Thank goodness for YouTube

[mojo84]

I did not watch to the end I skipped the last 5-10%. I fail to see a problem with how the LEO was doing anything wrong. He wanted the guy to identify, just give name and birthdate.Like most of these video's it is childish nit picking one way or another by LEO or citizen.

When are people required to identify themselves to a police officer in your opinion?

[jmra]

I did not watch to the end I skipped the last 5-10%. I fail to see a problem with how the LEO was doing anything wrong. He wanted the guy to identify, just give name and birthdate.Like most of these video's it is childish nit picking one way or another by LEO or citizen.

So you see nothing wrong with a LEO repeatedly threatening someone with arrest who has done absolutely nothing wrong?
You see nothing wrong with the officer repeatedly calling a law abiding citizen a retard and an idiot simply because an unlawful command is ignored?
You don't have a problem with the fact that neither officer on the video had the slightest clue about when a citizen is required to show ID?
What if the guy hadn't had a gun and someone called 911 because they were scared because some tatted up guy walking down the street looked scary. Would you still be ok with the same treatment?

[suthdj]

Code: Select all

Sec. 38.02.  FAILURE TO IDENTIFY.  (a)  A person commits an offense if he intentionally refuses to give his name, residence address, or date of birth to a peace officer who has lawfully arrested the person and requested the information.(b) [b] A person commits an offense if he intentionally gives a false or fictitious name, residence address, or date of birth to a peace officer who has[/b]:(1)  lawfully arrested the person;(2) [b] lawfully detained the person[/b];  or(3)  requested the information from a person that the peace officer has good cause to believe is a witness to a criminal offense.(c)  Except as provided by Subsections (d) and (e), an offense under this section is:(1)  a Class C misdemeanor if the offense is committed under Subsection (a);  or(2)  a Class B misdemeanor if the offense is committed under Subsection (b).(d)  If it is shown on the trial of an offense under this section that the defendant was a fugitive from justice at the time of the offense, the offense is:(1)  a Class B misdemeanor if the offense is committed under Subsection (a);  or(2)  a Class A misdemeanor if the offense is committed under Subsection (b).(e)  If conduct that constitutes an offense under this section also constitutes an offense under Section 106.07, Alcoholic Beverage Code, the actor may be prosecuted only under Section 106.07.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.  Amended by Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 869, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1987.  Acts 1991, 72nd Leg., ch. 821, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1991;  Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994;  Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 1009, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 2003.

Ok sorry, he was not required, it was if he lies about it while he is lawfully detained. However if you want to go out and make a statement about OC of a rifle it is just smarter not to put the police against you. The LEO even said he supported him OC'ing the rifle.

[Texsquatch]

Open carry just to prove a point and bait cops into altercations is senseless and I think it just give anti-gunners more ammo. Be honest, some guy in black clothes comes walking down your street with a rifle over his shoulder... How would you react? I would get my son inside, get my weapon in hand and call the police and watch him as long as he was in my line of sight. My wife would be on her phone giving our neighbors a heads up. I'm not sticking around to ask if he's "supporting" my 2nd Amendment rights or is wacko on bath salts. How would cops know unless they interview him?

[jmra]

Open carry just to prove a point and bait cops into altercations is senseless and I think it just give anti-gunners more ammo. Be honest, some guy in black clothes comes walking down your street with a rifle over his shoulder... How would you react? I would get my son inside, get my weapon in hand and call the police and watch him as long as he was in my line of sight. My wife would be on her phone giving our neighbors a heads up. I'm not sticking around to ask if he's "supporting" my 2nd Amendment rights or is wacko on bath salts. How would cops know unless they interview him?

We have seen a number of examples of good cops having good encounters in these type of cases. There is no excuse for the behavior demonstrated by the officer in this video.

[mojo84]

Code: Select all

Sec. 38.02.  FAILURE TO IDENTIFY.  (a)  A person commits an offense if he intentionally refuses to give his name, residence address, or date of birth to a peace officer who has lawfully arrested the person and requested the information.(b) [b] A person commits an offense if he intentionally gives a false or fictitious name, residence address, or date of birth to a peace officer who has[/b]:(1)  lawfully arrested the person;(2) [b] lawfully detained the person[/b];  or(3)  requested the information from a person that the peace officer has good cause to believe is a witness to a criminal offense.(c)  Except as provided by Subsections (d) and (e), an offense under this section is:(1)  a Class C misdemeanor if the offense is committed under Subsection (a);  or(2)  a Class B misdemeanor if the offense is committed under Subsection (b).(d)  If it is shown on the trial of an offense under this section that the defendant was a fugitive from justice at the time of the offense, the offense is:(1)  a Class B misdemeanor if the offense is committed under Subsection (a);  or(2)  a Class A misdemeanor if the offense is committed under Subsection (b).(e)  If conduct that constitutes an offense under this section also constitutes an offense under Section 106.07, Alcoholic Beverage Code, the actor may be prosecuted only under Section 106.07.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.  Amended by Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 869, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1987.  Acts 1991, 72nd Leg., ch. 821, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1991;  Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994;  Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 1009, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 2003.

