You must watch this video


PDA






Dr_2_B
August 9, 2011, 08:14 AM
Please give opinions on this video (http://www.bing.com/videos/watch/video/the-worlds-nicest-cop/1jrbno3o7?rel=msn&cpkey=07ff9b2a-9518-4a8f-a821-fbe556cde5c4|stupid%20videos|msn||).

Cop stopping a pedestrian for (I believe) open carry.

If you enjoyed reading about "You must watch this video" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
JustKen
August 9, 2011, 09:26 AM
Okay. That guy was pretty nice about it. You think that he was on camera had anything to do with it or was he just a nice person?

bkjeffrey
August 9, 2011, 09:27 AM
My opinion on the video....Hmmm

I feel that the pedestrian was unnecessarily being uncooperative with the officer for no reason other than to try and prove a point. I do not know what his motives for not properly identifying himself were. As soon as the officer acknowledged his right to carry and returned the firearm he then had no reason to be standoffish.

The officer did everything properly in my opinion and treated the pedestrian with courtesy, the pedestrian should have returned the favor.

In my opinion we live in a society that has an "us vs them" attitude, and when a police officer is doing his job to "protect and serve" with a common courtesy for man and his liberties we should be willing to adhere to their requests to form an alliance with authority. But I bet now that officer got in his car and probably thought "man, that guy was being a butt-head". I know I did. If I was the pedestrian I would have taken the opportunity to make amends with the officer in hopes that we as people with rights can form an alliance and understanding of cooperation with local law enforcement.

This is my opinion again, but I bet if in the future that officer ever pulls that guy over for J-walking he wont let the "its my right" excuse fly with the way he advertently denied the officers request for information.

I believe honest gun owners should make efforts to portray themselves as cooperative and courteous law abiding citizens and not show blatant disregard for authority just because we want to make a point. Thats exactly what the pedestrian did.

skoro
August 9, 2011, 10:24 AM
Please give opinions on this video.

In my opinion, the Canton, OH cop shop should make that required viewing for their patrol officers. :cool:

Lawdawg45
August 9, 2011, 10:26 AM
I've seen this video on several other forums, and the Officer's actions/responses were textbook academy training, kudos to him. The civilian however was a juvenile mindset looking for a confrontation or attention that mommy never gave him. This goof is the worst possible spokesman for 2nd amendment rights:banghead:.

LD45

lead slinger
August 9, 2011, 10:38 AM
bkjeffrey and lawdawg45
your both dead on. there was no reason to not give your last name

Mike1234567
August 9, 2011, 10:47 AM
No question in my mind that they were both posturing a just little bit... very minor but it's there none-the-less.

easyg
August 9, 2011, 11:51 AM
As nice as this police officer appeared to be, we have to ask:
Would the police officer had stopped the pedestrian had the pedestrian not been carrying a handgun?

If open carry is legal in that cop's state, then why was the pedestrian stopped at all?

Stopping anyone for doing something that is perfectly legal is not good policing....it's the early beginnings of a "police state".

lead slinger
August 9, 2011, 12:39 PM
I think in the start of the video the cop said a call came in about some one carrying a gun

Lawdawg45
August 9, 2011, 12:46 PM
"As nice as this police officer appeared to be, we have to ask:
Would the police officer had stopped the pedestrian had the pedestrian not been carrying a handgun?

If open carry is legal in that cop's state, then why was the pedestrian stopped at all?"

If I remember correctly, this childish experiment took place in California where every County, City and in some cases local department jurisdictions differing in their handgun rules, so the laws for concealed carry or open carry differ vastly. If open carry was only legal with an unloaded weapon (the impression I get from the video), the Officer was well within his S.O.P.'s to determine this. Bottom line is that this little boy got some much needed attention and his video made viral on YouTube.:rolleyes:

TRguy
August 9, 2011, 01:34 PM
I am a civilian

The cop acted appropriately, he knew he was being filmed, albeit he did a fine job.

The civilian was within his rights, he wasn't belligerent but not forth coming. Who says he has to be forthcoming??? No One.

No harm, No foul. Both did fine.

M-Cameron
August 9, 2011, 01:54 PM
your both dead on. there was no reason to not give your last name

unless of course there is no legal requirement to give your last name......in which case, why offer more information than needed.

just because the cop was friendly, doesnt make him your friend.

suppose he gave his full name, the officer runs the name....and suppose someone with the same name has a warrant out for his arrest.....well, hows the officer supposed to know the difference between the two......that means his day gets a whole lot more inconvenient.

also to the people claiming the guy was "looking for attention"........suppose this encounter had gone differently....suppose the cop was belligerent and assaulted him........would you have the same opinion then?



now i have some doubts as to whether this officer was genuinely a nice guy...or whether he is smart enough to know that if he does wrong, everyone will know.......but the way he handled the situation should be a model on how to handle these encounters.

Magno
August 9, 2011, 02:18 PM
Nice illustrative video. Too bad the civilian was being such a prick.

TRguy
August 9, 2011, 02:41 PM
Too bad the civilian was being such a prick.

Really? How so?

KodiakBeer
August 9, 2011, 04:10 PM
The cop was polite, but he was still detaining a citizen with no probable cause whatsoever. Are you suggesting that we should be polite when we are illegally detained, searched and disarmed?

I wonder if the cop would have been polite if he wasn't being recorded?

Ruddie
August 9, 2011, 04:35 PM
..... So, let me get this straight, law enforcement get ridiculed for stopping the guy to simply ask him some questions?
If the guy was open carrying, I would have asked him for id too. He could have been a violent person or just a guy on a stroll. How are we to know? Just talking to him can give an idea on his mind set. Unless you think its ok for crazy people to wield guns and not be bothered by an officer.... I'm sure that would be our fault as well.... "why didn't the cops stop the crazy guy walking down the street with a gun on his side"
If he would have taken this video and then killed someone, it would have been our fault for not stopping him in the first place....
It's whatever though.

ursus100
August 9, 2011, 04:40 PM
As nice as this police officer appeared to be, we have to ask:
Would the police officer had stopped the pedestrian had the pedestrian not been carrying a handgun?

If open carry is legal in that cop's state, then why was the pedestrian stopped at all?

Stopping anyone for doing something that is perfectly legal is not good policing....it's the early beginnings of a "police state".

The cop was polite, but he was still detaining a citizen with no probable cause whatsoever. Are you suggesting that we should be polite when we are illegally detained, searched and disarmed?

I wonder if the cop would have been polite if he wasn't being recorded?

As far as I am concerned, the cop was doing his job. Although California still allows open carry, but it is legal ONLY if the gun is unloaded. The cop validated that and was on his way. I don't have the whole of the California penal code memorized, but I don't think that stopping a person excercising open carry to check that the firearms are in fact unloaded constitutes illegal detainment.

While we will never know whta Officer Lyons would have done had the camera not beemn recording, we do know that with it recording, he was polite and professional.

Art Eatman
August 9, 2011, 05:09 PM
"I think in the start of the video the cop said a call came in about some one carrying a gun."

If the cop is indeed responding to such a call, he is obligated to determine the reality of the situation. That open carry is legal in no way means that the carrier cannot be questioned--at least briefly.

