Look at it this way...if the police were dispatched for a man with a gun, and said man with gun did not stop or even acknowledge the police when they approached, and then walked into a house and killed a family...you bet your *** those policeman would get sued and lose in civil court. Am i right? Or am i terribly wrong? And isnt it illegal to secretly videotape a person without there consent?
What I find disturbing is that an officer that is supposed to be trained in the safe handling of a weapon, points the weapon at a person. The reason I find this to be of concern is I had a leo do something similar to me and I did let him know in no uncertain terms he was handeling a weapon unsafely in a public place. He was unloading a magazine of a suspect onto the concrete in a public parking lot and I was standing right beside him. sent from my samsung note 2
Sure questioning him would have been legal. But thats not all the officer did. The officer took his firearm from him and kept trying to get the kids ID. Thats not legal. If he would have just asked his name, asked what he was doing there, all that kinda stuff while talking next to him it wouldnt have been an issue. But he did in a way detain him, by taking his property. Your not going to just leave after a cop takes your gun, so youre forced to stand there and talk until you get it back. Even if for what ever reason you do not like the kid, the cop was still breaking the law and the kid was right.
Your rights as an EMS or police don't trump my rights. A person always has the right to remain silent, not saying it's always in their best interest but they do. If you are not committing a crime and are legally exercising your rights why is it OK to be stopped and questioned? The police were responding to a man open carrying a gun which is legal. Why are they investigating legal activities? I'll tell you why, because some hyper sensitive citizen saw a gun and watches too much TV. Even if you think the cops should have questioned him he could have simply invoked his 5th amendment right to remain silent....then what? So what the kid is a prick...he knows more about the law than the LAW enforcement officer. These videos are all over the internet, so are people protesting DUI checkpoints, and illegal searches of cars in border areas. They are fun to watch and it actually surprises me how many people willingly give up their rights because they are dealing with a LEO. There are many that contain prickish individuals as well as prickish cops but there also a lot that show citizens who are respectful and cops that understand what is happening, they themselves know the law, and the situation plays out much differently. Many of these citizen “pricks" make these cards up to keep in their wallet because in their area they are stopped so often for DUI checkpoints or other safety searches. 1. I invoke and refuse to waive my Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. 2. I invoke and refuse to waive my Sixth Amendment right to an attorney of my choice. 3. I invoke and refuse to waive all privileges and right pursuant to the case Miranda v. Arizona. 4. I invoke and refuse to waive my Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. I DO NOT CONSENT TO ANY SEARCH OR SEIZURE OF MYSELF, MY HOME, OR OF ANY PROPERTY IN MY POSSESSION. Do not ask me about my ownership interest in any property. I DO NOT CONSENT TO THIS CONTACT WITH YOU. If I am not presently under arrest or under investigatory detention, please ALLOW ME TO LEAVE. 5. Any statement I make or alleged consent I give in response to your questions is hereby UNDER PROTEST AND UNDER DURESS and in submission to your claim of lawful authority to force me to provide you with the information.
Because I know Justin will love this: [video=youtube_share;u4Ku17CqdZg]http://youtu.be/u4Ku17CqdZg[/video]
I can agree with you the cop was wrong to take his gun, just like i wlild be wrong to touch you without permission. I can still ask questions though. Thats all i was saying. Sent from my SCH-I510 using Tapatalk 2
So what your saying is if you are walking down the street eating skittles minding your own business you should not be followed/bothered/questioned? You have the right in this country to not be bothered, if you are not breaking the law. Interesting perspective new
I'm saying you have the right to not interact with a LEO (or anyone for that matter) if you are not breaking the law, turn it into whatever you want ;] However you could fight the person or officer if you so choose. People that live in the highest crime areas in the US probably act differently than folks in other areas, not saying that's right or wrong but it's something.
So where you live may have bearing on how some view their rights. A woman is a nut if she calls a cop to question a guy about carry a gun in plain view. A highly trained neighbor watch person in high crime area gets to decide who is suspicious and who is not. I get it now.
