If Open Carry ever comes to Texas, I hope everyone has.........

[Texan2]

That is excellent news; as someone on the other side of the fence I've been wanting that for a long time. Hopefully they'll make them unable to be turned off by the officer and hold on to the recordings for quite a while before deletion. This would be great for everyone involved!

Once recorded, the officer cant delete the video. It will save police lots of hassle during the complaint process. Really streamline things. As already stated, in car video clears most officers. I expect similar results with the new cameras.

 

[majormadmax]

Wow, how'd I miss this fun? Allow me to jump in headfirst and blindly...

First, I couldn't take watching the entire original video; it became apparent too quickly that the young man in question wanted to play games with the police officers who were treating him respectfully at least as far as I heard. He had his agenda and once he started repeating the same question over and over again, it was obvious this was going to be an ordeal.

Personally, I don't see why he didn't simply show them his ID, which most likely would have led them to release him (yes, technically he was "detained"). Once they establish he does not have a criminal record or is wanted for anything, then they would have had no reason to hold him any longer.

If I am not mistaken, his failure to provide his basic information (which would have been on his ID) could serve as cause for them to arrest him in Texas under PC 38.02 Failure to Identify (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.). While it is not illegal in Texas to not carry ID, failure to provide the above information to a law enforcement officer can lead to an arrest so they can determine who you really are.

But again, the video was in Maine so their laws may differ. I for one would have gladly provide the officers my ID as to: 1) show a willingness to cooperate and 2) move the discussion on to the real situation on hand, the open carry. I think it would have served his case better had he been more responsive to the officers, and most likely would have resolved the matter much quicker.

I have found you get more satisfactory results from being cooperative with the police. That doesn't mean sacrificing your rights, but simply understanding that they are trying to accomplish a difficult task and the more you can help them resolve any questions they may have; the greater the chances it will result in your favor. Being combative rarely if ever results in anything good, but some folks just want to prove how smart they are no matter what the consequences.

So the bottom line, cheers to this young man for doing his homework beforehand; but jeers to him for his tactics. There was many better ways he could have handled the situation, and still achieved the desired results.

Cheers! M2

 

[London]

While it is not illegal in Texas to not carry ID, failure to provide the above information to a law enforcement officer can lead to an arrest so they can determine who you really are.

Not true. This is only illegal if you are already under arrest. A cop can't arrest you because he doesn't know who you are. There is a back-door way of enforcing this during a traffic stop by citing driving without a license laws, which you can be arrested for.

 

[Texan2]

Not true. This is only illegal if you are already under arrest. A cop can't arrest you because he doesn't know who you are. There is a back-door way of enforcing this during a traffic stop by citing driving without a license laws, which you can be arrested for.

How is that a 'back door" way?

It sounds like you are sayin the police shouldnt use technicalities, but idiots like the ones in te OP should? Maybe I am interpreting your post wrong.

 

[London]

Just saying it's a way to force you to identify yourself even though technically you aren't required to.

Not saying the cops shouldn't use technicalities. I mentioned it because I don't want anyone walking away from here under the impression they don't have to show a cop a DL during a stop because there's no law requiring them to identify- there kinda is.

 

[Texan2]

Only if you are driving a motor vehicle.

 

[Dawico]

I get the impression the guy is looking for trouble. Most of the videos I have seen like this give me that impression.

Show me the video where the cop comes, the OC'er shows his ID, the cop runs his record and it comes back clean, and the officer says "ok, no problem, and have a nice day", and then leaves. That is the type of video that will help our cause.

Anytime a person wants to hide their identity from the police the police have to believe that they are hiding something. Whether it is required by law or not, if you aren't breaking a law, just show your ID and be done with it. Any other response is just looking for trouble.

 

[Acera]

Show me the video where the cop comes, the OC'er shows his ID, the cop runs his record and it comes back clean, and the officer says "ok, no problem, and have a nice day", and then leaves.