Ok sorry, he was not required, it was if he lies about it while he is lawfully detained. However if you want to go out and make a statement about OC of a rifle it is just smarter not to put the police against you. The LEO even said he supported him OC'ing the rifle.

See, this guy open carrying and posting this on youtube led to this discussion and another person being educated on the subject. No telling how many others were enlightened.

[talltex]

Open carry just to prove a point and bait cops into altercations is senseless and I think it just give anti-gunners more ammo. Be honest, some guy in black clothes comes walking down your street with a rifle over his shoulder... How would you react? I would get my son inside, get my weapon in hand and call the police and watch him as long as he was in my line of sight. My wife would be on her phone giving our neighbors a heads up. I'm not sticking around to ask if he's "supporting" my 2nd Amendment rights or is wacko on bath salts. How would cops know unless they interview him?

We have seen a number of examples of good cops having good encounters in these type of cases. There is no excuse for the behavior demonstrated by the officer in this video.

JMRA is exactly right. Regardless of whether it makes you uncomfortable, paranoid or you just don't think it's a good idea, the fact is, it is perfectly legal to do so, and it has always been that way. We all used to carry rifles and shotguns all over town as kids, and no one gave it a second thought. In the 70's it was still common to see gun racks in kids trucks in the school parking lot. None of us ever shot anyone and we never had any school shootings despite the fact that there were guns available right there on the school grounds. I certainly would NOT react the way you describe...grabbing kids into the house and putting the neighbors on alert. Just because there are a lot of people that have moved here from another part of the country that are not familiar with the laws doesn't change it, or give police the right to stop and threaten arrest for doing something that's NOT violating the law. When someone calls in to complain that "there's a guy carrying an assault rifle walking down the street", the correct response would be to explain that doing so is legal and they are not breaking any law simply by carrying it openly...then they might ask the person if they witnessed the guy doing anything such as threatening someone or pointing the gun at a house. I'll agree that some of these guys come off a little squirrely, but if the officer KNOWS the law, he won't push the ID issue and he won't try and coerce them into showing it, or telling them they are being detained, and there won't be a lot of arguing back and forth.

[VMI77]

Open carry just to prove a point and bait cops into altercations is senseless and I think it just give anti-gunners more ammo. Be honest, some guy in black clothes comes walking down your street with a rifle over his shoulder... How would you react? I would get my son inside, get my weapon in hand and call the police and watch him as long as he was in my line of sight. My wife would be on her phone giving our neighbors a heads up. I'm not sticking around to ask if he's "supporting" my 2nd Amendment rights or is wacko on bath salts. How would cops know unless they interview him?

No offense, but because people have been conditioned by decades of leftist anti-gun rhetoric and fear mongering to think anyone openly carrying a gun is on the verge of going on a murderous rampage. When I was a teen I walked all over my neighborhood with a rifle slung over my shoulder or carrying a shotgun, sometimes with friends. Not once did anyone call the police or did an officer driving by stop to question me. We openly checked out each others guns in the high school parking lot. Frightened children didn't run screaming from the buildings, SWAT teams didn't descend upon us, and low and behold, we didn't even get in trouble with the school. Now, people even drive by a couple guys hunting doves in a field and they get the vapors. This is all the product of a degenerate urban liberal culture that has worked tirelessly for decades to condition people that guns are scary objects that should only be in the hands of the anointed. We got to this point because the left has taken over the schools and the media, and they have spread nothing but ignorance and fear. Banning guns requires a culture that is ignorant and afraid of guns, like the UK. That's why the progs make a fuss about people openly carrying weapons. When people carrying guns is accepted as normal and not unusual, the chance of a gun ban is next to zero. Making the sight of weapons in public abnormal and unusual is a required first step in banning guns.

Does that mean I'd never call the police about a man with a gun? No, but I'd use some judgement to assess whether or not the person was acting in a suspicious manner. The mere possession of a gun is not suspicious. In fact, someone bent on using a gun to commit a crime is not likely to walk about with a rifle slung over his shoulder, because it increases the possibility he will be intercepted before he can act.....same as people with big DSLR's openly snapping photos are not likely to be "terrorists." Liberals want anyone with a gun to be labeled suspicious and dangerous. Your reaction will help the left by teaching your kids that lesson: a man with a gun is a potential lunatic, dangerous, and suspicious for merely being armed. The left always has its eye on the next generation: That's how they take our guns.

[LAYGO]

The 911 operators should be trained to ask the caller, what is the person doing with the firearm? Is he threatening any one? is it holstered? has he fired it? If the answer is, he is just carrying it, then, no law has been broken and the LEO should not have been dispatched. The LEO, in this case was obligated at that point to see if an actual crime was being committed.

Until that one time they had a call of a guy carrying a rifle on his back, not pointing it at anyone, but then later shot someone.

I'm all for our constitutional rights, but I would HOPE an LEO would at least talk to the person, w/o violating their rights, determine if they are up to no good, & be on their way. I'm sure if they ran into a guy fuming about some guy sleeping with his wife, they would take appropriate action, but a couple of guys walking expressing their right would be let on their way.