This couldn't have been summed up any better. For those who think the LEO handled the situation with anything less than respect, professionalism and an enormous amount of patience, please go back and watch the video again. For those who think this kid knows more about case-law than the the officer, trust me -the officer had those cases committed to memory while that kid was still playing with his ninja turtles. These videos surface constantly. LEOs are assigned to watch them constantly. Don't kid yourselves, folks. This is not some new phenomena, nor is it a ground-breaking effort on behalf of your civil rights. It's a kid looking to publically humiliate and defame a police officer, in his own selfish attempt at achieving 15 minutes of viral fame. Period. Nice to see we have so many cop bashers and arm-chair attorneys here. Real nice... For the record, the video has no footage whatsoever of the LEO "taking" (as some of you have stated) his gun. Also, in my state, I am well within my legal rights (as a LEO) in approaching ANYONE and starting a conversation, investigative or otherwise. This doesn't mean you're obligated to reply. I can also ask ANYONE for their ID. This doesn't mean you're obligated to provide it (unless you're driving). But you're not obligated to be an idiot on a mission, either. Funny, how this is being billed as a gun-rights video, when the overwhelming majority of Law Enforcement in this country is on the front-lines in the fight to keep ALL OF OUR second amendment rights. Yet, this kid (and so many others) have chosen LE as their prefered target for public embarrassment & humiliation. A simple "thank you" would have sufficed.
I said people in high crime areas probably act different. The criminals probably don't worry as much because there is more crime than cops and the other citizens are probably scared. No nutty women or neighborhood watch were mentioned. But you can turn it into anything you want Germ in your pursuit of "Justice for Trayvon"...you should start an org.....maybe sell sweatshirts or something. Yawn Yes any yuppie a$$-hat that calls the police because they see someone carrying a pistol in a holster is a tool and should be billed for wasting the dispatchers and officers time.
Do you think any of these videos and the fact that so many people now video police interaction stems from anything other "ninja turtle" kids with grudges against cops? D-bag or not has no bearing on his rights. From what we saw he wasn't suspected of any crime or a known felon. He repeatedly asked for his weapon back and at one point commented on the officer not handling it safely so it's safe to assume the officer did in fact take it. I'm no cop basher but I'm not blind either if the officer was so well versed in the law and these videos he would have said have a nice day when he realized he was being baited. Because someone doesn't want interaction with a police officer doesn't make them an idiot in fact it often makes them smart. I open carry sometimes and have been question by an LEO once and he was a nice enough guy and I obliged, even talked about the gun for a bit no biggie. I will say though it kind of puts off the vibe you are being looked at for doing something wrong when in fact you are completely legal. Probably one of the reasons most prefer concealed carry.
At least I am consistent, yawn Some here state police had no right to bother them, yet as I recall, some here felt it was their right to question those they deemed suspicious in their neighborhoods.. So which is it? Do some only follow the constitution when it benefits them? Justice, lol. Just pointing out two distinctive views, which are yours.
Not sure why you're yawning since you're the one constantly bringing up a tired old thread that most don't give a warm pile about anymore(sorry, it's true). Nothing inconsistent in my statements. If you are not breaking a law then imo you have the right to not interact with someone approaching you but you could also choose to fight that person if you see fit. Should the person not be approaching someone just walking along? Maybe, maybe not. It's not aginst the law to approach someone as far as I know. I'm saying that how someone responds to that is up to them. Don't know what's so hard about that for you, I mean other than comprehending it. Keep checking the news every day for that verdict....I'm sure you can't wait to start a thread about it.
It would be nice to be able to see what happened leading up to the point the camera was turned on. I refrain from judgement because that could be a telling piece of evidence. Maybe the cop was a real jerk and "confiscated"the weapon for ni other reasons. Maybe the kid was being a jerk and acting stupid, fact is that we don't know. In the case where I saw a guy carrying in a restaurant, he was acting normal and going through normal activities and was treated appropriately. Obviously the store owners didn't care and he wasn't hassled. sent from my samsung note 2
My views aren't different even though the topics aren't exactly the same. If I truly felt someone looked suspicious near my home I may speak to them. They don't have to respond to me. Happy Happy Happy
