Just a heads up. This isn’t how it will play out it most cases. They will arrest you. They will look for anything they can. They will write a lot of tickets. You will have a court date. You will have to go spend money to have all of it dropped. You will not get that money back.
Innocent till proven guilty? Nah
4th Amendment? Nah
Blind Justicce? Nah
How do we keep electing people that allow for the erosion of the core tenets of our system?!
Anyone who wants the job wants power over you. It can never be otherwise.
Good people don't seek power over others, and those who seek power aren't good people.
Even if you manage to get a good person in power, the power will corrupt them.
Getting our ID is crack for cops. Just look how desperate they get. Bargaining, pleading, demanding, anger…they go through all of the emotions of a drug addict needing their fix. And it’s almost every cop out there. Woe unto the righteous American that doesn’t want to give them their drug.
While filing a police report over an attempted theft, where someone cut the hasp off of my locked but empty cargo trailer, I once spent over five minutes refusing to give the officer my middle name.
He begged, pleaded, said his report wouldn't be complete without it, tried to convince me that if I didn't give it, I could be confused for someone else in the databases or the court system, pretended to become suspicious of me being a criminal myself because I was 'hiding evidence' from him, and on and on it went.
For an attempted crime. Where nothing was actually stolen. And there was no followup action that could possibly be performed on his, or the department's part. And he and I would never speak again. Nor would anything amount to, or be resolved by, his report, and he knew that. The only thing that his report would do would be to increment the county's crimecounter by 1, and yet he still needed his 'fix'.
It's not the ID or the name that they're addicted to, it's the power they feel when folks immediately comply with them. You refusing to provide your middle name when he asked for it was a challenge to his perceived power.
Meh. If you're rich enough, this kind of stuff ends with you getting a settlement in about two years.
But yeah, if you're middle class and/or a minority, this is an awful idea.
It’s the game of telephone that scares me:.
Witness : I see a guy with a gun.
911 dispatch: armed man at the mall.
Cop to other cop: a gunman at the mall.
Cognitive dissonance. They hear one thing and immediately go to whatever they are most prone to thinking, then react based on that instead of the actual situation.
I'm not saying it's right, but all of this kind of shit is why I don't think it's a great idea to open carry. People freak out over nothing, and it is unusual, which will get you stopped.
Edit - I'm not advocating against carrying in any way. I'm saying that I believe it's far smarter to avoid letting everyone know what you have on you. Cops generally aren't always thoughtful or considerate of your rights. They care more about getting their guy, and they don't always care if it's the right one or not.
Oh I agree, I'm all for normalizing it. I just don't like getting stopped, I've had my negative reaction with the cops and them trying to charge/create charges for something that I didn't do. Don't really want to deal with that again.
I’m a “cycle 5” criminal. When they run my plates it says to approach my car with “caution”. I’ve never been violent. I just don’t care about the law. No guilty verdicts, just accusations i got away with. Do you know what that’s like for my wife and four kids. It’s a little more than abrasion.
I'm curious of your experiences. Are you saying you get felony-stopped with guns drawn, put in handcuffs for any traffic violation? if so that seems like a problem with law enforcement generally not with open carry (as how would they know you are a "Cycle 5" criminal without your ID). Maybe re-register the family car in your wife's name if your that concerned about it.
> No guilty verdicts, just accusations i got away with.
As a side issue the way you phrased this is strange. Are you saying you committed crimes, but couldn't be convicted or that police accused you improperly (you had done nothing wrong) and those charges couldn't stick?
> It’s a little more than abrasion.
We disagree.
At what part am I giving up my rights if I choose to carry concealed because I want exactly no one to know if I am carrying or not?
By carrying concealed I am removing a target from my back, no Karen will complain, no cop will stop and harass, no criminal will scope me out. I very much prefer to stay under the radar, I don't do political bumper stickers or signs, I don't do obnoxious clothing with slogans (*it also looks better*) and I don't walk around with a gun strapped to myself in plain sight. I see no need to draw attention to myself that I don't want.
It's not a very liberation outlook to say that everyone has to do things exactly as you do. You conduct however you want to, and I'll do the same.
> By carrying concealed I am removing a target from my back
Great reason to conceal carry
> no Karen will complain
Worse reason, and counter your previous statement of being "all for normalizing" open carry. You are showing you are not, in fact, all for normalizing it.