To believe that the investigation was a violation of the carrier's rights in this situation is saying that a concerned citizen should have been quiet and unconcerned about an unusual event. No matter what Keyboard Kommandos think, Nervous Nellies and Little Old Ladies have rights also.

shaolink9
August 9, 2011, 05:25 PM
In my opinion LAWDAWG45 is spot on . This gentleman could have been a felon. Every region laws are different for open carry protocal. The officer did his job. The man carrying was being prickish. There is no reason for him to withhold info if he did not do anything wrong. I Personally feel that when you open carry you open yourself to this type of thing.

easyg
August 9, 2011, 05:31 PM
..... So, let me get this straight, law enforcement get ridiculed for stopping the guy to simply ask him some questions?
If the guy was open carrying, I would have asked him for id too. He could have been a violent person or just a guy on a stroll. How are we to know?
In the United States Of America we have a legal system based upon "the presumption of innocence".
Of course we don't "know" if any given person is a violent criminal of not, but any given person in this nation is presumed innocent of being a violent criminal until that person actually gives reason to presume otherwise.
If carrying a handgun is legal then there is no reason to presume the person is a violent criminal.
The police in the U.S.A. are not supposed to stop people engaged in legal activities just to see if they have a history of violent crime.

Just talking to him can give an idea on his mind set. Unless you think its ok for crazy people to wield guns and not be bothered by an officer.... I'm sure that would be our fault as well.... "why didn't the cops stop the crazy guy walking down the street with a gun on his side"
If he would have taken this video and then killed someone, it would have been our fault for not stopping him in the first place....
It's whatever though.
Unless the person in question is acting in a "crazy" manner, or a highly suspicious manner, or committing a crime, then the mind set of any given law abiding citizen is none of the officer's business.
Does this mean that a crazy person might somehow get a gun and shoot someone out of the blue with no warning signs whatsoever?
Yes.
That is the price we pay for our freedoms.



Easy

easyg
August 9, 2011, 05:43 PM
"I think in the start of the video the cop said a call came in about some one carrying a gun."

If the cop is indeed responding to such a call, he is obligated to determine the reality of the situation. That open carry is legal in no way means that the carrier cannot be questioned--at least briefly.

To believe that the investigation was a violation of the carrier's rights in this situation is saying that a concerned citizen should have been quiet and unconcerned about an unusual event. No matter what Keyboard Kommandos think, Nervous Nellies and Little Old Ladies have rights also.

If open carry is legal, then it does not matter if someone called the police about a guy carrying a gun.
Why should an officer respond to investigate perfectly legal behavior?

Do you think that the police should stop a pedestrian if someone called and reported to the police "Hey, there's a guy walking around my neighborhood and he has a cellphone on his side. I want you guys to come and check him out to make sure he's not some kind of criminal"?

Again, the police in this nation are not supposed to stop law-abiding citizens, who appear to be breaking no laws, for no good reason.
This violates our Constitutional Right against unwarranted search and seizure.

"Nervous Nellies and Little Old Ladies" do have rights, just as you said. But they do not have a Constitutional Right to have another person investigated by the police simply because they don't like the legal behavior of that person.



Easy

Cop Bob
August 9, 2011, 08:13 PM
Unfortunately it is not quite that simple, when the police are called, especially in weapons related calls, they are obligated to respond, and to investigate. An honest man/person has nothing to fear from police presence, or their invesitgation, as this video proves.

And yes, officers, all over this country have countless man hours spend investigating what often, more often than not, legal activity.. Little old ladies and concerned citizens call all the time about strange vehicles parked in a drive, that turn out to be relatives visiting, or a new yard man.

This young man could just as easily could have been up to no good. And know one would know unless the stop was made and the questions were asked. . It went well, the officer did his job. just as thousands of officers, in every city in this country do each and every day...

Open carry has it's benefits, and it's draw backs. While civilians and those who MAY have thought of making you into a victim will look elsewhere. A drawback may be that the police, well, it just may "Arouse their Professional Curiosity". In making the choice to engage on open carry, you also may invite the opportunity to meet and greet some police officers you never met before...

As far as the young man that was stopped, well, he is fortunate.. Attitude is everything, especially in dealing with Law Enforcement.. Lucky for him he wasn't in Canton...

KodiakBeer
August 9, 2011, 08:40 PM
I guess I missed the part about the cop responding to a complaint, so in this case I'd cut him some slack. He did as he was obligated to do, and did it politely and professionally.

If it had been otherwise, the cop merely witnessed a person carrying a gun and rousted him I'd say we had a bad cop. There's not much difference between rousting an armed citizen and rousting a person of color because they happen to be in a white neighborhood (to pull an example out of my behind).

Lawdawg45
August 9, 2011, 08:44 PM
"The cop was polite, but he was still detaining a citizen with no probable cause whatsoever."

Kodiak, you're confusing Alaska with California. First, you need a score card to keep up with the handgun regulations which vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and in this particular region open carry is only legal with an unloaded weapon. The Officer was dispatched there and had a legal obligation to establish the weapon was indeed unloaded, and had all the PC he needed. Even in your home state an Officer may engage a pedestrian who is open carrying to determine the person isn't intoxicated or impaired in some fashion. I can tell you that if this kid had refused to identify himself here in Indiana, he would have bought a trip to central processing to await a fingerprint ID, and then face additional charges for refusing to identify.;)

LD45

19&41
August 9, 2011, 09:06 PM
I always try to treat police officers like they are going to be like the officer in the above video. And they usually are.

Lawdawg45
August 9, 2011, 10:17 PM
"I always try to treat police officers like they are going to be like the officer in the above video. And they usually are."

May your mindset be contagious amongst P2A supporters!

LD45

ursus100
August 10, 2011, 12:47 AM
If open carry is legal, then it does not matter if someone called the police about a guy carrying a gun.
Why should an officer respond to investigate perfectly legal behavior?

Do you think that the police should stop a pedestrian if someone called and reported to the police "Hey, there's a guy walking around my neighborhood and he has a cellphone on his side. I want you guys to come and check him out to make sure he's not some kind of criminal"?

Again, the police in this nation are not supposed to stop law-abiding citizens, who appear to be breaking no laws, for no good reason.
This violates our Constitutional Right against unwarranted search and seizure.

"Nervous Nellies and Little Old Ladies" do have rights, just as you said. But they do not have a Constitutional Right to have another person investigated by the police simply because they don't like the legal behavior of that person.

Easy



The behavior of carrying a firearm in public is covered in section 12031 of the California penal code. Specifically, carrying a loaded firearm is illegal, and often a felony. Regarding the fact that the pedestrian was legally carrying an unloaded firearm, that scenario is addressed in subsection (e) of PC12031


(e) In order to determine whether or not a firearm is loaded for
the purpose of enforcing this section, peace officers are authorized
to examine any firearm carried by anyone on his or her person or in a
vehicle while in any public place or on any public street in an
incorporated city or prohibited area of an unincorporated territory.
Refusal to allow a peace officer to inspect a firearm pursuant to
this section constitutes probable cause for arrest for violation of
this section.


Agree with the law or not, the fact is that as long as it is on the books, the cop was simply doing his job, enforcing existing California law and doing so in a courteous and professional manner.

