Unlawful detain for Not giving ID and firing on private property

[OETKB]

So no laws appeared to be violated in the video. The police were called so they were lawfully there to investigate a discharge of firearms call(presumably). Now here is where I see some gray area:
If the police just happened to roll around and initiate contact with this person and it's established no laws have been violated, then the male doesn't necessarily need to provide his information.

But, the police were called and he was found with a weapon. The police just wanted to check the guy out and make sure he wasn't wanted for anything. They were being thorough to verify the male was on the up and up. Imagine if they just walked away without checking and the guy was a wanted robbery suspect and he goes to the nearest house and kills a family. Then the police would be dinged for not being thorough. Damned if you do and damned if you don't.

My personal opinion is the male's actions caused the police to be called. The police arrive and investigate gunshots and find the male and gun. Run the guy and make sure he's not some lunatic or criminal. If he refuses then in Texas that is fail to ID. He would be more likely to beat that charge if the police happened upon him on his own, but if you are legally detained then by law, in Texas anyway, you must provide your identification when asked by an officer.

Thanks for your take on it TK.

 

[TK1299]

Thanks for your take on it TK.

I will add that how do you know that guy didn't drag bound and gagged bodies into the woods and shoot them. Or if he killed someone else prior and it hasn't been reported yet. It sure would be useful to have his info in case someone nearby turns up dead.
Most of the time you can't take things at face value. That's not how crimes are solved.

 

[MG0h3]

Jimminy Christmas. This blew up.

Let’s all just use a little common sense.

911 gets a call that dudes are walking down the street with an assault rifle.

Does anybody here think LE won’t respond? Exactly. Because if you called and they didn’t show up, you’d have a ****ing heart attack.

Those cops were cool as hell and I’m telling you, that’s how it goes down 99% of the time.

This wouldn’t even be a blip on the radar if dude had given his name and dob.

I’ll just finish off that you non LE guys will never understand. You think a call goes out like this and we can just brush it off? We show up and dude says FU and we just say ok and leave. What if he is a felon or has a history (like the last major school shooter) then y’all ****ing blame us that we didn’t catch him in time.

Wake the **** up


Sent from my iPhone using svtperformance.com

 

[gimmie11s]

Lots of assumptions none of which the video shows.


Sent from my iPhone using svtperformance.com

 

[MG0h3]

The biggest thing we don’t know is where this happened. Only reason we think private property is because the guy filming titled it as such. Probably full of shit. If he was on his own property, he would’ve said so. There wasn’t one mention of that.


Sent from my iPhone using svtperformance.com

 

[M240Bravo]

Jimminy Christmas. This blew up.

Let’s all just use a little common sense.

911 gets a call that dudes are walking down the street with an assault rifle.

Does anybody here think LE won’t respond? Exactly. Because if you called and they didn’t show up, you’d have a ****ing heart attack.

Those cops were cool as hell and I’m telling you, that’s how it goes down 99% of the time.

This wouldn’t even be a blip on the radar if dude had given his name and dob.

I’ll just finish off that you non LE guys will never understand. You think a call goes out like this and we can just brush it off? We show up and dude says FU and we just say ok and leave. What if he is a felon or has a history (like the last major school shooter) then y’all ****ing blame us that we didn’t catch him in time.

Wake the **** up


Sent from my iPhone using svtperformance.com

Anytime I see someone use that word talking about guns any point they have is voided on being a tard.

 

[OETKB]

Jimminy Christmas. This blew up.

Let’s all just use a little common sense.

911 gets a call that dudes are walking down the street with an assault rifle.

Does anybody here think LE won’t respond? Exactly. Because if you called and they didn’t show up, you’d have a ****ing heart attack.

Those cops were cool as hell and I’m telling you, that’s how it goes down 99% of the time.

This wouldn’t even be a blip on the radar if dude had given his name and dob.

I’ll just finish off that you non LE guys will never understand. You think a call goes out like this and we can just brush it off? We show up and dude says FU and we just say ok and leave. What if he is a felon or has a history (like the last major school shooter) then y’all ****ing blame us that we didn’t catch him in time.

Wake the **** up

I borrowed this from an NC lawyer's website. I don't think he'll mind.

"North Carolina has no “stop and identify” statute. This means that, as a general rule, a person who is stopped by police in North Carolina is NOT required to provide his or her name or produce identification. However, pursuant to NCGS § 20-29, a driver of a motor vehicle IS required to produce a license upon the request of an officer. Therefore, unless you are stopped while operating a motor vehicle, you have no legal obligation to give a police officer your name or any identification when asked."

So, if the man in the video had committed no crime, did the police have any legal basis to put him in cuffs?

As a practical matter, I understand completely what you and @TK1299 are saying, and this case is somewhat in the extreme since a black rifle is involved, which carries it's own political baggage regarding public perception. That said, based on the facts as presented in the video, in my state I don't believe there would be any legal basis to cuff the guy.

 

[OETKB]

...just so my friends on this board who are LEO don't think I'm arguing for anarchy, I'll say this...

Had I been the gun owner in the video, and had done no more wrong than what we saw in the video, I would probably have given my name to the LEOs simply to expedite the resolution of the situation so everyone could get on along with their day, but I like to point these things out because I am usually fairly surprised to find out that my own state's DOJ and their written interpretation of firearms statutes are sometimes oversteps that the average citizen might have to challenge in court at their own expense.