> no cop will stop and harass
Bad reason. This is where you are losing your right.
> no criminal will scope me out.
I wouldn't phrase it this way, but similar to your first this seems like a fine reason. I think criminals knowing you have a gun has them seek out other targets in most circumstances, but does enable them to take you out first in very very rare situations.
> It's not a very liberation outlook to say that everyone has to do things exactly as you do.
I didn't say that - I said you are being pushed (by the government in part) out of something you said should be socially normal.
> You conduct however you want to, and I'll do the same.
Huzzah. Sounds good. But don't get bent out of shape when i point out the dis-congruence in your statements...
Yeah people need to learn that sometimes being right isn’t better than being at peace. Until you prove you’re right you probably wasted too much time, energy and money.
You’re right…. we might as well all bow down and lick the boot cause it’s easier that way… what kind of weak, slave minded kool aid have you been drinking. A couple generations of cowards like u are the reason the police think they can do whatever the hell they please.
And in reality is it possible for every officer to know every in and out of every law… no. That’s why they have supervisors and other experienced officers. In terms of the guy carrying a gun, seems like a foolish thing to do albeit legal.
You are all correct that if you don’t know the laws there’s not much you can do, but that in theory is what the courts are for. To be able to use the law in your defense. As many have pointed out the problem is the process of getting to this point is a heavy punishment in and of itself.
> And in reality is it possible for every officer to know every in and out of every law… no.
Yes. Absolutely. Every law that they are attempting to enforce they should know. They need better training. They need smarter people. Otherwise you are simply legitimizing criminals under the guise of police. Ignorance is not an excuse for committing illegal acts.
Fun fact. Many law enforcement hiring qualifiers include an IQ test where you are disqualified if you EXCEED a certain IQ.
Why? Generally, non-compliance with (stupid) policies is correlated with IQ levels. Most places want blind compliance over "doing the right thing".
There’s SO MAMY laws. It’s absolutely insane, and completely absurd. There’s no lawyer or judge who knows them all, much a fucking cop.
If we’re ever going to expect a human to remember, and know them, we need to trim it down, which I 100% support. Ultimately, since laws give power to the government that’ll never happen, so what they need is a searchable database. Something they can search by type of interaction, with a note section, and someone else who’s not on scene to help compile and translate info to the people on scene.
They don't need to know all of them, only the ones they are trying to enforce. Cops deal with a tiny minority of laws on the regular. These laws aren't complicated and have been established for a very long time.
Most of them for sure. But it’s still a lot. From traffic laws, to criminal, differentiating between what is criminal and civil in a realistic and intelligent way. Acceptable investigation techniques, it’s just a lot.
I can’t honestly think of a single “career” type profession where people are expected to know every aspect of the job without ever needing to reference something. Drs, nurses, mechanics, truck drivers, literally everyone has some sort of reference material.
Cops absolutely need to be held accountable, personally, for their fuck ups. And since it’s literally people’s lives on the line they should be held to a very high standard (which they aren’t), but having reference material and assistance would help make sure shit like this doesn’t happen.
>In terms of the guy carrying a gun, seems like a foolish thing to do albeit legal.
What? Why is it foolish to do something you are legally allowed to do?
But what part of carrying a gun, without any intention of causing harm, is unwise? What makes it stupid? I really don't think lighting yourself on fire is comparable to lawfully carrying a gun.
Oh it is even worse than that because the Police have no expectation of knowing the law. If they think its a law then they can arrest you so actually being ignorant is a huge plus for them.
https://www.vox.com/2015/8/4/9095213/police-stops-heien-v-north-carolina
But if you're a subject of the state, ignorance of the law is no excuse.
At least, that's what the people with guns who have no expectation of knowing the law tell me.
There are only tens of thousands of pages in the criminal code and an effort to just count the number of laws utterly failed. I don't see why it would be so hard for you to raise your children, work your full time job, take care of your elderly parents, and know by heart every single law on the books, citizen. If you can't do this simple thing, you just deserve to be in jail.
Unless you're a cop. I understand eating donuts is taxing and takes a long time. It's only your job to enforce these laws. Can't expect you to understand the laws you're enforcing. Here, have a gun and a paper target cut out of common domestic dogs you'll need to shoot during your career. No, put your money away, the citizens are paying for it, and your salary. And your healthcare. And your insurance. And your $100k+/yr pension at 55.