So are you saying we should support the LEO who is violating the law???

If the officer has no reason or legal justification for requesting his identification we should just allow it to happen, or worse promote it???

Behaving in a legal manner should be no reason to have your ID and your records checked/searched.

I know it makes it easier on the officer if everyone bows to his authority in every instance (justified or otherwise), but really is that the society we have formed or want to live in? Sorry sounds too much of a police state mentality to me.

Anytime a person wants to hide their identity from the police the police have to believe that they are hiding something. Whether it is required by law or not, if you aren't breaking a law, just show your ID and be done with it. Any other response is just looking for trouble.

I guess this is the "guilty until proven innocent" approach.

 

[Texan2]

It always strikes me as irony when some activist decides he is gonna go prove a point to the police "just because he can"... and then is shocked when the police detain or arrest him, "just because they can". Police Officers have alot of descretion. Why would ssomeone want to poke at them until they get a negative reaction?

You reap what you sow. Go looking for trouble and quite often you will find it.

 

[majormadmax]

I get the impression the guy is looking for trouble. Most of the videos I have seen like this give me that impression.

Show me the video where the cop comes, the OC'er shows his ID, the cop runs his record and it comes back clean, and the officer says "ok, no problem, and have a nice day", and then leaves. That is the type of video that will help our cause.

Anytime a person wants to hide their identity from the police the police have to believe that they are hiding something. Whether it is required by law or not, if you aren't breaking a law, just show your ID and be done with it. Any other response is just looking for trouble.

I agree, I don't expect the police to be perfect and if as a law-abiding citizen I can help them gather the information they need to determine I am not committing a crime, then I will cooperate. I would suspect anyone who fails to do so to be hiding the truth, and there's usually a reason for it. It's not a "guilty until proven innocent" situation, there is something suspect going on and the police are investigating it. People need to stop being so paranoid of the police and try supporting them a bit more. Maybe then they will realize they are not the enemy but in fact protecting us from them!

 

[Texan2]

So are you saying we should support the LEO who is violating the law???

If the officer has no reason or legal justification for requesting his identification we should just allow it to happen, or worse promote it???

Behaving in a legal manner should be no reason to have your ID and your records checked/searched.

I know it makes it easier on the officer if everyone bows to his authority in every instance (justified or otherwise), but really is that the society we have formed or want to live in? Sorry sounds too much of a police state mentality to me.



I guess this is the "guilty until proven innocent" approach.

Not at all. Why do we only have to do what the law requires. The law doesnt require police to stop and help a stranded motorist. It doesnt require that they direct traffic in a crowded school zone, nor require they issue warnings instead of citations, yet police do all of the above.
Some things are done becaue it makes everything run smoother. So if showing your ID makes an encounter end faster, safer or on a more positive note, why is someone not free to choose that option? Some of the "police state" fantasy that I read about online is almost comical.

The mentality that I am only going to do the bare minimum that the law requires is adversarial and juvenile. Why not do something because it helps out everyone involved, including yourself?

 

[jocat54]

Not at all. Why do we only have to do what the law requires. The law doesnt require police to stop and help a stranded motorist. It doesnt require that they direct traffic in a crowded school zone, nor require they issue warnings instead of citations, yet police do all of the above.
Some things are done becaue it makes everything run smoother. So if showing your ID mkes an encounter end faster, safer or on a more positive note, why is someone not free to choose that option? Some of the "police state" fantasy that I read about online is almost comical.

The mentality that I am only going to do the bare minimum that the law requires is adversarial and juvenile. Why not do something because it helps out everyone involved, including yourself?

Texan2, You nailed it!!

 

[Charlie]

And of course, this will all be of no consequence when ALL law enforcement get the super high tech cameras linked to a data base that can almost instantly provide identity from facial photograph. Or would that be illegal?? Camera in the cap, linked to the data base via satellite that allows instant identification and real time video...............etc., etc.

