs amuck whenever allowed. We must be vigilant lest we end up
in 1984. Oh wait...
Wes
I don't have a problem with the guy walking around with a video camera and the gun on his
hip. I do have issue with the gun in close proximity to the traffic stop. The cop
doesn't need to have two people to keep track of 180 degrees apart. I don't know the law
in New Mexico but generally LEO's are giving fairly wide lattitude when it comes to
protecting themselves. The cop could have told the camera man where to stand, to drop the
gun belt and stay put until the cop was done with the stop. It would have been
interesting to see how that senario played out.
We can't replay the event and change it by removing the gun and leaving the camera to see
how it would play out. It would be interesting to see if they still wanted ID him.
Of course, no camera, no gun is the senario I really want to know the answer to as far as
how he is treated.
The bottom line is, rights or not, give the cop a break, how about a bit of courtesy to a
guy just trying to do his job and make it home alive each shift.
Wes