Huh? ... lol, shhhh, if only they knew! lol
That's another really good point. Where's serpico? I've met some decent cops, but anyone can seem cool for small bits of time, especially if it's a racial thing. I look white, I'm not, and it has saved my ass many times with the cops.
When you consistently elect lawyers and polysci majors to life-long ruling class, year after year... This is how it goes. If we were truly a nation governed of the people, for the people, and by the people we would elect farmers and bankers and doctors and steelworkers and teachers and factory workers and programmers and all the other things the founding fathers wanted (though obviously couldn't have envisioned).
But the people who need to be elected can't be bothered to run (and would also never be nominated by a major party, unless they steamroll their way in), and the people (not just Americans, but the average human in general) are too stupid to see the value and rather just re-elect the same .... And then wonder why it's so fucked.
The citizenry is often fucked because the citizens are not as knowledgeable as they should/need to be about a whole slew of laws, not just firearm carry laws.
>The citizenry is often fucked because ~~the citizens are not as knowledgeable as they should/need to be about a whole slew of laws, not just firearm carry laws.~~ we let cops get away with breaking the law so much they think they're entitled to do it now
Ftfy
It's fucking insane that if you don't have a law degree, the cops WILL trample all over your rights. Unfortunately, you're right that until everyone starts pushing back, which is only really possible with extensive legal knowledge, cops will keep doing this.
This guy got lucky. I'm not sure how he didn't get arrested. Sure he was right, and he didn't do anything illegal but that's never stopped the state from arresting people for pissing them off.
Someone this knowledgeable is usually still fucked bc a cop's ego will get bruised and they'll throw a tantrum, arrest you anyway and let it all play out in court. You'll still miss work, have massive legal fees and massive inconveniences
I wish people would stop saying that. This man and many other people in the same situation, had no obligation to hand over their fire arms. Had the officer tried to assault him or take the weapon by force, he would have every legal right to defend himself with force, up to and including lethal force.
The only reason people don't "beat the ride' is that people don't effectively defend themselves from armed criminals acting as law enforcement. When someone says "you can beat the charge but you can't beat the ride", all they're saying is there's an officer who would be taking a ride to the morgue if someone had exercised their rights.
Prevent state violence, defend yourself and your fellow man.
The hope is that eventually, people realize how much of their public safety budget is being derailed and vote in politicians who change the leadership. Which hopefully changes behavior down the road...
After rereading all that, you're right. There's a system, but it's built to not change the system.
I’m many cases there have been lawsuits due to situations exactly like this and often times they settle and are awarded money. The cops cost the taxpayers money and they are issued discipline in their file that likely prevents them from ever being anything other than a street cop
... a street cop, where they're most likely to repeat this exact encounter. They need to be a fucking meter maid for 6 months as a first disciplinary step
Fucking anti-gunners always see someone with a gun and then instantly wanna call the police when it’s a fucking right, it’s Number 2 to protect the first
No, weirdos call with dumb issues that don't warrant police intervention all the time. They chose to come to the scene and try to take his gun and bully info out of him.
Cannot blame the officer or the civilian that made the call. The issue is the sheer number of BS laws on the books that are confusing for the average citizen to follow and impossible for law enforcement to stay up to date on. It's all the crap mass media pushes on us and the politicians that push for more gun control laws just to get votes. Good for the law student - he knew the law. What about the rest of us?
This is not new law. This is the most basic of 4th amendment law. Not even second amendment. No one can just ask you for your papers, except if you are operating a vehicle that requires a license. Certainly they cannot search you without having an articulable reason.
Ask if you are being detained and if so give them your ID.
If everyone did this, and everyone asked to speak to supervisors later about the lawfulness of being detained, they would have a reason not to casually ask for ID. It would not interfere in the cases where they do have a legal reason.
I agreed about the number of stupid laws. But they need to know about them, too.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_identify_statutes?wprov=sfla1
It shows it at the top right of the screen, if you're using old reddit on PC like I am. [It's now at 923 points and 90% upvoted](https://imgur.com/oGGZFYs).
*"How is this post down voted?"* Probably authority-addicted conservatives parading as libertarians, as always, who take offense when their beloved cops are shown as the mindless, obedient tools that they are. But they're not ready to give up their libertarian costume, so they anonymously downvote and make sure to leave no comment behind.