As far as the Constitutionality of the law, until such time as the United States Supreme Court deems it un-Constitutional, the law stands as legal statute. As such, anyone in California choosing to exercise his or her legal right to openly carry an unloaded firearm in public, should expect to be questioned legally by any law enforcement personnel encountered.

easyg
August 10, 2011, 01:12 AM
Agree with the law or not, the fact is that as long as it is on the books, the cop was simply doing his job, enforcing existing California law and doing so in a courteous and professional manner.
You're right....since this is California law then, yes, the officer was just doing his job....

Except....

when the officer asked for some ID after he had already verified that the handgun was empty and that the pedestrian was in fact complying with California law.

Bobson
August 10, 2011, 02:18 AM
You're right....since this is California law then, yes, the officer was just doing his job....

Except....

when the officer asked for some ID after he had already verified that the handgun was empty and that the pedestrian was in fact complying with California law.
It's pretty standard for LEOs to obtain ID, regardless of the reason for the stop - no use letting criminals slip under the radar when it's so easy to run a check for warrants and previous violations.

And asking for ID before confirming the weapon is empty would have been a pretty dumb move. Addressing a weapon is the first priority for any LEO who wants to go home to his family at the end of a shift.

shaolink9
August 10, 2011, 02:42 AM
I just feel people go to far in some cases to "flex their rights" not just the second amendment the 1st amendment as well. Some times I feel common sense fails to be used in situations such as this. I think the officer did what he needed to do as far as being professional and keeping himself alive.

Ruddie
August 10, 2011, 03:22 AM
Damned if we do and Damned if we don't.
Part of the job I guess.

Lawdawg45
August 10, 2011, 06:37 AM
I just feel people go to far in some cases to "flex their rights"

Well said. It's kind of like "I believe in my constitutional rights, no matter how many laws I have to break to get it".:D

LD45

M-Cameron
August 10, 2011, 08:31 AM
when the officer asked for some ID after he had already verified that the handgun was empty and that the pedestrian was in fact complying with California law.

just so you know.....an officer can ASK for anything........that doesnt mean you are legally obligated to do it.

its actually a pretty common 'trick' for something they cant force you to do....theyll simply phrase it in the form of a question......and most people fall for it.

"would you mind if i see some ID?"
"do you have anything in your car/ bag/ person i should know about?"
"i am going to search your car/ bag/ person.......if you dont mind"
"do you know how fast you were going?"

easyg
August 10, 2011, 10:06 AM
It's pretty standard for LEOs to obtain ID, regardless of the reason for the stop - no use letting criminals slip under the radar when it's so easy to run a check for warrants and previous violations.
Yes, it is rather standard...even if it violates our Constitutional Rights.
Whenever a police officer asks you for your ID you had better get very cautious.
And only an idiot would believe the old "if you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to fear" nonsense....there are plenty of innocent men doing time in prison right now.


its actually a pretty common 'trick' for something they cant force you to do....theyll simply phrase it in the form of a question......and most people fall for it.
Yep. Asking for ID after he had already established the fact that no laws were being broken was nothing more than fishing for a reason to arrest the pedestrian.

Lawdawg45
August 10, 2011, 12:11 PM
Well first of all, the Officer had his priorities straight confirming the weapon was unloaded first, then asking for ID. I would remind all of you that even in a legal open carry situation, a felon may not possess a weapon, so the officer had the right to ID the young man. There are lots of things to worry and be paranoid about, but a hard working, polite, honest cop isn't one of them.:rolleyes:

LD45

cemjr
August 10, 2011, 12:46 PM
Thanks ursus100 for the info about what the law actualy says for this jurisdiction. I'm surprised that the law doesn't require you to also carry ID with you while open carrying. IMHO , the LEO was very nice

ursus100
August 10, 2011, 12:58 PM
You're right....since this is California law then, yes, the officer was just doing his job....

Except....

when the officer asked for some ID after he had already verified that the handgun was empty and that the pedestrian was in fact complying with California law.

It's pretty standard for LEOs to obtain ID, regardless of the reason for the stop - no use letting criminals slip under the radar when it's so easy to run a check for warrants and previous violations.

Yes, it is rather standard...even if it violates our Constitutional Rights.

I've read the Constitution, but by no means do I have it memorized nor do I consider myself an expert on it. Over the years a very few occasion, I've been asked by an LEO to produce an ID, but I never did I feel as though the LEO's asking for it was particularly violating my constitutional rights. Do you know of a a supreme Court ruling that can be cited to support your position that an LEO simlpy askng for an ID during a legitimate contact constitutes a 4th amendment violation?

M-Cameron
August 10, 2011, 12:59 PM
Well first of all, the Officer had his priorities straight confirming the weapon was unloaded first, then asking for ID. I would remind all of you that even in a legal open carry situation, a felon may not possess a weapon, so the officer had the right to ID the young man. There are lots of things to worry and be paranoid about, but a hard working, polite, honest cop isn't one of them.

yes, but the officer had no reason to believe this man was a felon.

Lawdawg45
August 10, 2011, 03:00 PM
"yes, but the officer had no reason to believe this man was a felon."

I'm curious to know, in the absence of a large tattoo or clothing labeled "FELON", do they look, smell or behave in a manor that identifies them as a "felon"? :D

In a world where you must produce an ID to cash a check, use a credit card, open a bank account, register for college classes, vote, or a hundred other daily events, a Police Officer asking for ID from a suspicious person isn't out of the question.;)

LD45

M-Cameron
August 10, 2011, 03:31 PM
I'm curious to know, in the absence of a large tattoo or clothing labeled "FELON", do they look, smell or behave in a manor that identifies them as a "felon"?
nope, no they do not (usually).....

just because a felon is bared from owning guns.....doesnt mean you can check everyone with a gun to see if they are a felon.....

sex offenders arent allowed in schools......but that doesnt mean a police officer can check everyone in a school to see if they are a registers sex offender.

in this country, we are all presumed to be innocent until proven guilty.......so an officer cant act under the assumption that everyone he has an encounter with is a felon.

and we cant be forced to incriminate ourselves......so even if i was a gun carrying felon...... and an officer strolled up whilst i was doing nothing else illegal , and he had no reason to believe i was a doing anything illegal, and had no reason to believe i was a felon..... and asked for my ID, i am under no legal obligation to show it to him......


In a world where you must produce an ID to cash a check, use a credit card, open a bank account, register for college classes, vote, or a hundred other daily events, a Police Officer asking for ID from a suspicious person isn't out of the question.

yes, but that is all volunteered information.....which means, you dont have to give it if you dont want to.....you may not get the service you want.....but no one is FORCING you to hand over your ID

also, the lady at the bank isnt going to run my background looking for something they can arrest me with.

beatledog7
August 10, 2011, 05:07 PM
Officer was brilliant, open carrier was--I'm not sure. It's beyond me why anyone would open carry a handgun walking down the street when said handgun must be unloaded unless his reason is simply because he can. Kind of screams "I have an attitude, but I'm not breaking any law, so come challenge me."

Looking for cause to sue a cop, I suspect.

easyg
August 10, 2011, 07:01 PM
just because a felon is bared from owning guns.....doesnt mean you can check everyone with a gun to see if they are a felon.....

sex offenders arent allowed in schools......but that doesnt mean a police officer can check everyone in a school to see if they are a registers sex offender.

in this country, we are all presumed to be innocent until proven guilty.......so an officer cant act under the assumption that everyone he has an encounter with is a felon.
Exactly.
We (anyone inside the borders of the U.S.A.) have Constitutional Rights to privacy and Rights against unwarranted search and seizure.
Just because a police officer is curious, or has a hunch, or is trying to ferret out criminals, that does not mean that he has any right to request an ID when the citizen in question is committing no crime.


