Make a Contribution to Remove NSFW Ads

Police Confront Man for Open Carrying Firearm Legally

MASTERBAKER

MASTERBAKER

DEMOTED MOD
BGOL Investor
Know your right folks....

This is as good of an example as you can get of asserting your rights. Pete is no stranger to filming police and this is the second video of his used by Cop Block. The first was confronting Arlington police officers about parking their cruiser illegally, which Cop Block is still waiting to hear the outcome of that investigation. Petes decisions to go to his girlfriends aid, film the police, open carry a firearm, refuse to produce ID and to walk away from the police,without satisfying their request, were all perfectly legal acts.

Though you dont ever have to talk to the police, Pete has a background in Law Enforcement along with a great knowledge of open carry laws. Therefore, while he still talked to the police and provided them with information, above and beyond whats legally required, he did so with caution. Stating things like, yes, I have an ID but am I legally required to show you? When told he was legally required to (a lie) Pete would ask if the officers could show him that statue which states such? Pete does this because the police are legally allowed to lie to you, which they did several times in this video, but Pete counters that by asking questions to the officers which would force them to back up their lies. As you can see they were unable to do that. After talking with them for a few minutes Pete stated he was going to leave and why, then slowly backed away.

They didnt follow him after that and he never had to produce his government issued ID. There really was no wrong doings by the police officers in this video (other than the harassment and lying) as they seemed to be stumped by Petes actions. Though they have typical cop syndrome of if you have nothing to hide why dont you just give us what we ask for and/or do what we say. Youd think that with all the police training and on the job experiences they would of quickly came to the conclusion that felons dont walk up to cops openly displaying not only a firearm but a camera too. Do these cops think that Pete is going to film his last five minutes of freedom, if he were a felon? I highly doubt it and Im speaking from the perspective of a felon (as Im a victim of the drug war).

So what can be learned from this video? A lot, but the two biggest things to me are how Pete always keeps his cool and doesnt get in a shouting match with the officers. He doesnt try to impress them with a bunch of legal rambling that would make him seem like a know it all. He lets the officers speak and then replies giving as little information as possible in a calm cool collected manner. The second is how Pete counters questions with questions. In most cases, unless driving or suspected of criminal activity, youre not required legally to produce ID when asked to by an officer. Cops phrase it as a request, may I see your ID? Which isnt them telling you to produced it but merely a request to. Sometimes when asked if you legally have to show them they lie and say yes because they can lie. Therefore instead of just handing it over ask them, Am I legally required to do so? If they say yes then ask to see the law. If you start to feel uncomfortable remember at any point you can simply stop talking to them. State that unless youre under arrest youre just going to go on your way, like Pete-8does here. Leaving the cops dumbfounded.+
[FLASH]http://www.liveleak.com/e/8bc_1310260736[/FLASH]
 
I am good on that. It is good to know your rights but testing the waters is dumb especially if you are a brotha.
 
Nervous as fuck...had the knowledge to make them look

wiggums.jpg
 
Texas Penal Code - Section 38.02. Failure To Identify

(It states that you must be under arrest)

It's a Class B Misdemeanor = Fines and up to six months in jail

:smh:
 
Last edited:
BrownTurd said:
I am good on that. It is good to know your rights but testing the waters is dumb especially if you are a brotha.
Click to expand...

This.

There was a white dude doing the same thing out here, going around confronting then filming cops, he slipped up and they caught him on the news saying he could have shot the cops that questioned him about his weapon and ended up getting charge with terrorist threats on a peace officer.

Now he can't legally own a gun.


I don't want the police to even be aware of who I am. They stay away from me I stay away from them.
 
Wow! Here in Illinois the laws are different, you try that shit here they would of called in the calvary.....:lol::lol:
 
The police could have beat his ass or did anything they wanted to him if they wanted to fuck the law hell they think they are the law! He just need to run up on the right cop with that shit cause in america you are guilty until proven innocent and they got laws that makes you stay guilty!
 
White folks can do that shit all day long and be good , but niggas know better...your ass will be beat , arrested , killed or all of those.
 
hardcore_legend said:
I don't want the police to even be aware of who I am. They stay away from me I stay away from them.
Click to expand...

Basically...tryna 1-up them is childish and provocatory...as long as they are courteous + respectful of me I'm courteous + respectful w/ them and will be as cooperative as I need to w/o compromising myself/rights...
 
BrownTurd said:
I am good on that. It is good to know your rights but testing the waters is dumb especially if you are a brotha.
Click to expand...