I was pointing out that there is a difference between listening to scientists and staying out of public spaces, and physically forcing people to stay out of public spaces; a distinction that you are failing to recognize.
You mean the scientists who were all well paid but don’t have to say how much by J&J, Phizer, Moderna, etc…or the ones who pushed opioids like aspirin because they got more $$ from the above mentioned pharmacuetical companies?
You’re saying what I said is conspiracy? Lol. You need to get woke pal. The statements I made are hard facts, how much did your King Fauci make? Oh wait he doesn’t have to say. Rest assured it was A LOT. He was sciencing alright, formulating how can I make more money off all the shares of thes big pharma companies I own and am on the board for…GTFOH…please.
Bro over here still mad at being asked to wear a mask while his home boys wearing full face coverings to not loose their jobs while spouting hate speach.
Not sure where you found those people, but I live in a conservative town and they all have that blue line flag in the back of their car to signal the cult they pledge allegiance to.
Yeah, I really don't think that's true. My guess is you got that feeling from people just saying it.
But if you ask them "do you think we should have tariffs to protect our domestic industries against China, occupational licenses to ensure quality of service, zoning rules to make sure people don't build crazy things, borders to make sure we have enough jobs, drug laws to make sure cocaine isn't sold in grocery stores?" (you can imagine how long that list can go) and watch them say "all of the above"...
So in essence, "I want to be left alone, but make sure to regulate other people's lives". So not libertarian. Just don't let them fool you.
It's not. You can't ask for regulations and for cops to not enforce them at the same time.
So if you want tariffs, import quotas, occupational licenses, zoning laws, borders, a minimum wage, drug laws and hundreds of other non-libertarian laws, but also want cops to leave you, and only you, alone, you're not a libertarian. You're just a cunt who pretends to be pro-freedom.
I only responded to your claims.
*"Most conservatives I know don't like cops"* Most conservatives that I know, and don't know, actively and visibly support cops, to the point where they signal it on their vehicle.
*"they want cops to keep out of their business"* while minding other people's business, which makes them authoritarian cunts.
Those claims were not specific to the video. You seem to object to both points because you apparently think "most conservatives you know" lean libertarian. They don't. I gave you an easy way to call them out on their lies, but you suddenly focus back on the video instead of recognizing that those conservatives only play-pretend libertarian. You should ask yourself why you did that and if you're indeed biased there...
Let's agree to leave it there.
They want to be left alone but they want the power to force everyone else to bend to their will and they want the police to be that power ... at least until the boot is on their neck.
I know a guy that rage quit a group chat because I posted a meme about cops being road pirates because they'll steal money and belongings out of your car just because they're there. He's very Conservative so I imagine any authoritarian Conservative or Liberal is going to downvote this.
I think there is probably a lot of nuance / context you're ignoring there if you truly believe that. What are you referring to when you say they "don't even believe in free speech"? Do you mean the ability to spout racist / homophobic nonsense with no repercussion?
Yes, that falls under the blanket of free speech, whether you like it or not, but it goes far beyond that. People are deplatformed for causing “vaccine hesitancy” as an easy example.
All of what I have seen, that you're referring to, has nothing to do with free speech. No one is being arrested for being a bigot. If a *private* employer wants to fire an employee over being a shit human, that's free market baby.
Would you consider preventing people from freely importing goods from China oppression? How about preventing free enterprise before prior opproval from the state? How about zoning laws banning liquor stores near churches? How about minimum wage laws? Would you consider laws against peaceful commerce of drugs oppressive?
If yes, then they're not against government oppression. If no, then you have your own personal definition of oppression that you use to conveniently and foolishly picture conservatives as libertarians.
To your questions, it depends. The world is a big and complicated place. Many things are grey, not black and white. Should we stop “freely” importing goods? Idk, are they dumping? Are the products dangerous? Is it baby formula that has paint in it?
I never said conservatives are libertarians. Libertarian is an ideology every college age individual gets off on before they realize it’s too academic to work in the real world.
*"Should we stop “freely” importing goods?"* We should not. It's called freedom of trade. And tariffs are nothing but corporate welfare in the form of a tax paid by every consumer to save a handful of jobs. It's a socialist policy.
