Unlawful??? Detainment Video

[03Cobra05GT]

Much respect for the LEOs in this vid. I would have probably lost my temper dealing with that guy. Whether he's trying to get a point across or not, if someone indeed called the cops on him, (I'm no law expert) but it would make sense to me that the officers who respond to that call, need to gather the correct information.

I agree with the posts above, another dumbass with a camera.

 

[Rossim22]

Much respect for the LEOs in this vid. I would have probably lost my temper dealing with that guy. Whether he's trying to get a point across or not, if someone indeed called the cops on him, (I'm no law expert) but it would make sense to me that the officers who respond to that call, need to gather the correct information.

I agree with the posts above, another dumbass with a camera.

I agree that the guy in the video was taking way too much pride in "following the rules" and demonstrating in a dumb way... and I also think most LEO's would not have even given the guy a chance to breath let alone give his side of the argument.

That being said, hearsay (complaint phone-called in) is not probable cause because the party against whom the statement is offered does not have the opportunity to cross-examine the person who made the statement.


It does not take a lawyer to understand the law which is what the OP intended in showing this video. Though the guy in the vid is a tool

 

[olefafl]

you really should quit commenting on matters of law dude.

He was very close to the IN ID law. You must give ID for minor laws. Here the LEO would get a LTCH, but no ID. Once he is given the LTCH all talk about the gun stops. (unless something else is going on)

On the recording the LEO, check local laws, here we can without telling them.

 

[RDJ]

Yeah I'll leave it to the police to tell us what it is that they can legally do or not... :lol:

"Regardless of your state's law, keep in mind that police can never compel you to identify yourself without reasonable suspicion to believe you're involved in criminal activity."

When do I have to show police my ID? | How to Flex Your Rights During Police Encounters


EDIT: But like I said before RDJ ridiculed me with nonsense, this guy was just antagonizing the situation. The rifle is very over-the-top, pistol would have been alright imo. But the law is the law and you can't detain someone for abiding by them.

As I said you really should quit giving legal advice because you are usually wrong. and that website is laughable in is claims since they are not entirely accurate.

Stop and identify statutes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia is a better source but I am not sure even how accurate it is. I will say it is more accurate that that crap you posted.

That being said, hearsay (complaint phone-called in) is not probable cause because the party against whom the statement is offered does not have the opportunity to cross-examine the person who made the statement.

he does not have the right to "cross-examine" the person who make the statement until he goes to court. a complaint phone in is NOT hearsay, it is a phoned in complaint. Once again you should quit trying to expound on the law. You suck at it.

He was very close to the IN ID law. You must give ID for minor laws. Here the LEO would get a LTCH, but no ID. Once he is given the LTCH all talk about the gun stops. (unless something else is going on)

anyone who intends to test this needs to be very very sure they are on solid legal ground and fully understand their states laws. he is not a valid source of information.

 

[olefafl]

Would you like me to post the IC and ISC case on it?

 

[EvergreenSVT]

Its going to be very dependent on state law. In WA carrying a firearm openly in such a manner that a reasonable person would know is disturbing to observers is a minor crime. Yet an officer seizes you when he takes your ID or other documents. Oregon may be entirely different.

 

[PSUCOBRA96]

The cop held excellent composure, I must admit they did a very good job dealing with him. I can't say the guy was "wrong" on the law as much as the way he proceeded to be an ass with the cops.

If you have a rifle assume they are going to ask for identification and or a carry permit depending on what state you are in. There were simply doing a stop to check the guy out, he wasn't frisked just temporarily relieved of his weapons which is for officer safety.

Oh and Terry v. Ohio applies everywhere the man was wrong on that count, it is meant to be a safety thing.

 

[RDJ]

Would you like me to post the IC and ISC case on it?

if it makes you feel better. I did not say he did not "get close" (your words) to what your state has. I merely said that if someone is going to test it they should be very sure what THEIR states laws are becasue he is not correct in his generalization. and it is not the first time he has posted stuff up that was inaccurate, incomplete, and/or outright wrong. As a matter of fact I am hard pressed to think of a post of his pertaining to the law where he was spot on. a good example of it is his comment above regarding heresay.

 

[ponyboyisaac]

Was that jim carrey as the cable guy talking in the vid? lol

 

[rubber duck]

Not to armchair quarterback, but he woulda been proned out n cuffed before I even started dealing with him. Just because you can doesn't always mean it's a good idea. There's a responsibility to the safety of the general public that comes into play in a situation like this. Dumb****s like this guy are what fuels the fire for stricter gun laws.

 

[Hangman]

why couldn't this douche just conceal carry like the rest of us?? he is a tool, i would honestly be uncomfortable with a guy carrying a scoped rifle around. I certainly wouldn't take my eyes off of him, as for calling the cops on him, I would have to be there to make that assumption.