In a world where you must produce an ID to cash a check, use a credit card, open a bank account, register for college classes, vote, or a hundred other daily events, a Police Officer asking for ID from a suspicious person isn't out of the question.
Cashing checks, obtaining a credit card, opening a bank account, and registering for college are not Constitutional Rights....they are privledges.
Only 7 states require an ID in order to vote, and it is still a rather controversal subject.
Besides, the man carring the handgun was doing nothing suspicious, unless you think that it's suspicious for one to exercise their legal rights?



It really bothers me that so many on this forum think that it's okay for the police to request one's ID even when one is doing nothing that should warrant such a request.

easyg
August 10, 2011, 07:28 PM
Do you know of a a supreme Court ruling that can be cited to support your position that an LEO simlpy askng for an ID during a legitimate contact constitutes a 4th amendment violation?
Do a search of Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada.

The courts actually upheld the police's right to ask for ID in the Hiibel case...

Nevada has a “stop-and-identify” law that allows a peace officer to detain any person he encounters “under circumstances which reasonably indicate that the person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime”; the person may be detained only to “ascertain his identity and the suspicious circumstances surrounding his presence abroad.” In turn, the law requires the person detained to “identify himself”, but does not compel the person to answer any other questions put to him by the officer.
So, if a officer believes that you have just committed a crime, or are currently committing a crime, or are about to commit a crime, then ID can be requested.
The officer in the video clip had already established that the guy was not committing any crime.
And he had no reason to believe that the guy had just committed a crime or was about to commit a crime, so why ask for the ID?

Also remember this: there is no law in the U.S.A. that actually requires anyone in this nation to own an ID.
Yes, you will need a driver's license if you want to legally drive on public roads, and yes life is much more of a hassel if you don't have a valid picture ID, but there is no law that a citizen must have or carry any ID whatsoever.

Bobson
August 10, 2011, 09:29 PM
Yes, it is rather standard...even if it violates our Constitutional Rights.
Whenever a police officer asks you for your ID you had better get very cautious. And only an idiot would believe the old "if you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to fear" nonsense....

Asking for ID after he had already established the fact that no laws were being broken was nothing more than fishing for a reason to arrest the pedestrian.
Even if you aren't doing anything wrong, and there's absolutely no reason for a cop to stop you aside from his insatiable curiosity, an LEO asking for ID is neither violating your constitutional rights, nor is he fishing for a reason to arrest you. However, if learning who you are gives him a reason to arrest you, that's something different altogether, and nobody's fault but your own.

Consider the following:

Officer Smith stops Armando Garcia because he's carrying a weapon. Mr. Garcia demonstrates the right to carry the weapon, and Officer Smith is satisfied. Officer Smith then asks for Mr. Garcia's identification, because he wants to double-check to make sure Mr. Garcia doesn't happen to have an outstanding warrant somewhere. Did Officer Smith violate Mr. Garcia's constitutional rights?

Correct Answer: Absolutely not. In fact, Officer Smith would have been neglecting his sworn duty to protect the citizens of his city by not running the check (which required Mr. Garcia's ID). Not asking for ID is flat-out not doing your job as an officer. It sure isn't an example of a cop abusing his power or "trying to find a reason to put you in the backseat."

If you don't like it, that's one thing, and it's also too bad. That doesn't change the fact that the cop did everything right without breaking any law or violating any constitutional rights of the civilian.

Bobson
August 10, 2011, 09:47 PM
Nevada has a “stop-and-identify” law that allows a peace officer to detain any person he encounters “under circumstances which reasonably indicate that the person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime”; the person may be detained only to “ascertain his identity and the suspicious circumstances surrounding his presence abroad.” In turn, the law requires the person detained to “identify himself”, but does not compel the person to answer any other questions put to him by the officer. So, if a officer believes that you have just committed a crime, or are currently committing a crime, or are about to commit a crime, then ID can be requested.
You're misunderstanding (or intentionally misrepresenting) the word detain. An example of an officer detaining someone would be refusing to allow the suspect (you'd have to be suspected of something, as you correctly stated) to leave the premises, while the officer conducts a search or waits for backup. The suspect would almost always be handcuffed (sometimes even in the patrol car) during a detainment.

On the other hand, an officer making a routine stop, during which the officer obtains identification (a traffic stop, for example), is not an example of an officer "detaining" someone.

ccsniper
August 10, 2011, 10:08 PM
Cop did a good job. I appreciate how this cops handled the situation.

M-Cameron
August 10, 2011, 10:12 PM
Officer Smith stops Armando Garcia because he's carrying a weapon. Mr. Garcia demonstrates the right to carry the weapon, and Officer Smith is satisfied. Officer Smith then asks for Mr. Garcia's identification, because he wants to double-check to make sure Mr. Garcia doesn't happen to have an outstanding warrant somewhere. Did Officer Smith violate Mr. Garcia's constitutional rights?

Correct Answer: Absolutely not. In fact, Officer Smith would have been neglecting his sworn duty to protect the citizens of his city by not running the check (which required Mr. Garcia's ID). Not asking for ID is flat-out not doing your job as an officer. It sure isn't an example of a cop abusing his power or "trying to find a reason to put you in the backseat."

so he wants to check if he has any warrants.....but hes not looking for a reason to arrest you.....?

well which is it.......is he looking for a reason to arrest you....or isnt he.....you cant have it both ways.

Bobson
August 10, 2011, 10:31 PM
Checking for warrants isn't the same thing as looking for an excuse to put you in cuffs. The former is an example of proactive policing. The latter is an example of being a jerk. If you can't see the difference, I hope you've found a great career in a field totally unrelated to law enforcement, and I mean that with total respect and 100% sincerity.

M-Cameron
August 10, 2011, 10:36 PM
Checking for warrants isn't the same thing as looking for an excuse to put you in cuffs. The former is an example of proactive policing. The latter is an example of being a jerk. If you can't see the difference, I hope you've found a great career in a field totally unrelated to law enforcement, and I mean that with total respect and 100% sincerity.

it doesnt matter what you call it.......the action is the same.....

he is looking for warrants......thus, he is looking for something that will cause you to end up in handcuffs.

the end result to the citizen is the same.......it really doesnt make a lick of difference what attitude the officer does it with.



quite simply.....if im just hanging out......doing nothing other than carrying my legally owned pistol.......and some cop starts asking for my ID and questioning me.......im sure as hell not going to comply with his demands any more than i legally have to....

....ive heard from a number of legal experts and LEOs that people dont know when to stop talking, and that its them volunteering more information than necessary that often caused them to end up in handcuffs...so unless its a legal requirement, im not offering it up.

an simply seeing someone carrying a gun is not grounds to believe that person is doing anything illegal.....they have no need to see my ID any more than anyone else walking down the street.