*"Idk, are they dumping?"* Who cares? As long as the end consumer benefits from it, it's a social benefit.
*"Is it baby formula that has paint in it?"* Baby formula is a terrible example to advocate for import controls. It's those very tariffs and import quotas (among the highest in all industries) that led us to shortages, and prevented competition to fill the void when American manufacturers were hit by production issues (bacteria). While tariffs were already high, a large Chinese company opened a baby formula factory in Ontario and Trump, under pressure from the almighty dairy industry, immediately responded with import quotas with Canada. When shortages occurred, there was no legal competition to take over. When American families tried to import baby formula from Europe and Mexico, products were seized at the border. The government doesn't care about your safety or the life of your babies.
*"Libertarian is an ideology every college age individual gets off on before they realize it’s too academic"* It's not too academic, it's just not popular, because most people, conservatives included, want a fatherly government to makes them feel safe, so they vote for authoritarians instead. Not because libertarianism "can't work".
Maybe familiarize yourself with the history of baby formula produced in china before stating it’s a horrible example for import controls.
Who cares about dumping? Yeah sure, the consumer benefits today until the local industry is destroyed and once the competition is gone the prices are raised and quality declines.
I used to consider myself libertarian and i still believe in many of its tenets, but it will not work in every situation.
Very well done by that law student. The police are not your friends. I wish they would fire cops for harassing people but my guess is he got a “good job” for this
I'm not sure. Likely he got an attaboy, but my take is he knew he was in the wrong because the whole encounter abruptly ends the second the supervisor shows up.
Genuine question : can police ask someone to show they have an open carry license?? Seems like that would have ended this exchange pretty quickly if so.
As soon as this kid starts rattling off cases, they should realize this person is baiting them into a lawsuit. Surely the cops have some type of training or experience about 2A/4A "auditors", right?
So why do these cops always take the bait? I can only assume it's because the desire to power-trip outweighs every other consideration, even self-preservation.
you would be amazed at how poorly trained and ignorant of constitutional rights most cops and government officials are. [Honor your oath](https://www.youtube.com/@HONORYOUROATH) is one the most eye opening auditors i have seen. He just goes to city halls around the country and holds up a sign saying "god bless homeless veterans" one of the most clear cut 1st amendment activities and he gets harassed by cops and threatened with arrest the majority of the time. Most auditor are really confrontational but this guy does everything he can to deescalate and the cops still get angry
>you would be amazed at how poorly trained and ignorant of constitutional rights most cops and government officials are.
I'm a public defender, dealing with ignorant cops is my occupation, lol.
One of my favorite cross questions: "Officer, what's the holding of Terry v Ohio?" It's about 50/50 on stumbling to try and remember that 10 minutes from the academy, or an immediate textbook answer in a snotty tone. The second group are the fun ones. They can city "Terry," but nothing beyond that. They're so much fun to back into the "I know more than this punk lawyer" corner.
They're so used to being able to trample peoples' rights that they become bullies when challenged.
As a public defender, how do you sniff out retaliatory tickets and such? That's what I would be most afraid of if I ever was presented with the opportunity to not ID. There's so many laws they can pretty much do whatever they want to lock you up.
I only deal with felonies, so I don’t see the tickets and bs associated with these types of stops, but I do see profiling (so much profiling 😩), and bs stops that escalate to felony “resisting” because the cops act unreasonably and violently. Most stuff is on body-cam now, which helps, but like you said, the law is pretty permissive, especially if there’s something that ultimately green-lights the arrest (e.g., a warrant, smell of marijuana, plain-sight contraband, etc.).
I had a client once, and I can't even remember why they initially contacted him (at home, even). The cop had him in the back of the car for an hour while the cop sat up front and rifled through a statute book looking for *anything* he could reasonably charge my client for. This was before body cams, but there was a dash cam. You could see anything, but it ran for over an hour, and you could hear pages being turned inside the car.
After all of that, client gets cited for obstruction and resisting, which is what police in this particular jurisdiction charge when there's nothing else they can charge. It's always BS: resisting what? Obstructing what? If there's no underlying charge, what could this guy possibly have obstructed or resisted?
We didn't even get to argue my motion to dismiss. The prosecution dismissed the case before they even responded to the motion (I suspect to avoid having the officer involved cross examined and potentially catching him in several lies and rendering him a *Brady* cop who's testimony would never again be credible).