In so short of words you have put it so very very plain playa and I can't thank you enough!!...why?? Black people and white people are looked at differently by law enforcement...It's not right but it is true people deal with it for one simple reason their persecption. If you read a book on the laws and you understand them that's cool I'm totally down with that EVERYBODY should know the laws or at least know where to read up on them but to go out and test what you know for the sake of testing it is straight stupid people and nobody is gonna tell me differently, In that scenario the citizen it totally right "but" what if the cop didn't know OR apply the law correctly and shoots the citizen? yes your family will get paid, yes the cop will (most likely) get fired and (most likely) jail time but what do you get??? seriously fucked up or dead!!!!!......but you were right weren't you and isnt that important?.How many people here are licensed to drive cars?....how many people here know BY THE TRAFFIC LAWS IN EVERY STATE you are required to stop when approaching a red light?? Now how many of you "test" the validity of that law by running the red light?? ( I know there is a wise ass in the crowd) but basically nobody. Now I strap up (legally) and go fuck with the police who of course is also strapped looking foooorrrr what?? It's simple to me barring an inevitable encounter know the law and leave the police alone class dismissed.
 
And this is why I don't open carry and prefer ccw...nobody cops or would-be jackers know I have my shit and that's how I'd prefer it...when I deal w/ cops incidentally my shit is always on me...the only way cops'll know I have my shit is if they run my license...but my hands are ALWAYS IN PLAIN VIEW so that when they reapproach me they can see them...they usually ask me to provide a warning in future instances re: my gun...I say 'sure no problem officer' but I never do...that defeats the purpose of having a ccw if I'm gonna announce my shit to them...guy in the vid was "right" but he was a douchebag and I'm sure that wasn't even his gf...if I'm somewhere and somebody approach me w/ a gun on their hip videotaping me I wouldnt like that shit either
 
Stop and identify statutes


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_identify_statutes


“Stop and identify” statutes are laws in the United States that allow police to detain persons reasonably suspected of involvement in a crime and require persons so detained to identify themselves to the police.[1]

The authority to detain on reasonable suspicion was established in Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), and does not depend on the existence of a law that specifically authorizes such a detention, so that authority exists in all jurisdictions in the United States. The identification requirement 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 identification requirement did not violate the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures. The Hiibel Court also held that, because Hiibel had no reasonable belief that his name would be used to incriminate him, the identification requirement did not violate the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination; however, the Court left open the possibility that Fifth Amendment privilege might apply in situations where there was a reasonable belief that giving a name could be incriminating.[2] The Court understood the Nevada statute to mean that a detained person could satisfy the Nevada law by simply stating his name.[3]
Click to expand...

Police–citizen encountersIn the United States, interactions between police and citizens fall into three general categories: consensual (“contact” or “conversation”), detention (often called a Terry stop, after Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968)), or arrest. “Stop and identify” laws pertain to detentions.

Different obligations apply to drivers of automobiles, who generally are required by state vehicle codes to present a driver’s license to police upon request.

[edit] ConsensualAt any time, police may approach a person and ask questions. The objective may simply be a friendly conversation; however, the police also may suspect involvement in a crime, but lack “specific and articulable facts”[4] that would justify a detention or arrest, and hope to obtain these facts from the questioning. The person approached is not required to identify herself or answer any other questions, and may leave at any time.[5] Police are not usually required to tell a person that she is free to decline to answer questions and go about her business;[6] however, a person can usually determine whether the interaction is consensual by asking, “Am I free to go?”[7][8]

[edit] DetentionA person is detained when circumstances are such that a reasonable person would believe he is not free to leave.[9]

Police may briefly detain a person if they have reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime. Many state laws explicitly grant this authority; in Terry v. Ohio, the U.S. Supreme Court established it in all jurisdictions, regardless of explicit mention in state or local laws. Police may conduct a limited search for weapons (known as a “frisk”) if they reasonably suspect that the person to be detained may be armed and dangerous.

Police may question a person detained in a Terry stop, but in general, the detainee is not required to answer.[10] However, many states have “stop and identify” laws that explicitly require a person detained under the conditions of Terry to identify himself to police, and in some cases, provide additional information.

Before Hiibel, it was unresolved whether a detainee could be arrested and prosecuted for refusing to identify himself. Authority on this issue was split among the federal circuit courts of appeal,[11] and the U.S. Supreme Court twice expressly refused to address the question.[12] In Hiibel, the Court held, in a 5–4 decision, that a Nevada “stop and identify” law did not violate the United States Constitution. The Court’s opinion implied that a detainee was not required to produce written identification, but could satisfy the requirement merely by stating his name. Some “stop and identify” laws do not require that a detainee identify himself, but allow refusal to do so to be considered along with other factors in determining whether there is probable cause to arrest. In some states, providing a false name is an offense.[13]

As of February 2011, the Supreme Court has not addressed the validity of requirements that a detainee provide information other than his name.

