- posted
14 years ago
OT-Open Carry in Santa Fe
- Vote on answer
- posted
14 years ago
I know the driver was merely protecting his privacy in accordance with the "letter of the law". It 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 .
- Vote on answer
- posted
14 years ago
"letter of the law". It
undetained. The overriding
thus confirming his right
every right to demand ID
liberties run amuck at times.
"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.
- Vote on answer
- posted
14 years ago
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.
- Vote on answer
- posted
14 years ago
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.
- Vote on answer
- posted
14 years ago
I thought the cops were totally decent with that guy. I was expecting them to take him in because he was acting weird.
Chris
- Vote on answer
- posted
14 years ago
Chris sez:
"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
- Vote on answer
- posted
14 years ago
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.
- Vote on answer
- posted
14 years ago
Yep, he is on a mission to provoke cops.
Best Regards Tom.
- Vote on answer
- posted
14 years ago
Shoulda been don a LONG time ago!
- Vote on answer
- posted
14 years ago
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
- Vote on answer
- posted
14 years ago
pedestrian
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.
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.
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?
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.
Tryanny runs amuck whenever allowed. We must be vigilant lest we end up in 1984. Oh wait...
- Vote on answer
- posted
14 years ago
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