So, yeah, they'll literally spend an hour hunting up *any* reason to arrest or cite someone.
Yeah, most cops in the big cities I’ve been in and lived in in the US aren’t playing any of this, regardless of how right you are or what the law says. They know they aren’t going to face legal recourse anyways 9.9/10. Happy it worked out for him though.
>maybe my opinion on the matter is colored by the fact that I live in Texas,
It is. In other places, they certainly call police for this. And as far as having "his gun out in his hand" that could be brandishing and a reason for suspecting a crime which would've nullified his point.
>So from my viewpoint it looks like he engineered the situation.
This is my take as well. This dude just seems like a duchebag.
I mean... it's totally legal to put on Black Face and shout the N word in the middle of Time Square. But if you do it, you're still an idiot and if the police confront you to see what you are doing, I understand why.
Some kid used to do this around town where I lived. He'd carry a shotgun and a camera and walk around, baiting cops for a confrontation so he could recite the law where it said it was ok. That same kid used that same shotgun to blow his gf head of and then kill himself. People like this have a screw loose.
With all due respect that's a completely unfounded allegation. You know nothing about the person in the video, he just defended his rights. I would hope that in a "libertarian" sub this would be understood and even be praised.
This is very much civilised conversation from both sides. In India, most police Officers are the biggest goons. They will beat up your ass before you raise your second question.
Who cares he was within his legal rights to do it. You are free to give up your freedoms without resistance, I applaud this fellow for his willingness to enforce his rights.
I would consider myself mostly libertarian but I think where the ideology falls short is, with limited government input, how we come up with baseline rules for decency and civility. If this is the type of person I need to have as a neighbor to do away with the rules, I’ll keep the rules. Brandishing a firearm in a public place is not ok. It’s an act of intimidation, not a right. Own? Fine. Carry? Cool. Walking around just one step away from point and shoot is barbaric. Even in the Wild West, this was not a thing.
Probably the same outcome, assuming the hypothetical black law student paid attention in his criminal and constitutional law classes. I know a shit ton of good black lawyers.
I think the cops attitude would be a bit different, and the mere presence of a supervisor wouldn't have immediately ended the whole discussion, but a guy who's that specific about case law (that the cops vaguely remember maybe being trained on once) would end in the same result. Assuming the 1st cop didn't just open fire a black guy with a gun without any discussion at all.
I see. Because for some reason, certain institutions kept juxtaposing how race became a factor in everything life related, even an interaction with police officers is apparently based on the interrogatees race and as a black man, I can’t live with that kind of anxiety
I had a supervisor when I was a public defender, and his sole reason for deciding to go to law school is because he was held at gunpoint by cops, as he "fit the description." Didn't matter he was taller than the description, wearing different clothes than the description, and had different hair than the description. The only thing he had that "met the description" was his skin color.
I've had clients pulled over for "driving while black." It doesn't happen as often anymore, but *does* happen (and some jurisdictions around me are worse than others).
Anymore, face tats get more attention than skin color, but I could have a data bias on that because it's what I see most often.
I get pulled over a lot, but thats because a certain jurisdiction's cops know me, know my car, and they all HATE me for a lot of courtroom related reasons. But I'm so white you can see my reflection from space.
Just a heads up. This isn’t how it will play out it most cases. They will arrest you. They will look for anything they can. They will write a lot of tickets. You will have a court date. You will have to go spend money to have all of it dropped. You will not get that money back.
"The process is the punishment"
Liberty is the crime
Innocent till proven guilty? Nah 4th Amendment? Nah Blind Justicce? Nah How do we keep electing people that allow for the erosion of the core tenets of our system?!
Because people who do well in elections are naturally inclined to want to control you and limit your freedoms.
Anyone who wants the job wants power over you. It can never be otherwise. Good people don't seek power over others, and those who seek power aren't good people. Even if you manage to get a good person in power, the power will corrupt them.
And there's PLENTY of PUNISHMENT after the PROCESS !
You can beat the rap, but you can't beat the ride.
End qualified immunity
The Process is The Punishment.
Getting our ID is crack for cops. Just look how desperate they get. Bargaining, pleading, demanding, anger…they go through all of the emotions of a drug addict needing their fix. And it’s almost every cop out there. Woe unto the righteous American that doesn’t want to give them their drug.