And for the cops, i got allot of respect for how they handled this guy, they were very reasonable, especially when dealing with a heavily armed citizen in public.

Handgun on the hip exposed, wouldn't bother me so much, but again, i would have an eye on him.

edit: just to add, concealing is better for everyone, you don't make anyone uncomfortable, and the best part, no one knows you have it, minus being able to draw as rapidly than carrying on your hip, concealing is the best option to not get hassled and silently be prepared to protect yourself at all times, but i don't think anyone needs to be reminded of this, except for the tool who was filming.

 

[Rossim22]

he does not have the right to "cross-examine" the person who make the statement until he goes to court. a complaint phone in is NOT hearsay, it is a phoned in complaint. Once again you should quit trying to expound on the law. You suck at it.

if it makes you feel better. I did not say he did not "get close" (your words) to what your state has. I merely said that if someone is going to test it they should be very sure what THEIR states laws are becasue he is not correct in his generalization. and it is not the first time he has posted stuff up that was inaccurate, incomplete, and/or outright wrong. As a matter of fact I am hard pressed to think of a post of his pertaining to the law where he was spot on. a good example of it is his comment above regarding heresay.

:dw::??::burn:

ARE YOU SERIOUS? ARE YOU A LEO????

Hearsay (since you like wikipedia): "Hearsay is information gathered by one person (COP) from another person (PHONED-IN COMPLAINT) concerning some event, condition, or thing of which the first person (COP) had no direct experience. "

If I call the police and say I just saw a man speeding at least 30mph over, a LEO cannot cite the individual for speeding unless he did it again in front of them, my information to them was HEARSAY.

You better break out the manual and freshen up robocop.

 

[VenomousDSG]

Stuttering dumbass with a lisp whos trying to bait officers...

 

[Njc0las]

"Regardless of your state's law, keep in mind that police can never compel you to identify yourself without reasonable suspicion to believe you're involved in criminal activity."

When do I have to show police my ID? | How to Flex Your Rights During Police Encounters

Tell that to the next cop who pulls you over and wants to see your driver's license re.. I mean rossim.

Stuttering dumbass with a lisp whos trying to bait officers...

and imitate the border patrol videos that came out a while back.

 

[BOD89LX]

Well he may of been within his rights but going about the wrong way. LEO's did the best job they could given the actors baiting. Guys like this make the 99% of us that carry look bad as most of us have better things to do with our free time then bait the police.

 

[PSUCOBRA96]

Tell that to the next cop who pulls you over and wants to see your driver's license retar.. I mean rossim.

That is actually a separate situation all together, you are required to have and carry a license when you are operating a vehicle on the road. You are not required to carry identification walking down the street. You may be required to identify yourself depending on your state's law on "stop and identify"

 

[Rossim22]

That is actually a separate situation all together, you are required to have and carry a license when you are operating a vehicle on the road. You are not required to carry identification walking down the street. You may be required to identify yourself depending on your state's law on "stop and identify"

Correct and correct, I guess in many states it's considered loitering and prowling

 

[Cochese]

That guy is a massive tool.

 

[svtcop]

That being said, hearsay (complaint phone-called in) is not probable cause because the party against whom the statement is offered does not have the opportunity to cross-examine the person who made the statement.


It does not take a lawyer to understand the law which is what the OP intended in showing this video. Though the guy in the vid is a tool

You can't be serious. :nonono:

:dw::??::burn:

ARE YOU SERIOUS? ARE YOU A LEO????

Hearsay (since you like wikipedia): "Hearsay is information gathered by one person (COP) from another person (PHONED-IN COMPLAINT) concerning some event, condition, or thing of which the first person (COP) had no direct experience. "

If I call the police and say I just saw a man speeding at least 30mph over, a LEO cannot cite the individual for speeding unless he did it again in front of them, my information to them was HEARSAY.

You better break out the manual and freshen up robocop.

So the police can't do anything when the public calls in a complaint? :dw:

No sense in responding then, huh?

I am totally telling my dispatchers that when I return to work!! :beer:


:bored:

 

[RDJ]

:dw::??::burn:

ARE YOU SERIOUS? ARE YOU A LEO????

Hearsay (since you like wikipedia): "Hearsay is information gathered by one person (COP) from another person (PHONED-IN COMPLAINT) concerning some event, condition, or thing of which the first person (COP) had no direct experience. "

If I call the police and say I just saw a man speeding at least 30mph over, a LEO cannot cite the individual for speeding unless he did it again in front of them, my information to them was HEARSAY.

You better break out the manual and freshen up robocop.

once again you are full of shit. If I agree to show up in court they can certainly give the idiot a ticket. BUT we weren't talking about traffic now were we? once again you are wrong both in your advice and interpretation of the law. You are not an LEO and neither am I but I will stack my knowledge against your failed google skills any day of the week.