Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Assaulted & Arrested For Not Showing ID To Cops

That town will pay the man well for his trouble.

"Always remember the difference between economic power and political power: You can refuse to hire someone's services or buy his products in the private sector and go somewhere else instead. In the public sector, though, if you refuse to accept a politician's or bureaucrat's product or services you go to jail. Ultimately, after all, all regulations are observed and all taxes are paid at gunpoint. I believe those few who can't even see that have been short-sighted sheep, and I suggest they learn how to think conceptually, develop consistency and grasp principles soon." ~ Rick Gaber

Cop haters! Every officer on this site would have handled it exactly the same way!!

Sure. How else handle a guy who's just looking to piss off a cop by insisting on his fundamental rights guaranteed by the US Constitution?

Wonder What Would Have Happened If The Officer Had Been Shooting Video.And The Gentleman And Stop The Officer And Ask For His I.D.

That's not good enough. Criminal charges need to be filed and cops need to go to jail like anyone else would who did that to some stranger they met on the street.

PS Cops just messing with pedestrians they don't like are reluctant to say that they are detaining the person with whom they're messing because once they say that, certain definite restrictions on their conduct kick in, i.e., at the moment someone is detained, the cop acquires powers illegally granted him by the US Supreme Court, but those powers come with the obligation to later demonstrate to a court that the facts they observed at the time provided a reason for them to believe that the detained person was, or had been, behaving criminally, and that a judge who observed the same facts would agree once explained to him by the officer.

At the point someone is detained, the officer can demand answers and the handing over of identification. Absent detaining a pedestrian, however, which requires a reason to suspect a crime that will satisfy a judge later on, the cop is permitted to ask whatever he likes (just as anyone else is so permitted), but the non-detained pedestrian isn't obliged to provide any information or documentation, no more than he would be had any other stranger approached him and asked for same.

This is why they try to gain complete compliance from pedestrians (i.e., anyone who's not operating a motor vehicle on public roads) without "detaining" them, i.e., this way they can mess with anyone they choose, for any reason, even based merely on a hunch, or just for the heck of it, i.e., exercise arbitrary power.

Most folks don't know their rights, and thus think they're obliged to obey any time a cop requests it. When someone comes along that knows his rights, this pisses the cops off. Cops are so accustomed to routinely gaining compliance, that they usually forget the limits (and they are limits far more easily overcome than intended by the framers of the Bill of Rights and Constitution) that the law currently places on them when they choose to mess with people, like these two cops obviously did.

Yeah, "Officer, may I see your identification?" The cop would tell him to piss off or, worse, figure a way to get him arrested for something.

What if a pedestrian, once engaged with the cop, decided he wanted to conduct a Terry frisk for his own personal safety? Then, when the cop informed him that he was authorized by the county/city/state to carry a sidearm, the pedestrian would explain that he wanted to take it from him for the duration of their contact anyway, just for his personal safety. I bet the cop would feel imposed upon, to say the least.

I dont hate cops but believe they need to be held to the same standards they set, and enforce.

in the video, the guy asked for the cop's name and badge number, which the officer gave.

Why all the hoopla, the guy got what he wanted, on video to boot.

Curious what he was doing prior to this clip. Not that it justifies anything.

Just curious.

That's not the scenario I suggested, since the cop was already the aggressor and attempting to gain compliance with his "requests." Trading his ID number for a pedestrian's compliance seemed an easy price to him.I predicted you'd say something like that.Cop said he wanted his ID because he was recording the events in the area.

On one hand I agree the guy got what he wanted
On the other hand this should concern ALL Americans

I don't think either is right
I would not want to be a Cop and I also avoid them and most cost
Just let me be

Hank

try, "that's not the hyperbole I dramatized". It would suit you better.





And? I don't think I implied anything that absolved the cop from wrongdoing, just that the guy went out of his way to be a dick, and the idiot with a badge fell for it.




Recording events in the area.

I see.

Just normal behavior that would not justify even a little concern.

Kind of like carrying a firearm in hand when shopping at walmart.

A cop is free to be concerned all he likes, just like anyone else. What he's not permitted to do is use force to acquire ID when he has informed the person that he's not being detained. The pedestrian made clear that should the officer wish to detain him, he'd provide ID. Cop chose to assault and arrest him for this. That's a crime.

Why are you trying to convince me? I know the law.

You implied the cop's actions were "justified."

This should be shown at every junior and senior high school.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QR465HoCWFQ

"Recording events in the area.

I see.

Just normal behavior that would not justify even a little concern.

Kind of like carrying a firearm in hand when shopping at walmart."

"Kind of like"?

REALLY?

no, you predicted and noticed and whatever else you do, because that's what you do.

All I indicated that the man's behavior warranted a level of concern, but not the type of reaction he received.

You read otherwise into it, because you assume that's the response I would give.

This is that self fulfilling prophesy your "type" gets, about how all the supporters aren't there to condemn an action, thereby implying support for the action, when its apparent that I cannot even be objective in pointing out wrong doing without you jumping to conclusions.

Well done.

Which of those pointers did this fellow fail to follow?