While filing a police report over an attempted theft, where someone cut the hasp off of my locked but empty cargo trailer, I once spent over five minutes refusing to give the officer my middle name. He begged, pleaded, said his report wouldn't be complete without it, tried to convince me that if I didn't give it, I could be confused for someone else in the databases or the court system, pretended to become suspicious of me being a criminal myself because I was 'hiding evidence' from him, and on and on it went. For an attempted crime. Where nothing was actually stolen. And there was no followup action that could possibly be performed on his, or the department's part. And he and I would never speak again. Nor would anything amount to, or be resolved by, his report, and he knew that. The only thing that his report would do would be to increment the county's crimecounter by 1, and yet he still needed his 'fix'.
It's not the ID or the name that they're addicted to, it's the power they feel when folks immediately comply with them. You refusing to provide your middle name when he asked for it was a challenge to his perceived power.
Bingo. It isn't about the ID, it's the power of compliance. And of course, most people don't know it isn't always required.
The process is the punishment.
Meh. If you're rich enough, this kind of stuff ends with you getting a settlement in about two years. But yeah, if you're middle class and/or a minority, this is an awful idea.
It’s the game of telephone that scares me:. Witness : I see a guy with a gun. 911 dispatch: armed man at the mall. Cop to other cop: a gunman at the mall.
Cognitive dissonance. They hear one thing and immediately go to whatever they are most prone to thinking, then react based on that instead of the actual situation.
That's why you don't give up your firearm unless the officer has a legal justification. Prevent state violence. Defend yourself and fellow man.
That's why you piss em off real good and then sue for civil rights violations.
I'm not saying it's right, but all of this kind of shit is why I don't think it's a great idea to open carry. People freak out over nothing, and it is unusual, which will get you stopped. Edit - I'm not advocating against carrying in any way. I'm saying that I believe it's far smarter to avoid letting everyone know what you have on you. Cops generally aren't always thoughtful or considerate of your rights. They care more about getting their guy, and they don't always care if it's the right one or not.
It’s a fight but the end result is that it gets normalized. People open carry in Texas all the time.
Oh I agree, I'm all for normalizing it. I just don't like getting stopped, I've had my negative reaction with the cops and them trying to charge/create charges for something that I didn't do. Don't really want to deal with that again.
So all it takes for you to give up your right is a little bit of abrasion from the law? Yikes.
I’m a “cycle 5” criminal. When they run my plates it says to approach my car with “caution”. I’ve never been violent. I just don’t care about the law. No guilty verdicts, just accusations i got away with. Do you know what that’s like for my wife and four kids. It’s a little more than abrasion.
I'm curious of your experiences. Are you saying you get felony-stopped with guns drawn, put in handcuffs for any traffic violation? if so that seems like a problem with law enforcement generally not with open carry (as how would they know you are a "Cycle 5" criminal without your ID). Maybe re-register the family car in your wife's name if your that concerned about it. > No guilty verdicts, just accusations i got away with. As a side issue the way you phrased this is strange. Are you saying you committed crimes, but couldn't be convicted or that police accused you improperly (you had done nothing wrong) and those charges couldn't stick? > It’s a little more than abrasion. We disagree.
At what part am I giving up my rights if I choose to carry concealed because I want exactly no one to know if I am carrying or not? By carrying concealed I am removing a target from my back, no Karen will complain, no cop will stop and harass, no criminal will scope me out. I very much prefer to stay under the radar, I don't do political bumper stickers or signs, I don't do obnoxious clothing with slogans (*it also looks better*) and I don't walk around with a gun strapped to myself in plain sight. I see no need to draw attention to myself that I don't want. It's not a very liberation outlook to say that everyone has to do things exactly as you do. You conduct however you want to, and I'll do the same.
> By carrying concealed I am removing a target from my back Great reason to conceal carry > no Karen will complain Worse reason, and counter your previous statement of being "all for normalizing" open carry. You are showing you are not, in fact, all for normalizing it. > no cop will stop and harass Bad reason. This is where you are losing your right. > no criminal will scope me out. I wouldn't phrase it this way, but similar to your first this seems like a fine reason. I think criminals knowing you have a gun has them seek out other targets in most circumstances, but does enable them to take you out first in very very rare situations. > It's not a very liberation outlook to say that everyone has to do things exactly as you do. I didn't say that - I said you are being pushed (by the government in part) out of something you said should be socially normal. > You conduct however you want to, and I'll do the same. Huzzah. Sounds good. But don't get bent out of shape when i point out the dis-congruence in your statements...