Granted, there's nothing from keeping a bad guy from doing the same. Walking down the street with a long arm & when confronted saying "I'm expressing my 4th, 5th, 6th constitutional rights" . . . then shooting who ever it was after the police leave.

[Zen]

I see no real value in baiting police to prove this point.

The same people would blame these cops if they drove by this guy and waved minutes before he shot up a theater, school, or group of people.

I think if we want respect as legal carrying folks, we can do it respectfully. There.is no harm in identifying oneself. Debating it and prolonging the interaction just delays cops from being elsewhere. And for what?

I would show my Id. I have nothing to hide and bigger fish to fry.

[VMI77]

The 911 operators should be trained to ask the caller, what is the person doing with the firearm? Is he threatening any one? is it holstered? has he fired it? If the answer is, he is just carrying it, then, no law has been broken and the LEO should not have been dispatched. The LEO, in this case was obligated at that point to see if an actual crime was being committed.

Until that one time they had a call of a guy carrying a rifle on his back, not pointing it at anyone, but then later shot someone.

I'm all for our constitutional rights, but I would HOPE an LEO would at least talk to the person, w/o violating their rights, determine if they are up to no good, & be on their way. I'm sure if they ran into a guy fuming about some guy sleeping with his wife, they would take appropriate action, but a couple of guys walking expressing their right would be let on their way.

Granted, there's nothing from keeping a bad guy from doing the same. Walking down the street with a long arm & when confronted saying "I'm expressing my 4th, 5th, 6th constitutional rights" . . . then shooting who ever it was after the police leave.

What you're saying in essence is that merely possessing a gun that is not concealed is a suspicious activity in and of itself, and anyone doing so should be checked out by the police (because we're not supposed to be stopped by the police without reasonable suspicion). You're also, in essence, promoting the libprog notion that anyone with a gun might go crazy at any time. You're falling right into the libprog trap, because by that logic, no one should be allowed to possess a gun at all. Of course, the first step, which is already underway, is to use that logic to ban people the left brands as mentally unstable from possessing guns --you know, people like "climate deniers," who the left have taken to calling crazy. I hope you realize that the left considers ANYONE who doesn't subscribe to the ruling leftist orthodoxy as mentally unstable. You're walking along the edge of a real slippery slope, so watch your step.

[jmra]

I see no real value in baiting police to prove this point.

The same people would blame these cops if they drove by this guy and waved minutes before he shot up a theater, school, or group of people.

I think if we want respect as legal carrying folks, we can do it respectfully. There.is no harm in identifying oneself. Debating it and prolonging the interaction just delays cops from being elsewhere. And for what?

I would show my Id. I have nothing to hide and bigger fish to fry.

I guess you would also let them search your car or your house without a warrant - after all, you have nothing to hide.

[Robert*PPS]

Like I said before, I have mixed emotions about these types of videos, but I disagree that they have no value. It has become inherently clear that the person legally exercising a right is the oddball, which should have never happened. If all gun owners carried long guns around, this problem would solve itself real fast.

Also, if the person exercising his/her right is questioned by police and is not required by law to show ID, then it's their choice. While there is no overtly bad reason for identifying yourself, it certainly doesn't mean that he/or she has to comply. In the same sense, I don't necessarily feel bad for the videographers if they take a ride. The police are not meant to be investigators AND judges. The fact is, you may be in the right legally, but you may also have to go through the legal system in order to be officially so.

[handog]

The 911 operators should be trained to ask the caller, what is the person doing with the firearm? Is he threatening any one? is it holstered? has he fired it? If the answer is, he is just carrying it, then, no law has been broken and the LEO should not have been dispatched. The LEO, in this case was obligated at that point to see if an actual crime was being committed.

Until that one time they had a call of a guy carrying a rifle on his back, not pointing it at anyone, but then later shot someone.

I'm all for our constitutional rights, but I would HOPE an LEO would at least talk to the person, w/o violating their rights, determine if they are up to no good, & be on their way. I'm sure if they ran into a guy fuming about some guy sleeping with his wife, they would take appropriate action, but a couple of guys walking expressing their right would be let on their way.

Granted, there's nothing from keeping a bad guy from doing the same. Walking down the street with a long arm & when confronted saying "I'm expressing my 4th, 5th, 6th constitutional rights" . . . then shooting who ever it was after the police leave.

The Police officers job is not to prevent crime, but investigate crime after the fact -Catch the criminal and bring them to court. In this case there was no crime other than unlawful detention.

[handog]

I see no real value in baiting police to prove this point.

The same people would blame these cops if they drove by this guy and waved minutes before he shot up a theater, school, or group of people.

I think if we want respect as legal carrying folks, we can do it respectfully. There.is no harm in identifying oneself. Debating it and prolonging the interaction just delays cops from being elsewhere. And for what?

I would show my Id. I have nothing to hide and bigger fish to fry.

The problem with giving up your legal rights in exchange for respect is, in the end you will have neither.