Bobson
August 10, 2011, 11:44 PM
This is all irrelevant because it's impossible to demonstrate the legal right to carry a firearm without providing some sort of identification. Even in Arizona, with our outstanding pro self-defense laws (possibly America's most conservative gun laws? No permit required for CCW...), without providing ID, it would be hard to prove to a cop that you meet the following Federal requirements to own a firearm:

1) Not an illegal alien
2) Not a fugitive
3) Not mentally incompetent or defective
4) Not the subject of a restraining order
5) Not previously convicted of domestic violence
6) Not dishonorably discharged from any branch of the military
7) Minimum age 18 for legal ownership of a rifle or shotgun; minimum age 21 for legal ownership of a pistol.
8) Not a convicted felon
(http://www.nraila.org/gunlaws/federal/read.aspx?id=60)

You may meet those minimum criterion, but you sure can't prove it without proving you are who you say you are.

easyg
August 11, 2011, 12:38 AM
a LEO asking for ID is neither violating your constitutional rights, nor is he fishing for a reason to arrest you.
He might or might not be violating your Constitutional Rights depending upon what you are doing when he asks for your ID.
But you can bet 100% that he is fishing for a reason to arrest you if he asks for your ID.

Why else would he ask for your ID?
He's not going to come over and drink a few beers with you after work.
He's not just curious if you and he attended the same high school or not.
The only reason a cop asks for your ID is so that he can determine if he can/should arrest you.
Only a total idiot would volunteer info to a police officer willingly.
As I said before...there are plenty of innocent men serving time in our prisons right now, some even on "death row".

easyg
August 11, 2011, 12:48 AM
without providing ID, it would be hard to prove to a cop that you meet the following Federal requirements to own a firearm:

1) Not an illegal alien
2) Not a fugitive
3) Not mentally incompetent or defective
4) Not the subject of a restraining order
5) Not previously convicted of domestic violence
6) Not dishonorably discharged from any branch of the military
7) Minimum age 18 for legal ownership of a rifle or shotgun; minimum age 21 for legal ownership of a pistol.
8) Not a convicted felon
Exactly what part of "PRESUMED INNOCENT" do you fail to understand?

In the U.S.A. you do not have to prove to any police officer that you are...

1) Not an illegal alien
2) Not a fugitive
3) Not mentally incompetent or defective
4) Not the subject of a restraining order
5) Not previously convicted of domestic violence
6) Not dishonorably discharged from any branch of the military
7) Minimum age 18 for legal ownership of a rifle or shotgun; minimum age 21 for legal ownership of a pistol.
8) Not a convicted felon

YOU HAVE THE LEGAL RIGHT TO BE PRESUMED INNOCENT.



I'm astonished that there are those here who have no clue what the concept of "presumption of innocence" means and how it shapes the laws of this nation.




.

Bobson
August 11, 2011, 02:14 AM
If you choose to exercise your right to carry a gun, you do have to prove that you're eligible to do so.

Like I said, if you don't like it, too bad. It's not like I'm stating my opinion here. You can rephrase your response any way you want, and it's not going to change anything.

M-Cameron
August 11, 2011, 07:10 AM
without providing ID, it would be hard to prove to a cop that you meet the following Federal requirements to own a firearm:

1) Not an illegal alien
2) Not a fugitive

1)YOU dont have to prove anything.......in this country, the COP must prove or have suitable reason to believe that you dont......THAT is the way our legal system works....not the other way around.

2) being a fugitive and illegal alien are illegal on their own right.......does that mean an officer can ask just anyone for their ID to see if they are legally allowed in the country?

Lawdawg45
August 11, 2011, 07:15 AM
"in this country, we are all presumed to be innocent until proven guilty.......so an officer cant act under the assumption that everyone he has an encounter with is a felon."

Again, you're overlooking the point that the Officer was dispatched there on a suspicious person with a gun complaint. Regardless of your opinion/bias, he had every right to stop, question, and identify the man. Even as a Police Officer, I have been stopped and questioned while off duty when my weapon was accidentally spotted, and I was happy to comply, identify and thank the Office for his concern. These situations are what you make them.:o

LD45

M-Cameron
August 11, 2011, 07:22 AM
Again, you're overlooking the point that the Officer was dispatched there on a suspicious person with a gun complaint. Regardless of your opinion/bias, he had every right to stop, question, and identify the man.
in the scenario show in the video......ill agree the officer had reason to stop and question the man, because they had received calls of a man with a gun.....

.....but he had no reason to NEED to see his ID once it was shown the gun was infact unloaded and the man was not committing/ about to commit/ or had previously committed a crime.



Even as a Police Officer, I have been stopped and questioned while off duty when my weapon was accidentally spotted, and I was happy to comply, identify and thank the Office for his concern. These situations are what you make them.

not for nothing........the chance of you being harassed and hassled by a cop is FAR less than it is for a civilian.......

Ruddie
August 11, 2011, 08:02 AM
People spend so much time trying to piss cops off its funny and then here comes some more people trying to justify the first guys actions..... How hard is it to just show the guy some id and get along with your day? What kind of tool does someone have to be to deliberately be an ass to an officer while filming it.... It's called baiting.... Pathetic really.
"Well, I'm gonna puff my chest out and try to irritate a cop and then tell them they arent doing their job right."

Ruddie
August 11, 2011, 08:09 AM
not for nothing........the chance of you being harassed and hassled by a cop is FAR less than it is for a civilian.......
..... Its probably because we don't pick every chance we get to intentionally irritate the cop....

If I was a citizen and saw a guy carrying a gun openly, I would want a cop to id him to see if he has the right to carry. Ya know, so my house doesn't get robbed at gun point...

M-Cameron
August 11, 2011, 08:27 AM
If I was a citizen and saw a guy carrying a gun openly, I would want a cop to id him to see if he has the right to carry. Ya know, so my house doesn't get robbed at gun point...

so by that logic, should we also call 911 on everyone we see dressed as a police officer to see if they are really a cop and allowed to carry their gun........after all, i dont want my house robbed at gunpoint

Ruddie
August 11, 2011, 08:43 AM
Really, dude? At this point your just wanting something to argue about.....
Go to a 3rd world country with no law enforcement system and then come back and whine about cops....

It's funny though. I don't even know you but I promise you I would risk my life to save yours......because its my job.
And if you wanted to complain about it afterwards that's ok too because I would have done what I have been sworn to do.

You never see video of cops saving someone and people talking about it because they are so busy trying to run us into the ground.

Again I say, its part of the job.

M-Cameron
August 11, 2011, 08:50 AM
its an honest question......


you seem to feel as though people openly carrying gun need to 'prove' themselves......you said, how do they know you arent a felon, or fugitive.....

....why shouldnt the same hold true for cops?.........how do i know you arent some nut who bought a police costume online.


if police are going to investigate everyone with a gun......why should someone dressed like a cop be an exception?

Ruddie
August 11, 2011, 09:31 AM
..... I'm done talking on this subject.
Maybe a wall or potted plant will argue with you more.... I'm not.
Have a good day and stay safe.

Lawdawg45
August 11, 2011, 01:24 PM
"the chance of you being harassed and hassled by a cop is FAR less than it is for a civilian....... "

Sorry friend, the 2 scenarios are identical. I was stopped, asked to identify and show that I had a legal right to possess a weapon, demonstrate to the Officer that I was indeed permitted and not impaired, and I was polite and cooperative. I didn't act in an uncooperative manor or wrap myself in the constitution, refusing to answer, I simply acted in the way I would wish to be treated.;)

LD45

ursus100
August 11, 2011, 04:54 PM
Exactly what part of "PRESUMED INNOCENT" do you fail to understand?

