It wasn't reason that decided the outcome, but the cowardly nature of bullies who were stunned by someone standing up to them with the full backing of the law. The young man was brave, but foolish, because he could have easily been murdered by these nazi thugs, and that would have been that. He needs to learn the laws relevant to that situation chapter and verse if he's going to keep doing this sort of thing, or he's going to be brutally arrested, tortured, and murdered.
Notice that because the citizen was carrying, (according to the LEOs) he was required to give ID to prove he wasn't a felon?
In other words, if you're carrying, you're guilty and have to prove yourself innocent by showing ID and letting them run your name for a record.
So much for "presumption of innocence".
I don't see this as a training video at all...I see it as another example of police infringing on citizen's rights simply b/c they think they can.
The citizen in this case just got lucky (or did the fact that the citizen was carrying deter them from violence in the first place?) that the two officers didn't decide to break him down for the all too familiar "contempt of cop".
For Tvarisch: Law, even with chapter and verse, means NOTHING to them. Just ask John Kurtz: http://www.pixiq.com/article/copwatcher-founder-convicted-for-resisting-arrest
It is interesting that the police officer openly claims a successful record of intimidation, i.e. "You are the first person to refuse to show an ID." Also interesting is the claim that the aura of "my traffic stop" somehow changes the man's civil rights. How far out does the range of this aura extend?
Wow, the success seemed to flow from his correct analysis of the situation (cops being evasive and asking the same questions over and over) and leaving while the leaving was good.
As far as reasoning with agents of the state, no, there did not seem to be any meeting of the minds; the cops appeared to think they had no leg to stand on and that their lies weren't working, and so when the cameraman stated the situation and left, they simply didn't pursue.
I'm happy this didn't end badly, either with a kidnapping or a murder, though I suspect this is the rare exception.
Same guys that were probably against checking to see that folks are here legally are for checking to see that an outwardly law abiding citizen has documentation. He should have claimed to be an illegal! "Hey, I am an illegal, you can't check my ID or that would be racist..."
Same guys that were probably against checking to see that folks are here legally are for checking to see that an outwardly law abiding citizen has documentation. He should have claimed to be an illegal! "Hey, I am an illegal, you can't check my ID or that would be racist..."
I've been down a similar road before; reasoning with LEO about carrying a sidearm and have had numerous encounters with LEO who just give a nod when walking by. By in large, LEO's are 2-A supporters, at least in the state of GA. Tvarisch, I don't know if you've had a previous bad encounter, but you have to keep in mind that while there may be some bad apple LEO's, MOST are decent, hard working people putting their life on the line. While I agree with the videographer's stance of not being required to show ID, I sit here and wonder if it's really that important to stand your ground that way. Food for thought.
Police absolutely can demand ID for reasonable suspicion. A guy running up on a traffic stop with a gun would hold up just fine in court as reasonable suspicion of intent to commit a crime. This a-hole should have been arrested. These officers gave him a break. Hopefully, he'll get what he deserves when he next tries this childish stunt.
The true question to ask is quite simple - and such questions have been asked since before Magna Carta:
Does reversing the actors' roles change anything? Or,
Does the law apply equally to a cop?
No. It does not. Ergo Magna Carta is nullified as are all laws flowing from it including the American common law system and our Constitutional principles of higher-order government.
Anonymous that said "A guy running up on a traffic stop with a gun would hold up just fine in court as reasonable suspicion of intent to commit a crime" You sound like LEO so I ask you this question. If they guy didn't brandish the weapon and complied with the officer to stand back, how does that give LEO reasonable cause to ask for ID?
"Tvarisch, I don't know if you've had a previous bad encounter, but you have to keep in mind that while there may be some bad apple LEO's, MOST are decent, hard working people putting their life on the line."
BUT...... all it takes is a random meeting with one of those "bad apples" to ruin your day.
15 comments:
Truly a rarity to be able to reason with agents of the state.
The officers should be commended for properly behaving even though they did not get what they wanted.