[edit] ArrestWhile detention requires only that police have reasonable suspicion that a person is involved in criminal activity, an arrest requires that the officer have probable cause to believe that the person has committed a crime. Although some states require police to inform the person of the intent to make the arrest and the cause for the arrest,[14] it is not always obvious when a detention becomes an arrest. After making an arrest, police may search a person, her belongings, and her immediate surroundings.

Whether an arrested person must identify herself may depend on the jurisdiction in which the arrest occurs. If a person is under arrest and police wish to question her, they are required to inform the person of her Fifth-Amendment right to remain silent by giving a Miranda warning. However, Miranda does not apply to biographical data necessary to complete booking.[15][16] It is not clear whether a “stop and identify” law could compel giving one’s name after being arrested, although some states have laws that specifically require an arrested person to give her name and other biographical information,[17] and some state courts[18][19] have held that refusal to give one’s name constitutes obstructing a public officer. As a practical matter, an arrested person who refused to give her name would have little chance of obtaining a prompt release.

[edit] Obligation to identifyStates with “stop and identify” laws
Alabama Ala. Code §15-5-30
Arizona Ari. Rev. Stat. Tit. 13, §2412 (enacted 2005)
Arkansas Ark. Code Ann. §5-71-213(a)(1) (loitering)
Colorado Colo. Rev. Stat. §16-3-103(1)
Delaware Del. Code Ann., Tit. 11, §§1902, 1321(6)
Florida Fla. Stat. §856.021(2) (loitering and prowling)
Georgia Ga. Code Ann. §16-11-36(b) (loitering)
Illinois Ill. Comp. Stat., ch. 725, §5/107-14
Indiana Indiana Code §34-28-5-3.5
Kansas Kan. Stat. Ann. §22-2402(1)
Louisiana La. Code Crim. Proc. Ann., Art. 215.1(A)
Missouri Mo. Rev. Stat. §84.710(2)
Montana Mont. Code Ann. §46-5-401
Nebraska Neb. Rev. Stat. §29-829
Nevada Nev. Rev. Stat. §171.123
New Hampshire N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §594:2, §644:6
New Mexico N.M. Stat. Ann. §30-22-3
New York N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law (CPL) §140.50 (1)
North Dakota N.D. Cent. Code §29-29-21 (PDF)
Ohio Ohio Rev. Code §2921.29 (enacted 2006)
Rhode Island R.I. Gen. Laws §12-7-1
Utah Utah Code Ann. §77-7-15
Vermont Vt. Stat. Ann., Tit. 24, §1983
Wisconsin Wis. Stat. §968.24

As of February 2011, there is no U.S. federal law requiring that an individual identify herself during a Terry stop, but Hiibel held that states may enact such laws,[20] and 24 states have done so.[21] The opinion in Hiibel implied that persons detained by police in jurisdictions with “stop and identify” laws listed are obligated to identify themselves,[22] and that persons detained in other jurisdictions are not.[23] The issue may not be that simple, however, for several reasons:

The wording of “stop and identify” laws varies considerably from state to state.
Noncompliance with a “stop and identify” law that does not explicitly impose a penalty may constitute violation of another law, such as one to the effect of “resisting, obstructing, or delaying a peace officer”.
State courts have made varying interpretations of both “stop and identify” and “obstructing” laws.
[edit] Variations in “stop and identify” lawsFour states’ laws (Arizona, Indiana, Nevada, and Ohio) explicitly impose an obligation to provide identifying information.
Fifteen states grant police authority to ask questions, with varying wording, but do not explicitly impose an obligation to respond:
In Montana, police “may request” identifying information;
In 13 states (Alabama, Delaware, Illinois, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New York, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Utah, Wisconsin), police “may demand” identifying information;
In Colorado, police “may require” identifying information of a person.
Identifying information varies, but typically includes
Name, address, and an explanation of the person’s actions;
In some cases it also includes the person’s intended destination, the person’s date of birth (Indiana and Ohio), or written identification if available (Colorado).
Arizona’s law, apparently written specifically to codify the holding in Hiibel, requires a person’s “true full name”.
Nevada’s law, which requires a person to “identify himself or herself”, apparently requires only that the person state his or her name.
In five states (Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island), failure to identify oneself is one factor to be considered in a decision to arrest. In all but Rhode Island, the consideration arises in the context of loitering or prowling.
Six states (Arizona, Florida, Indiana, New Mexico, Ohio, and Vermont) explicitly impose a criminal penalty for noncompliance with the obligation to identify oneself.
As of February 2011, the validity of a law requiring that a person detained provide anything more than state her name has not come before the U.S. Supreme Court.