In the U.S.A. you do not have to prove to any police officer that you are...

1) Not an illegal alien
2) Not a fugitive
3) Not mentally incompetent or defective
4) Not the subject of a restraining order
5) Not previously convicted of domestic violence
6) Not dishonorably discharged from any branch of the military
7) Minimum age 18 for legal ownership of a rifle or shotgun; minimum age 21 for legal ownership of a pistol.
8) Not a convicted felon

YOU HAVE THE LEGAL RIGHT TO BE PRESUMED INNOCENT.



I'm astonished that there are those here who have no clue what the concept of "presumption of innocence" means and how it shapes the laws of this nation.


.

The presumption of innocence is not relevant to the scenario shown in the video. Guilt or innocence are determined in a Courtroom by Judge and/or Jury. Presumption of innocence means that once a case gets into Court, it is up to the prosecution to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt as opposed to the accused having to proved their innocence.

What the cops do have to consider is probable cause. A cop does not generally have the right to stop an question somebody, unless the cop has probable cause to believe that the individual being stopped has commiteed some sort of crime.

So a person may be carrying a stolen cell phone, but unless the cop has probable cause to believe that the cell phone in question is stolen, he would have no legal right to detain that person and verify ownership of the cell phone. If the cop were to stop someone without probable cause, any evidence obtained as a result of said stop would be inadmissable in any later Court proceedings.

Of course, in the scenario shown in the video, PC12031(e) previously referenced in this thread provides LEOs the legal authority to stop the person to determine his/her compliance with the law.

Given that the cop did have an unequivocal legal right to stop the pedstrian, the only question is how far out of line he was by asking for identification. It's a routine question asked by LEOs when they have an officail contact with someone. I am not aware of any law or Court ruling that would make it a crime or a rights violation by merely asking for identification under these circumstances..

M-Cameron
August 11, 2011, 05:14 PM
Given that the cop did have an unequivocal legal right to stop the pedstrian, the only question is how far out of line he was by asking for identification. It's a routine question asked by LEOs when they have an officail contact with someone. I am not aware of any law or Court ruling that would make it a crime or a rights violation by merely asking for identification under these circumstances..

like i said before......a cop can ASK for anything....

now, i dont care for you think hes a jerk, or being obnoxious or what not...

the question is, is he legally required to supply it?

Lawdawg45
August 11, 2011, 05:34 PM
"the question is, is he legally required to supply it?"

And the bigger question (which usually answers the first question) is why would you want to hide your identity?:cool:

LD45

ccsniper
August 11, 2011, 05:34 PM
well this thread is soon to be locked

Kman
August 11, 2011, 05:40 PM
After seeing two videos of the officer in Canton absolutely "flying off the handle," I'm relieved to see that this officer was such a level-headed pro. The idiot out trying to bait a confrontation was left with a non-event story, and will no doubt be trying his hand at this scenario again,,I wish him all the best in that he does find the one officer who doesn't wish to play his "I'm perfectly legal" game and gets to view his own unprescribed colonoscopy.

gvf
August 11, 2011, 05:42 PM
What state was that. I live in NY. I got stopped for something, no ticket resulted. I told the officer I had pistol in the car and did he want to see my permit. He said no and never asked for it or asked to see the gun.

So, this officer was nice, but it's nicer when they don't care.

easyg
August 11, 2011, 06:34 PM
If you choose to exercise your right to carry a gun, you do have to prove that you're eligible to do so.
Not everywhere in this nation.
Not in North Carolina.
In NC just the mere fact that a person is carrying a handgun is NOT probable cause to stop that person, question that person, or detain that person.
And NC is not the only state like this.


Again, you're overlooking the point that the Officer was dispatched there on a suspicious person with a gun complaint.
Actually, the officer never menntions the word "suspicious".
He mentions a call about a man with a gun....which is not illegal.
Would the officer had investigated a call about a man with a cellphone?


How hard is it to just show the guy some id and get along with your day?
It's not hard at all to show some ID.
In fact, it's the path of least resistance....the easy way out of a confrontation with a police officer.
The harder thing to do is to exercise your Constitutional Right.
Too many of our forefathers died so that we could have these Rights....I'm not going to throw them away just because it's the easy way out.


If I was a citizen and saw a guy carrying a gun openly, I would want a cop to id him to see if he has the right to carry. Ya know, so my house doesn't get robbed at gun point...
Again, it's a violation of our Constitutional Rights for cops just to stop folks who are engaging in perfectly legal activities just to see if they have a criminal record.
BTW, you're not a citizen???


Sorry friend, the 2 scenarios are identical. I was stopped, asked to identify and show that I had a legal right to possess a weapon, demonstrate to the Officer that I was indeed permitted and not impaired, and I was polite and cooperative. I didn't act in an uncooperative manor or wrap myself in the constitution, refusing to answer, I simply acted in the way I would wish to be treated.
Where you open carrying in a state where open carry is legal?
If so, then you're Rights were violated.


The presumption of innocence is not relevant to the scenario shown in the video. Guilt or innocence are determined in a Courtroom by Judge and/or Jury. Presumption of innocence means that once a case gets into Court, it is up to the prosecution to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt as opposed to the accused having to proved their innocence.
Not true!
We, as citizens of this nation, have a Constitutional Right against unwarranted search and seizure. And that right is based upon the presumption of innocence.
We do not live in a police state where the police can question a person for no good reason (at least not yet).

It's this "cops have the right to do anything" mentality that gets cases thrown out of court for lack of probable cause.

gordy
August 11, 2011, 07:00 PM
As we all know police only deal with law abiding, god fearing,wife & kid loving people every day.
I was a cops kid, My dad got his nose broken by a drunk as he was helping him up off the ground, were he was passed out.
I was in fights just becouse some kids dad got drunk and beat up his wife and got put in jail. and that was my dads fault.
What if this guy was walking down the street, going to shoot the boss who just fired him the day before for coming to work late one to many times.
What if he was looking for someone for sleeping with his girlfriend.
Hay he is doing it right, no ammo-open carry.
The cop has every right to ask who you are. do you have to say, no you don't. do you ever watch cops on tv? and ask yourself would you do it like that. That guys rights are being violated
If you looked out your window and saw a person with a gun walking down the street what would you do?
If you saw a naked man with a knife and a hard on chasing a young girl, what would you do?
What if he had no knife? is he breaking any laws? They are just playing tag, officer.
If you were standing by wally world and some guy was walking your way and was carring a gun and you thought is he ok or some freak? Do you just stand there?
So we all have ask what if?
Is it you or some other guy we have to worry about?
Is your rights as a law abiding person to be stepped on or only the bad guy.
Number one rule for cops, you go home alive tonight.

230therapy
August 11, 2011, 07:04 PM
Everything I was going to say was said by previous posters such as easyg.

Thanks easyg!!

easyg
August 11, 2011, 07:18 PM
Let's say a man walks up to you while you're standing on the corner....
He is not wearing a police officer's uniform and he does not identify himself as a police officer.
He asks for your ID.