 

[TexasRedneck]

And of course, this will all be of no consequence when ALL law enforcement get the super high tech cameras linked to a data base that can almost instantly provide identity from facial photograph. Or would that be illegal?? Camera in the cap, linked to the data base via satellite that allows instant identification and real time video...............etc., etc.

WAIT - isn't this what SO many folks wanted - a system in place to PROVE how dirty and underhanded cops are?!???

Sometimes, folks, you really DO get what you asked for....with a few twists thrown in. You wanna hardnose a cop "because you can"? Fine - do so. Just don't sit there and complain when he hardnoses back at ya. There are a LOT of ways to legally detain/delay you - ways that are perfectly legal - that most cops never even consider, because they KNOW it's bogus, even though it's legal. But if you really, REALLY wanna go there, they can - and if they do, don't expect me to feel sorry for you.

While I have no reason to show ID in many instances, I'll do so. Why? Because it does speed the process up, it does let the cop know who/what he's dealing with - and it also keeps everyone's blood pressure down. Why be an asshat simply because "it's legal"? That's the same kind of hair-splitting so many of us decry when folks are let off of criminal charges because of "legal loopholes".

Be civil, respectful, and save your ammo for when you REALLY need it. Your life will be easier, your friends won't avoid you because of your confrontational ways - and my dog won't hump your leg!

 

[Acera]

Rights that are not exercised will soon be lost, or deemed not to be rights.

So if showing your ID mkes an encounter end faster, safer or on a more positive note, why is someone not free to choose that option?

I agree 100%, if it is their choice. If they choose otherwise, then no inference should be made other than that is their choice.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

We all like to argue about how the 2nd amendment is worded, what about the simple premise of this one??? It also was a cornerstone of this country.

When I started this thread, I did not want to provide a forum to show the chasm between two prominent thought patterns on this board, but it has. I see there is a us vs. them mentality in a number of posts here (both sides, LOL). My intent was to show that you can maintain your composure, exercise your rights, not be victimized by a less than perfect system, and have a peaceful resolution without it getting too far out of control.

Not at all. Why do we only have to do what the law requires. The law doesnt require police to stop and help a stranded motorist. It doesnt require that they direct traffic in a crowded school zone, nor require they issue warnings instead of citations, yet police do all of the above

I am glad some of you do that (and receive a great source of supplemental income from the extra job paychecks on many of them.), that type of professionalism is what is sorely lacking in this society. I remember the days when we did not have "Law Enforcement Officers" they were referred to as "Peace Officers". I miss those days when a uniformed officer did not try to be a dominate force when he entered the room. While Andy Griffin is still alive and kicking, sadly Sheriff Taylor has passed on long ago.

 

[Mic]

1. As much as I think these guys are annoying pissant asshats, I think they are doing a service by educating police who (based on the videos) didn't really seem to know the laws that well. As long as there are a bunch more of others who will open carry, but produce the ID when asked - having a small amount of these guys is a good thing in my opinion. How many other groups (blacks, gays, etc) have had to scream, shout, and piss people off to get their rights respected. I on the other hand, would not open carry because it would draw attention and would show my ID to the police, but I am glad there are others who will fight this way.

2. The officers, on the other hand, acted surprisingly professional. I would have figured the police would immediately rise up with an attitude and gone ballistic when their request for IDs went unheeded. It was nice to see that they didn't - I was pleasantly surprised. Chunky...you too. Didn't catch your comment in the video, but laughed when I read it.

3. Kinda funny that you could hear both of the asshat's voices cracking. I d..don't b..elieve I'm required to show you. Really didn't come through as tough guys on the videos.

4. Great to hear of the personal video recorders. That is good for all involved - if cops are out of hand, they will be punished. When some jackass screws up , then tries to call foul, the cops are protected. Helps everybody but the bad apples on either side of the law. Just don't record the cops when not involved in an interaction with member of the public (ie recording them while talking with partners, over radio, etc).

 

[Texan2]

Rights that are not exercised will soon be lost, or deemed not to be rights.