[edit] Interaction with other lawsIn states whose “stop and identify laws” do not directly impose penalties, a lawful arrest must be for violation of some other law, such as one to the effect of “resisting, obstructing, or delaying a peace officer”. For example, the Nevada “stop and identify” law challenged in Hiibel did not impose a penalty on a person who refused to comply, but the Justice Court of Union Township, Nevada, determined that Hiibel’s refusal to identify himself[24] constituted a violation of Nevada’s “obstructing” law.[25] A similar conclusion regarding the interaction between Utah’s “stop and identify” and “obstructing” laws was reached in Oliver v. Woods (10th Cir. 2000).

[edit] Interpretation by courts“Stop and identify” laws in different states that appear to be nearly identical may be different in effect because of interpretations by state courts. For example, California’s “stop and identify” law, Penal Code §647(e) had wording[26] similar to the Nevada law upheld in Hiibel, but a California appellate court, in People v. Solomon (1973), 33 Cal.App.3d 429 construed the law to require “credible and reliable” identification that carries a “reasonable assurance” of its authenticity. Using this construction, the U.S. Supreme Court held the law to be void for vagueness in Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352 (1983).[27]

Some courts have recognized a distinction authorizing police to demand identifying information and specifically imposing an obligation of a suspect to respond.[28] Other courts have apparently interpreted demand to impose an obligation on the detainee to comply.[29][30]

Wording and interpretation by state courts of “obstructing” laws also varies; for example, New York’s “obstructing” law[31] apparently requires physical rather than simply verbal obstruction;[32][33] likewise, a violation of the Colorado “obstructing” law appears to require use or threat of use of physical force. However, the Colorado Supreme Court held in Dempsey v. People, No. 04SC362 (2005) (PDF) that refusing to provide identification was an element in the “totality of the circumstances” that could constitute obstructing an officer, even when actual physical interference was not employed.[34] Utah’s “obstructing” law does not require a physical act, but merely a failure to follow a “lawful order . . . necessary to effect the . . . detention”;[35] a divided court in Oliver v. Woods concluded that failure to present identification constituted a violation of that law.[30]

It is not universally agreed that, absent a “stop and identify law”, there is no obligation for a detainee to identify himself. For example, as the U.S. Supreme Court noted in Hiibel, California’s “stop and identify” statute was voided in Kolender v. Lawson. But in People v. Long,[36] decided four years after Kolender, a California appellate court found no constitutional impropriety in a police officer’s demand for written identification from a detainee. The issue before the Long court was a request for suppression of evidence uncovered in a search of the defendant’s wallet, so the issue of refusal to present identification was not directly addressed; however some cite Long in maintaining that refusal to present written identification constitutes obstructing an officer.[37] Others disagree, and maintain that persons detained by police in California cannot be compelled to identify themselves.[38]

Some courts, e.g., State v. Flynn (Wis. 1979)[39] and People v. Loudermilk (Calif. 1987)[40] have held that police may perform a search for written identification if a suspect refuses to provide it; a later California decision, People v. Garcia (2006) strongly disagreed.[41]

[edit] Recommendations of legal-aid organizationsSome legal organizations, such as the National Lawyers Guild and the ACLU of Northern California, caution against refusing to identify oneself whether or not a jurisdiction has a “stop and identify” law:

And in any state, police do not always follow the law, and refusing to give your name may make them suspicious and lead to your arrest, so use your judgment. If you fear that your name may be incriminating, you can claim the right to remain silent, and if you are arrested, this may help you later. Giving a false name could be a crime.[42]
In a more recent pamphlet, the ACLU of Northern California go even further, recommending that a person detained by police

. . . give your name and the information on your drivers’ license. If you don’t, you may be arrested, even though the arrest may be illegal.[43]
Click to expand...
 

If people new there rights. The second amendment give you the right to carry a concealed weapon. The Supreme Court case District of Columbia v. Heller clearly state an I quote (At the time of the founding, as now, to “bear” meant to “carry.” In numerous instances, “bear arms” was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia. Nine state constitutional provisions written in the 18th century or the first two decades of the 19th, which enshrined a right of citizens “bear arms in defense of themselves and the state” again, in the most analogous linguistic context—that “bear arms” was not limited to the carrying of arms in a militia.)