Would you give it to him?



Now let's say a man walks up to you and he's wearing a police officer's uniform.
He asks for your ID

Would you give it to him?


Most folks here (if they answer honestly) would not give their ID to the first guy but would surrender it to the police officer.
The reason most folks would surrender their ID to the cop is because of two factors:
1) Social conditioning.
2) Fear of what the cop might do if they refuse.


Judging from most of the replies in this thread I can see how successful the police have been in cowing citizens in to surrendering their Constitutional Rights.

forgetitohio
August 11, 2011, 08:09 PM
Might want to THINK on a street level.

BG sees a dude with a video camera carring a gun.
I'd safely say some BGs knows OC laws.

He beats the crap out of the OCer and uses his gun in a crime or kills people.

"It's my right to OC".

He tells that to the Judge who gives him 20yrs.(just a number) for not properly securing his gun or what ever crime they would charge him with.

"But Judge I had my video camera for my protection"

BG is probably watching pics of him beating the crap out of the OCer while eating popcorn.

"Rights" do have to carry some common sense.

Life is hard; it's harder if you're stupid.
John Wayne

BTW...anybody that thinks "presumed to be innocent until proven guilty" as never been arrested or been to court.

Dr_2_B
August 11, 2011, 08:29 PM
"the chance of you being harassed and hassled by a cop is FAR less than it is for a civilian....... "

Lawdawg, I am the OP here. And I say with great respect that I have to agree that officers don't face the same scrutiny as non-LEOs. I mean no disrespect, but once an officer learns you're a LEO, he's done with you. With the rest of us, that's not necessarily the case. I've mostly encountered great respect from officers (partly because I'm respectful as well), but I've also had some experiences where they didn't act professionally. Officers like you, though, don't really face the same things we do except for places like the airport. Again, if it sounds rude, that is not at all where I'm coming from in saying this.

This particular situation is a tough one and I appreciate that the discussion has been civil. Civil discourse is great for this country. I think the officer depicted acted with supreme professionalism and courtesy, but I believe the laws are unjust enough that at this point in time I believe LEOs are asked to do things that they shouldn't be asked to do and I believe they consequently have an authority with law-abiding citizens such as the guy in this film that is unwarranted.

PT92
August 11, 2011, 09:34 PM
Wow--this video is on virtually every gun-related forum on the Net--definitely went viral.

That being said, I have no problem in essence with the overall behavior of all involved (the cop had a lot of patience in that the guy had a bit of an attitude). If I had to grade it, cop gets a B and the guy being stopped gets a C. Just my .02 cents.

-Cheers

M-Cameron
August 11, 2011, 10:41 PM
And the bigger question (which usually answers the first question) is why would you want to hide your identity?

it doesnt make a difference my reasons.....

the whole, "well if you have nothing to hide..." routine gets old.

the fact is, in this country, the people have certain rights......and if you dont like it, because it makes your job difficult....i suggest you find a new line of work.

chrt396
August 11, 2011, 11:30 PM
The officer was very polite. He was being video taped. Would he have done the same in a candid moment..we'll never know. The pedestrian was uncooperative and I'm sure he had reasons other than trying to be a jerk. Then again..maybe he IS a jerk..but I digress.
The biggest problem I see in the law enforcement profession is the hiring of this new breed of cop. No longer do we have the Officer Friendly's anymore. You know..the ones that used to pull into a neighborhood and talk to the kids and get to know them. They used to be sociable and accessible to the citizens of the community. These new hires are developing this attitude of "It's US against THEM!" They are rude, defensive, obnoxious and overall a--h---s! I'm NOT including all of course. There are many..many fine police officers. It's this new breed that is scaring the heck out of me. Try and go up to one and ask a question! They look P.O.'d that you would even address them! I've always had respect for law enforcement my whole life, but after seeing and dealing with them in business and in personal life..(no.I have not been in trouble) as neighbors and acquaintances, I am NOT very impressed with their relationships with the everyday citizen. As said in previous posts, it's like they are preparing for war. Police state attitude.

I'm just a 55 year old, thinning haired normal guy that obeys the law...but observes and watches his surroundings with a high degree of interest.

ursus100
August 12, 2011, 01:13 AM
like i said before......a cop can ASK for anything....

now, i dont care for you think hes a jerk, or being obnoxious or what not...

the question is, is he legally required to supply it?

Apparently not, because when the pedestrian refused to provide even a last name, Officer Lyons took no further action and let him on his way.

TEAM101
August 12, 2011, 03:19 AM
No longer do we have the Officer Friendly's anymore.

Unfortunately, Officer Friendly is no longer safe in society.

Lawdawg45
August 12, 2011, 07:28 AM
"the whole, "well if you have nothing to hide..." routine gets old.

the fact is, in this country, the people have certain rights......and if you dont like it, because it makes your job difficult....i suggest you find a new line of work."

Sorry friend just the opposite, it makes my job very easy. In our state you are required to identify yourself to LE in a public setting when requested, and in 30 years I can honestly say that the only people who have refused to do this have had something to hide, it's typical behaviour for criminals. If you wish to remain anonymous by wrapping yourself in your interpretation of the constitution, that is your right, but it puts you in company with some pretty shady characters. I am curious though, does society get your constitutional lecture every time you're asked for ID when cashing a check?

LD45

Lawdawg45
August 12, 2011, 07:41 AM
"but I believe the laws are unjust enough that at this point in time I believe LEOs are asked to do things that they shouldn't be asked to do and I believe they consequently have an authority with law-abiding citizens such as the guy in this film that is unwarranted."

Let me understand something here Doc. You see a suspicious person walking up and down your street in front of your house and you notice he has a weapon on his hip (the exact scenario of your video), but when you call 911 the dispatcher says "sorry sir, responding to that call would violate the suspects constitutional rights.......have a good day", how would you react? This is exactly what you and a minority few here have advocated, and this mirrors the paranoia that exists on the open carry forums, but in the same breath they always talk about how they would break out the AK/AR for an intruder on their property. An interesting dichotomy.:rolleyes:

LD45

Dr_2_B
August 12, 2011, 09:59 AM
You raise a good point Lawdawg (and please continue to note that everything I'm saying is with the greatest sincere respect - I don't want you to think I'm arguing, but discussing). Part of the problem is our society has taken on such a victimization mentality (like a bunch of sheep) that they phone the police when they see an evil gun. In saying this, I admit that the state of the intrusive laws on the books is a reflection of as well as a contributor to the overreactive sheep mentality. That's what I mean when I say you are asked to do things that we as a society shouldn't be asking you to do.

We may have a simple difference in political views. I suppose I have a bit of libertarian in me. That may not be where you come from.

All the best,

Matt

Lawdawg45
August 12, 2011, 03:37 PM
Doc, no offense taken. Others on this forum could learn from your calm, logical approach to differing points of view and how to engage them. I completely understand the right to be secure in a person's own home without worry of illegal search and seizure, but I fail to see a constitutional guarantee to public anonymity wrapped up in that interpretation. As far as those "evil guns", I was far more worried about the Tech 9 under home boy's hoodie, rather than a good ole boy with a Colt 45 on his hip!;)

P.S. How'd that holster work for you? Did you see that Charter came out with a .40 cal version?