KPN3%
It wasn't reason that decided the outcome, but the cowardly nature of bullies who were stunned by someone standing up to them with the full backing of the law. The young man was brave, but foolish, because he could have easily been murdered by these nazi thugs, and that would have been that. He needs to learn the laws relevant to that situation chapter and verse if he's going to keep doing this sort of thing, or he's going to be brutally arrested, tortured, and murdered.
OMG... try that without a camera and you'll be in deep doodoo... Interesting though. Thanks
Notice that because the citizen was carrying, (according to the LEOs) he was required to give ID to prove he wasn't a felon?
In other words, if you're carrying, you're guilty and have to prove yourself innocent by showing ID and letting them run your name for a record.
So much for "presumption of innocence".
I don't see this as a training video at all...I see it as another example of police infringing on citizen's rights simply b/c they think they can.
The citizen in this case just got lucky (or did the fact that the citizen was carrying deter them from violence in the first place?) that the two officers didn't decide to break him down for the all too familiar "contempt of cop".
Sean
For Tvarisch:
Law, even with chapter and verse, means NOTHING to them. Just ask John Kurtz:
http://www.pixiq.com/article/copwatcher-founder-convicted-for-resisting-arrest
The stench is overwhelming.
It is interesting that the police officer openly claims a successful record of intimidation, i.e. "You are the first person to refuse to show an ID." Also interesting is the claim that the aura of "my traffic stop" somehow changes the man's civil rights. How far out does the range of this aura extend?
Prove your innocence! What do you have to hide?
Right.
Wow, the success seemed to flow from his correct analysis of the situation (cops being evasive and asking the same questions over and over) and leaving while the leaving was good.
As far as reasoning with agents of the state, no, there did not seem to be any meeting of the minds; the cops appeared to think they had no leg to stand on and that their lies weren't working, and so when the cameraman stated the situation and left, they simply didn't pursue.
I'm happy this didn't end badly, either with a kidnapping or a murder, though I suspect this is the rare exception.
Not sure why this should be a "training film", as it should have ended when the man walked away the first time.
All the rest was illegal harassment of a law-abiding citizen.
If you don't want a reason to be depressed, don't read the thousands of comments from thousands of SHEEP on the "comments" thread.
How sad...
Same guys that were probably against checking to see that folks are here legally are for checking to see that an outwardly law abiding citizen has documentation. He should have claimed to be an illegal! "Hey, I am an illegal, you can't check my ID or that would be racist..."
Same guys that were probably against checking to see that folks are here legally are for checking to see that an outwardly law abiding citizen has documentation. He should have claimed to be an illegal! "Hey, I am an illegal, you can't check my ID or that would be racist..."
I've been down a similar road before; reasoning with LEO about carrying a sidearm and have had numerous encounters with LEO who just give a nod when walking by. By in large, LEO's are 2-A supporters, at least in the state of GA. Tvarisch, I don't know if you've had a previous bad encounter, but you have to keep in mind that while there may be some bad apple LEO's, MOST are decent, hard working people putting their life on the line. While I agree with the videographer's stance of not being required to show ID, I sit here and wonder if it's really that important to stand your ground that way. Food for thought.
Police absolutely can demand ID for reasonable suspicion. A guy running up on a traffic stop with a gun would hold up just fine in court as reasonable suspicion of intent to commit a crime. This a-hole should have been arrested. These officers gave him a break. Hopefully, he'll get what he deserves when he next tries this childish stunt.
The true question to ask is quite simple - and such questions have been asked since before Magna Carta:
Does reversing the actors' roles change anything? Or,
Does the law apply equally to a cop?
No. It does not. Ergo Magna Carta is nullified as are all laws flowing from it including the American common law system and our Constitutional principles of higher-order government.
Anonymous that said "A guy running up on a traffic stop with a gun would hold up just fine in court as reasonable suspicion of intent to commit a crime" You sound like LEO so I ask you this question. If they guy didn't brandish the weapon and complied with the officer to stand back, how does that give LEO reasonable cause to ask for ID?
"Tvarisch, I don't know if you've had a previous bad encounter, but you have to keep in mind that while there may be some bad apple LEO's, MOST are decent, hard working people putting their life on the line."
BUT...... all it takes is a random meeting with one of those "bad apples" to ruin your day.
Post a Comment