That is why I always carry my gun with me an I do not have a permit. An I live in Baltimore County. I was once charge with carrying a firearm with out a permit. To make a long story short. When I went to court I read two thing to the judge the second amendment and something that most of you never heard of Page 46 of The Federalist Papers paragraph 8. This explain in detail why you have the right the keep and bear arms and the government can never write any law to go against it(that what the word infringe mean). When I read these two document to the judge. An told him that I was ready to take the matter to the Supreme Court if necessary. He told them to give me my gun back. :lol::lol::lol:

If you don't know the law then there is no law.
 
KOOLKEV said:

If people new there rights. The second amendment give you the right to carry a concealed weapon. The Supreme Court case District of Columbia v. Heller clearly state an I quote (At the time of the founding, as now, to “bear” meant to “carry.” In numerous instances, “bear arms” was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia. Nine state constitutional provisions written in the 18th century or the first two decades of the 19th, which enshrined a right of citizens “bear arms in defense of themselves and the state” again, in the most analogous linguistic context—that “bear arms” was not limited to the carrying of arms in a militia.)

That is why I always carry my gun with me an I do not have a permit. An I live in Baltimore County. I was once charge with carrying a firearm with out a permit. To make a long story short. When I went to court I read two thing to the judge the second amendment and something that most of you never heard of Page 46 of The Federalist Papers paragraph 8. This explain in detail why you have the right the keep and bear arms and the government can never write any law to go against it(that what the word infringe mean). When I read these two document to the judge. An told him that I was ready to take the matter to the Supreme Court if necessary. He told them to give me my gun back. :lol::lol::lol:

If you don't know the law then there is no law.
Click to expand...


That federal law doesnt mean shit if you get arrested on a state level. Get arrested in GA with a concealed gun without a permit and see how far the constitution gets you.
 
Open carrying gives up your tactical advantage.....plus it can be very distracting in public.....im good concealed is the way to go for me
 
i've been stopped 3 times carrying my shit openly in Atlanta. but of course at 5points u know the police aint really bout to play that shit....so i showed em my ID and permit and carried on. only once did they piss me the fuck off and took my ammo out my gun one time then gave it back to me.

here in Dallas, i was a mall parkinglot and the wind blew my shirt up, revealing the gun concealed underneath and i was approached by police. at first they were nonchalant and asked me if i was law enforcement (i guess because of the type of holster i was using), then proceeded with procedural questions and asked to see my ID and permit. i know law enforcement is supposed to do their job and whatnot, and im not tryin to interfere with that. but its good to know your rights and be able to tell the difference between the police protecting and serving.....and str8 up harassment.
 
Coldchi said:
only once did they piss me the fuck off and took my ammo out my gun one time then gave it back to me.
Click to expand...

:angry::angry::angry::angry::angry::angry::angry::angry::angry::angry::angry::angry:

What was their basis for that??? I'd been pissed off too...did they keep the ammo or just told you not to put it back in as long as you were around them...supposed someone rolled up on you and you were in danger...na man that shit woulda had me crazy!
 
I have nothing to hide so would show my ID with no issue. Being black, it just comes with the territory. It doesnt matter that they were in the wrong if they "feel" they are in danger and decide to double tap your chest.
 
I wish I could do that...but being black... it's not worth the drama

gotta love how he walked off
 
Leroy Soup Nutz said:
:angry::angry::angry::angry::angry::angry::angry::angry::angry::angry::angry::angry:

What was their basis for that??? I'd been pissed off too...did they keep the ammo or just told you not to put it back in as long as you were around them...supposed someone rolled up on you and you were in danger...na man that shit woulda had me crazy!
Click to expand...

basically told me if i wanted to get the ammo back, i could go down to the precinct and pick it up. now of course i can't walk into the police station with my gun on me, and i didnt feel like going home to drop it off and then going right back up there for the ammo. so i just said fuck it and charged it to the game.
 
Open Carry is legal in Ohio -- well it was last time I checked a year or two ago. The thing is they will charge you with other shit like inducing panic. As usual your rights cost money to defend and the states will use your own tax dollars to make you drop to your knees. :smh: :smh:


 
Coldchi said:
basically told me if i wanted to get the ammo back, i could go down to the precinct and pick it up. now of course i can't walk into the police station with my gun on me, and i didnt feel like going home to drop it off and then going right back up there for the ammo. so i just said fuck it and charged it to the game.
Click to expand...

Man that'd be fucked up...I don't know how I woulda handled that 1...but them putting my life in danger by taking my ammo away and leaving me w/ a damn paper weight...that woulda ticked me the fuck off...anyway I glad I keep my shit concealed
 

Make a Contribution to Remove NSFW Ads
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top