LD45

ursus100
August 12, 2011, 04:49 PM
The presumption of innocence is not relevant to the scenario shown in the video. Guilt or innocence are determined in a Courtroom by Judge and/or Jury. Presumption of innocence means that once a case gets into Court, it is up to the prosecution to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt as opposed to the accused having to proved their innocence.


Not true!
We, as citizens of this nation, have a Constitutional Right against unwarranted search and seizure. And that right is based upon the presumption of innocence.
We do not live in a police state where the police can question a person for no good reason (at least not yet).

It's this "cops have the right to do anything" mentality that gets cases thrown out of court for lack of probable cause.

Actually it is true. Cops do not determine innocence or guilt, that happens in the Courtromm, not on the street. The "presumption of innocence" AKA "Innocent until proven guilty" governs what has to happen in a Courtrom for a defendant to be convicted of the charges against him. With our system, the burden of proof is on the prosecution. If the prosecution is not able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the ccrime, the defendant is set free. In the contrasting system of "guilty until proven innocent", the mere fact of being charged in court establishes a presumption of guilt, and it is up to the defendant to prove his innocence. Fortunately, The United States does not use the latter system. Once again, since the video in question showed a legal police contact that did not result in an arrest, let alone a trial, the whole issue of innocent until proven guilty is moot.

You are most certainly correct that our Constitution's 4th Amendment limits the police's legal ability to collect evidence. However, collection of evidence does not get into guilt or innocence and in fact uses a much lower standard that what is used in the courtroom i.e. "probable cause".

To understand that, consider your analogy of a person carrying a cellphone. Although a person could be carrying a stolen cell phone, a police officer would be unable to detain the person and see if the cell phone was stolen unless he had probable cause to believe that is was actually stolen. A citizen's report of a "suspicious man carrying a cell phone" would not constitute probable cause. If a cop were detain your hypothetical cell phone carrier without probable cause, any evidence that came from that contact would be inadmissible in a court. Likewise, if the police wanted set up trace on your cell phone, they would need to present "probable cause" to a judge to get a court order. Again, the cop would not need to prove to the judge that the person was guilty of anything, but merely establish of a probable cause of a crime.

I do agree with you that we do not live in a a police state where the police can question a person for no good reason. Of course with respect to the video, as previously cited, California law specifically and unambiguosly grants LEOs the legal authority to detain a person carrying a handgun to determine its loaded status. Because the incident occurred in California, North Carolina laws are irrelevant.

As far as asking for identification, I still have not heard anyone cite any law would prohibit Officer Lyons from making that request. After the pedestrian excerised his right to not provide identification, Offcier Lyons courteously let him on his way, further supporting your statement that we do not yet live in a police state.

marb4
August 12, 2011, 06:58 PM
Whatever the pedestrian's motive I would say he and Officer Lyons both handled themselves well. Though he would not offer the information (id) requested by the officer, the pedestrian seemed courteous about it and offered no resistance when asked to demonstrate the "loaded" status of his weapon. Not sure what the pedestrian was up to but he didn't seem obnoxious or beligerent to the officer. Good on Officer Lyons for being a real pro. (I did notice that the officer, when writing down "Jeremy's" name asked quickly and casually for his last name after "Jeremy" had refused to offer his ID.)

My final thoughs -

Wish there were more LEO's like Officer Lyons.

To Jeremy, if he was intentionally baiting for a chance to "exercise" his rights I would suggest he isn't being a very responsible citizen. I'm sure there were other more productive things Officer Lyons could have been doing.

easyg
August 12, 2011, 10:15 PM
In our state you are required to identify yourself to LE in a public setting when requested,...
Are you in Indiana?
If so, exactly which law are you referring to?
I did a search and this is what I found....

IC 34-28-5-3
Detention
Sec. 3. Whenever a law enforcement officer believes in good faith that a person has committed an infraction or ordinance violation, the law enforcement officer may detain that person for a time sufficient to:
(1) inform the person of the allegation;
(2) obtain the person's:
(A) name, address, and date of birth; or
(B) driver's license, if in the person's possession; and
(3) allow the person to execute a notice to appear.
As added by P.L.1-1998, SEC.24.


IC 34-28-5-3.5
Refusal to identify self
Sec. 3.5. A person who knowingly or intentionally refuses to provide either the person's:
(1) name, address, and date of birth; or
(2) driver's license, if in the person's possession;
to a law enforcement officer who has stopped the person for an infraction or ordinance violation commits a Class C misdemeanor.
As added by P.L.1-1998, SEC.24.
This does not mean that an officer in Indiana can request any law abiding citizen's ID for no reason.

easyg
August 12, 2011, 10:24 PM
Cops do not determine innocence or guilt, that happens in the Courtromm, not on the street. The "presumption of innocence" AKA "Innocent until proven guilty" governs what has to happen in a Courtrom for a defendant to be convicted of the charges against him. With our system, the burden of proof is on the prosecution.
While the arresting officer does not determine innocence or guilt, he still must treat citizens with the presumption of innocence and must have reasonable cause to detain or arrest a person.
Failure to do so practically guarantees that the case will get thrown out of court long before the actual trial process that determines ultimate guilt or innocence.
Basically, the courts determine the innocence or guilt of those whom the arresting officer had reason to believe were guilty.

If a cop keeps arresting those whom the courts find no probable cause for the arrest, that arresting cop is on his way to a very short career indeed.

Lawdawg45
August 13, 2011, 08:39 AM
"This does not mean that an officer in Indiana can request any law abiding citizen's ID for no reason. "

You're 100% correct, and I should have been more clear in my post. I was referring to situations where I had probable cause to question/detain someone for investigative purposes. In my career in Indiana, I've yet to see an Officer stop someone just because they decided to go "fishing", and with the population of Indianapolis, people give us all the probable cause we need. I can however, run a license plate for any or no reason at all. The court determined that driving is a privilege and not a right, and by placing yourself (and your plate) in a public setting, the displayed information can be obtained at any time. Several criminals have tried to fight this in court, unsuccessfully I might add.;)

LD45

Dr_2_B
August 13, 2011, 09:51 AM
How'd that holster work for you?
Awe man, do I have egg on my face! I did not remember that was you. THANK YOU for that holster, it has been awesome! Loving the 44. Just wish I could afford to shoot it more.

Readers please note that when I mentioned on THR a while back that I had bought a 44 Bulldog, Lawdawg sent me a private message so he could give me a pancake holster for it. I don't want to embarrass him, but it was thoughtful, kind, and generous. He's a credit to his profession.

MyGreenGuns
August 13, 2011, 01:18 PM
A lot of people are assuming the OC was 'looking for trouble'. He could have just been out for a stroll, seen the cruiser pull up behind him, and turned on the video just in case things went sour. The officer recieved a call and SHOULD respond in such a case. He verified the weapon was empty and returned it to the OC. When asked for ID, you can reply, "Am I free to go?"

If the officer had been out of line, the video would be evidence. He acted friendly and professional.

Since the weapon was not loaded, the officer's job is done. If there is no more 'official' business, then I'll be on my way.

Both parties handled the situation in a non-confrontational way.

PS: This officer was an older gentleman "Officer Friendly". I too believe the younger officers tend to 'power-trip' far more, in my experience.

If you enjoyed reading about "You must watch this video" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!