Constitutional rights or douchebaggery?

[Locruid]

In my state you are only required to show a Driver's License if the "crime" was driving related AND you were driving. Other than that I am NOT required to show ANY ID. HOWEVER, I also cannot give a false name.

Secondly there's more to this story. He was in a PRIVATE Business and was asked to leave the property. He did but later returned. The 2nd time he was asked to leave, the business just called the cops. After the "confrontation" with the cops he was told to NOT set foot on the property. INSTEAD OF TELLING THE COPS HIS CAR WAS PARKED THERE, he just left and attempted to re-enter the property to get his car.

Now I'm a Gun Supporter and in a lot of cases I think Cops are more of a Police State and Revenue collecting than anything else, but I have to side with the cops on this. He decided to be an ass and NOT inform them that his car was on the property. Had he informed the cops at the time, I'm pretty sure they would have escorted him to his car and leave. But instead he CHOSE to be a dick and make a HUGE issue out of it. If I'm open carrying and a store asks me to leave, I do. I leave the entire store for the rest of my life lol. I haven't had any issues with open carrying in my state and have been challenged a couple times by the cops. Guess what, I give them my ID and be polite. They then let me go and my day continues on. I'm not an ass....I'm not going to "stick up for my rights" until I need to . I've had maybe one cop who wanted to make a fight out of it but another Officer knew of me and "saved the day" before I needed to call my lawyer. But for the most part, be polite, don't be a dick and act you wrote the Constitution. It just makes it that much EASIER for the Gun Control nuts to get their way.

[Invictus9001]

I watched the whole thing.
Let me sum it up:

Glad you summarized, as I'm just here for the TL : DR version of things. :P

On topic: If your summary is accurate..
"You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can, and will, be held against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed to you." (Loose paraphrase of the Miranda Rights, but it suffices..)


[1] Was the area in question one that allowed for open-carry (or concealed carry) with permit?
[2] Was there probable cause to believe the individual was about to harm, or intended to harm, anyone else and/or himself?
[3] Was there any reason, aside from the individual bearing a weapon, involved in the original inquiry by police as to the individual's status/intents?

There are a lot of questions that could be asked; and although I am no legal expert by any means, the few questions I posed would most likely be the beginning of ANY investigation into the matter.

The only "black and white" things in the world are crayons. Everything else has some shade of grey to it.
#DrunkenWisdom

[Adam Jensen]

well, why didn't he just do as the cops said? maybe it would have gone better for em!?

in all seriousness if you aren't willing to show you can legally carry a firearm on any description then you deserve to be detained. I can't see how that would be acceptable if he were driving and refused to identify weather it's his car or if he can drive or not. but oh no since it involves a gun the cops are being the unreasonable ones.

Yeah, never understood why people start confrontations with the cops like that.

Identify your self, show him your paperwork for your right to carry, and he'll either leave, or you'll see him in court where you'd have a valid case against him. But being uncooperative, in most cases, only makes it worse.

Did the cop have the right to approach the man? Debatable, but that's what he did. Best course of action would have been to comply, seeing as how he was in the right.

[Deleted]

An unidentified man who refuses to answer questions is walking around with a loaded weapon.

I think an argument could be made to arrest him on those grounds alone.

I think there have been people shot by the police for less.

[v2prwsmb45yhuq3wj23vpjk]

I mean, I'm all for rights and not having to deal with police bullshit, but this guy was being sketchy as fuck. It's not as if it's a regular thing for people to be walking around with a rifle, and to then not even interact with people in a normal manner or exercise any measure of common sense, such as indicating that his car was on the property in question, is completely just weird.

That being said, they apparently also seized his phone as evidence, which is not kosher. They also jailed him for a few hours until his wife bailed him out, denying him access to his medicine, water, an attorney, etc.

So basically the police were appropriate at first but then went on to dickery, but that's also largely mitigated by his refusal to communicate at all. If you're doing sketchy shit, you'd better be prepared to explain yourself at least a little bit.

[Mormolyce]

That is some grade A douchebaggery there.

"Gee why do police officers respond when I wander around a public area holding a rifle?"

Clearly the concept of open carry encourages self-righteous assholes who are out of touch with reality and trying to prove a point for the benefit of tinfoil hatters on the internet. The whole idea of open carry or even concealed carry is utterly insane.

I think the highlight was "I didn't realise I was in Nazi Germany".



- - - Updated - - -

I mean really if this guy had gone on to shoot someone everyone would think the cops dropped the ball.

Yup. I mean, if the guy was 100% correct that the police have no power to detain a man walking around with a gun refusing to identify himself, state his purpose or cooperate with police - what does that say about the law?

[Deleted]

Yup. I mean, if the guy was 100% correct that the police have no power to detain a man walking around with a gun refusing to identify himself, state his purpose or cooperate with police - what does that say about the law?

Some call it freedom... I prefer the term anarchy.

[Sunaka]

I'm against the idea of open carry as a protest, which it looks like this was an obvious example of considering his refusals. I dislike guns in general, mind you, but I recognize the rights involved. However, if you're gonna do shit like carry around a gun, especially a loaded one, you'd better be damn well willing to at least give your name. Arresting someone carrying around a loaded weapon who refuses to identify themselves is a matter of safety, period.

If you're randomly approached by a cop and being detained for bullshit reasons, you don't have to give your name. If you're approached by a bunch of cops while carrying a loaded rifle, you should probably give your name (not ID) so they can verify: 1) the gun is yours, and 2) you're not a criminal. I've seen a bunch of these videos, and this is definitely the first one I've seen where the guy flat-out refused to give his name and cooperate with the police while carrying their gun.