 

[Outlaw99]

Fitting.

Sent from my Schlong using the svtperformance.com mobile app

 

[TK1299]

Any time I see someone use that word talking about guns any point that have is voided on being a tard.

Jimminy christmas?

 

[OETKB]

Jimminy christmas?

 

[rcknrol]

.

 

[RDJ]

.

 

[Revvv]

While alarming to some, open carry of a handgun and certainly a long gun, is entirely legal in my state of NC.

How is this cause for an investigation, comrade?

I can open carry any long gun in GA, but must have a permit to open or conceal carry a handgun. It is a stupid law left over from the Jim Crow days.

Sent from my SM-G930V using the svtperformance.com mobile app

 

[MG0h3]

I borrowed this from an NC lawyer's website. I don't think he'll mind.

"North Carolina has no “stop and identify” statute. This means that, as a general rule, a person who is stopped by police in North Carolina is NOT required to provide his or her name or produce identification. However, pursuant to NCGS § 20-29, a driver of a motor vehicle IS required to produce a license upon the request of an officer. Therefore, unless you are stopped while operating a motor vehicle, you have no legal obligation to give a police officer your name or any identification when asked."

So, if the man in the video had committed no crime, did the police have any legal basis to put him in cuffs?

As a practical matter, I understand completely what you and @TK1299 are saying, and this case is somewhat in the extreme since a black rifle is involved, which carries it's own political baggage regarding public perception. That said, based on the facts as presented in the video, in my state I don't believe there would be any legal basis to cuff the guy.

I see your point about not providing a name or ID, but it just ramps up our suspicion when people do that. Especially in a situation like the one we are talking about.

I'd be interested to see any case law on the caption from the law site you posted. Honestly, I suspect that applies to you're standing at a crosswalk, cop walks up, and for no reason asks for your name/ID. I suspect if this case went to court, the officer's behavior would be supported.

Handcuffs: Here's the problem. Every person I encounter has access to a gun....mine. Due to the subject's behavior, the officer had no choice but to physically search for his ID. Again, what else could he do? Just walk away and say "oh well"? I'm saying this under the assumption that they were not on his property.

 

[MarcSpaz]

US Supreme Court has repeatedly declared that mere public possession of a firearm, even if someone calls the police and complains, is not grounds to justify (reasonable suspension) to stop someone. If they do, that act violates the Second and Fourth Amendments. However, while completely legal to fire a weapon in many lications, discharging a weapon ANYWHERE is not immune to investigation. In that case, investigation and questioning a suspect would then be justified by the Fourth Amendment.

 

[RDJ]

I see your point about not providing a name or ID, but it just ramps up our suspicion when people do that. Especially in a situation like the one we are talking about.

this is 100% correct.

I'd be interested to see any case law on the caption from the law site you posted. Honestly, I suspect that applies to you're standing at a crosswalk, cop walks up, and for no reason asks for your name/ID. I suspect if this case went to court, the officer's behavior would be supported.

again this would be correct. and I doubt that he will be able to provide any case law saying otherwise. From the quote it appears to be an anti "stop and frisk" policy that was becoming popular with conservatives and liberals hated it.

Handcuffs: Here's the problem. Every person I encounter has access to a gun....mine. Due to the subject's behavior, the officer had no choice but to physically search for his ID. Again, what else could he do? Just walk away and say "oh well"? I'm saying this under the assumption that they were not on his property.

if he would have said "oh well" there would have been a shit storm of criticism over why he didn't check the guy out before letting him go. and I seriously doubt that OETKB would have stepped up and defended the cop who let him go.

Note to OETKB: The above is MY OPINION, and only my opinion

 

[RDJ]

US Supreme Court has repeatedly declared that mere public possession of a firearm, even if someone calls the police and complains, is not grounds to justify (reasonable suspension) to stop someone. If they do, that act violates the Second and Fourth Amendments. However, while completely legal to fire a weapon in many lications, discharging a weapon ANYWHERE is not immune to investigation. In that case, investigation and questioning a suspect would then be justified by the Fourth Amendment.

really? give us a reference to where they said a person could not be stopped and investigated because of a phoned in complaint to the police. Not saying there isn't one but you are making the claim so I, at least, would like to see the case or cases where they have said this

 

[gimmie11s]

Carrying a Gun Does Not Justify Detention, Indiana Supreme Court Says

Court Rules That it is Illegal for Police to Stop and Investigate People Just for Carrying Guns | 93.1 WIBC

Gun Guy: Police May Not Detain Armed Hoosiers to Check for Handgun License | 93.1 WIBC


I know stuff like this is hard for RDJ to comprehend .... his love for Bernie is blind.

However, the Constitution always sides with the citizen.

The frame of mind of our Founders during the Revolution was to protect us against the government... any government.

Man’s rights are God-given. They are NOT given to us by any government, state, or person. Period.





Sent from my iPhone using svtperformance.com

 

[MarcSpaz]

really? give us a reference to where they said a person could not be stopped and investigated because of a phoned in complaint to the police. Not saying there isn't one but you are making the claim so I, at least, would like to see the case or cases where they have said this

Pinner v Indiana and Terry v Ohio are two that come to mind. There are many others. Google is your friend.