I agree 100%, if it is their choice. If they choose otherwise, then no inference should be made other than that is their choice.



We all like to argue about how the 2nd amendment is worded, what about the simple premise of this one??? It also was a cornerstone of this country.

When I started this thread, I did not want to provide a forum to show the chasm between two prominent thought patterns on this board, but it has. I see there is a us vs. them mentality in a number of posts here (both sides, LOL). My intent was to show that you can maintain your composure, exercise your rights, not be victimized by a less than perfect system, and have a peaceful resolution without it getting too far out of control.

I am glad some of you do that (and receive a great source of supplemental income from the extra job paychecks on many of them.), that type of professionalism is what is sorely lacking in this society. I remember the days when we did not have "Law Enforcement Officers" they were referred to as "Peace Officers". I miss those days when a uniformed officer did not try to be a dominate force when he entered the room. While Andy Griffin is still alive and kicking, sadly Sheriff Taylor has passed on long ago.

They still are called Peace Officers.

Most officers I know dont try to be a "dominant force" when they enter a room.

It doesnt have to be "us vs. them" but many, like those in the OP video, try to foster that mentality.

There are still places where an "Andy Taylor" mentality is still prevelent. You just wont see that in a gang infested, crime infested city though.

When I see the personification of police officers by many on here is is amusing and remarkably inaccurate.

With all due respect, many outside of the LE field see a few youtube clips and think you know the mindset of an American cop and you miss the mark by a mile.

 

[Charlie]

They still are called Peace Officers.

Most officers I know dont try to be a "dominant force" when they enter a room.

It doesnt have to be "us vs. them" but many, like those in the OP video, try to foster that mentality.

There are still places where an "Andy Taylor" mentality is still prevelent. You just wont see that in a gang infested, crime infested city though.

When I see the personification of police officers by many on here is is amusing and remarkably inaccurate.

With all due respect, many outside of the LE field see a few youtube clips and think you know the mindset of an American cop and you miss the mark by a mile.

I consider myself extremely fortunate to live in a rural, "small town" type setting. I have lived in Houston and Dallas and there is no way I'd go back to the "city". All, and I mean all, of the officers, city, county, & state that I know are friends, neighbors, and very professional. That's not to say there is not a turd somewhere but I haven't seen it here. I would show my ID if asked, just 'cause I've got no reason not to. Hell, nobody's asked to see my ID in the last 20 yrs. or so except when I board an airplane!

 

[TexasRedneck]

It's amazing how folks will allow others to color their thoughts/perceptions. MOST cops I encounter are in their job because they DO want to "protect and serve". Unfortunately, they routinely deal with liars/thieves/worse - and it DOES influence their thought processes, as it would with most. I've worn their shoes, and let me tell you - it's an eye opener.
Very few jobs can cost you everything (including your freedom) if you screw up - but it can if you're a cop. Very few jobs require you to go about in public, absorbing abuse from anyone wanting to give it without you being able to even talk back - but it does if you're a cop. Very few jobs can require you to walk up to someone that will kill you simply because of what you do - but it does if you're a cop.
So ya'll go ahead - give 'em a hard time - make their lives as hard as you want. Because when you do, you tell me volumes about your own pettiness and lack of respect for others. Yes, I have boundaries. Yes - if a cop is abusive of me or others, I WANT him off the force (as do 99% of cops) - but if I were in an OC state and wanting to push limits, I'd still have no issue w/ID'ing myself to an LEO, because by doing so I'm not only letting him get his job done and on his way, I'm also more likely to gain an ALLY.

 

[Dawico]

It always strikes me as irony when some activist decides he is gonna go prove a point to the police "just because he can"... and then is shocked when the police detain or arrest him, "just because they can". Police Officers have alot of descretion. Why would ssomeone want to poke at them until they get a negative reaction?

You reap what you sow. Go looking for trouble and quite often you will find it.

^^^^That.