Anonymity was one thing. Reloading the rifle was another. Officially trespassing (if such was the case) is yet another. His statements provoking the cops made it all the worse for him. He deserved to get arrested for pulling a stunt like that. If he continued to refuse to identify himself when they arrested him, then anything he might complain about that they did is basically going to be thrown out.

I was under the impression that there'd been a ruling or two that refusing to give up your name waives your non-essential (i.e.: not the basic human) rights. Does anyone know about anything along those lines?

[bmjclark]

I find it terrifying that he's allowed to walk around with an assault rifle and refuse to identify himself. Wish the cops could of arrested him right there. Glad i don't live in a country that let's people walk around with assault rifles. Baiting cops into confronting you (which is exactly what he's doing) is a good way to get shot, and frankly he'd deserve it.

Not to mention that without a name or anything they can't tell if he's even allowed to have this rifle (if you have a criminal record you can't right?). Really, really, really fucking stupid laws.

[Erolian]

Funny. Example #100000000000 of why it's actually a really stupid idea to try and fuck with the police because muh rights. Sure sometimes the cops don't always do the right thing but it is their profession if people happened to forget that and if you're not careful/unlucky they'll hit you with a million different minor charges that you didn't even know existed if you're being a retard like this guy.

[Shrouded]

What a terrible person :/

[Hottage]

On topic: If your summary is accurate..
"You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can, and will, be held against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed to you." (Loose paraphrase of the Miranda Rights, but it suffices..)

Miranda Rights only cover right to not self-incriminate, and only apply when you are being arrested.
They do not give you the right to refuse to identify yourself to an authorised representative of the government (or provide proof that your are authorised to carry an object/perform an action subject to legal regulation), failure to identify yourself/provide documentation in such a case is obstruction of justice.

Comparable example: Miranda Rights don't allow to you refuse to provide the police your drivers license when stopped while in control of a motor vehicle.

[Dolus]

It depends upon the state. There are "stop and identify" statutes in select states (~24). I believe in Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, it wasn't considered "unreasonable" ask for an individual's name *if* there is reasonable suspicion of criminal involvement (and it has to be able to be articulated). Outside of those 24 states, you don't have to offer up any ID unless there is a "reasonable suspicion of criminal involvement." I believe only about 7 states prohibit Open Carry. All the individual had to respond with was the following:

Cop: Why are you carrying a rifle around?

Guy: Open Carry. I'm on the way to my car. It's over in the parking lot.

Cop: Do you legally own the rifle?

Guy: Yes.

Cop: Is that gun registered to you?

Guy: Officer, the state of X does not have a "stop and identify" statute on the books. I am a law abiding citizen. Would you please escort me to my vehicle?

It felt as if the guy wanted to start a fight. He had zero tact.

[Frolk]

Id post my thoughts on the subject, but id be infracted for nation bashing

[Dolus]

I find it terrifying that he's allowed to walk around with an assault rifle and refuse to identify himself. Wish the cops could of arrested him right there. Glad i don't live in a country that let's people walk around with assault rifles. Baiting cops into confronting you (which is exactly what he's doing) is a good way to get shot, and frankly he'd deserve it.

Not to mention that without a name or anything they can't tell if he's even allowed to have this rifle (if you have a criminal record you can't right?). Really, really, really fucking stupid laws.

This has been discussed Ad Nauseam. There is absolutely no mechanical differentiation between a hunting rifle and an "assault rifle." As someone stated earlier, this thread is definitely going places.

[Hottage]

This has been discussed Ad Nauseam. There is absolutely no mechanical differentiation between a hunting rifle and an "assault rifle." As someone stated earlier, this thread is definitely going places.

In most countries, hunting rifles are bolt-action and generally don't have 30 round magazines.
Only in the US are semi-automatic assault weapons deemed appropriate for hunting wildlife.

[Feral Camel]

Seems to me his just trying to get attention for his youtube channel / pod cast. His also asking for people to donate to his cause, which I think is wrong.

If your going to open carry, I don't think its a unfair request to cooperate with the police and give identification. Does that infringe on the 4th amendment though?

[Deleted]

This has been discussed Ad Nauseam. There is absolutely no mechanical differentiation between a hunting rifle and an "assault rifle." As someone stated earlier, this thread is definitely going places.

Nobody cares about a video that has been linked 1000 times before. Don't care wether its an assualt rifle, a rifle or a boomerang, its a gun (unless its a boomerang) and if you're being a douchebag with a gun, you're a potentially dangerous douchebag and you shouldn't be suprised when you're treated as such.

[Mekh]

I think there have been people shot by the police for less.

Only if they're brown.

[Dolus]

In most countries, hunting rifles are bolt-action and generally don't have 30 round magazines.
Only in the US are semi-automatic assault weapons deemed appropriate for hunting wildlife.

The U.S. isn't most countries as signified and differentiated by the U.S. Constitution. Many sniper rifles are bolt action. Argumentum ad populum / False Analogy. There is already an existing Gun Control thread.

- - - Updated - - -

Nobody cares about a video that has been linked 1000 times before. Don't care wether its an assualt rifle, a rifle or a boomerang, its a gun (unless its a boomerang) and if you're being a douchebag with a gun, you're a potentially dangerous douchebag and you shouldn't be suprised when you're treated as such.

Perhaps, you should read more closely? Because, I'm pretty sure I responded about his tact.