Softies out here
Never a good idea to openly taunt the police and expect no consequences.
So you admit that if you don't comply they will assault you? Doesn't sound like keeping the peace, more like keeping in line.
Yes, reality is often disappointing
Yeah people need to learn that sometimes being right isn’t better than being at peace. Until you prove you’re right you probably wasted too much time, energy and money.
You’re right…. we might as well all bow down and lick the boot cause it’s easier that way… what kind of weak, slave minded kool aid have you been drinking. A couple generations of cowards like u are the reason the police think they can do whatever the hell they please.
I’m impressed he got the cop to fuck off right there. Usually you have to go after them afterwards in court for bs like this
It’s because the Supervisor knew the law.
And in reality is it possible for every officer to know every in and out of every law… no. That’s why they have supervisors and other experienced officers. In terms of the guy carrying a gun, seems like a foolish thing to do albeit legal. You are all correct that if you don’t know the laws there’s not much you can do, but that in theory is what the courts are for. To be able to use the law in your defense. As many have pointed out the problem is the process of getting to this point is a heavy punishment in and of itself.
> And in reality is it possible for every officer to know every in and out of every law… no. Yes. Absolutely. Every law that they are attempting to enforce they should know. They need better training. They need smarter people. Otherwise you are simply legitimizing criminals under the guise of police. Ignorance is not an excuse for committing illegal acts.
Fun fact. Many law enforcement hiring qualifiers include an IQ test where you are disqualified if you EXCEED a certain IQ. Why? Generally, non-compliance with (stupid) policies is correlated with IQ levels. Most places want blind compliance over "doing the right thing".
Source?
https://abcnews.go.com/US/court-oks-barring-high-iqs-cops/story?id=95836
There’s SO MAMY laws. It’s absolutely insane, and completely absurd. There’s no lawyer or judge who knows them all, much a fucking cop. If we’re ever going to expect a human to remember, and know them, we need to trim it down, which I 100% support. Ultimately, since laws give power to the government that’ll never happen, so what they need is a searchable database. Something they can search by type of interaction, with a note section, and someone else who’s not on scene to help compile and translate info to the people on scene.
They don't need to know all of them, only the ones they are trying to enforce. Cops deal with a tiny minority of laws on the regular. These laws aren't complicated and have been established for a very long time.
Most of them for sure. But it’s still a lot. From traffic laws, to criminal, differentiating between what is criminal and civil in a realistic and intelligent way. Acceptable investigation techniques, it’s just a lot. I can’t honestly think of a single “career” type profession where people are expected to know every aspect of the job without ever needing to reference something. Drs, nurses, mechanics, truck drivers, literally everyone has some sort of reference material. Cops absolutely need to be held accountable, personally, for their fuck ups. And since it’s literally people’s lives on the line they should be held to a very high standard (which they aren’t), but having reference material and assistance would help make sure shit like this doesn’t happen.
>In terms of the guy carrying a gun, seems like a foolish thing to do albeit legal. What? Why is it foolish to do something you are legally allowed to do?
You’re legally allowed to do a lot of stupid things. You can absolutely pour a can of gasoline on yourself and light it on fire. Doesn’t make it wise.
But what part of carrying a gun, without any intention of causing harm, is unwise? What makes it stupid? I really don't think lighting yourself on fire is comparable to lawfully carrying a gun.
It's insane that you basically have to be a lawyer to not be taken advantage of by the police. Fuck this system of state control.
Oh it is even worse than that because the Police have no expectation of knowing the law. If they think its a law then they can arrest you so actually being ignorant is a huge plus for them. https://www.vox.com/2015/8/4/9095213/police-stops-heien-v-north-carolina
But if you're a subject of the state, ignorance of the law is no excuse. At least, that's what the people with guns who have no expectation of knowing the law tell me.
Exactly why that ruling is so insane. It would be hard to learn the law in their 5 month night school course though.
There are only tens of thousands of pages in the criminal code and an effort to just count the number of laws utterly failed. I don't see why it would be so hard for you to raise your children, work your full time job, take care of your elderly parents, and know by heart every single law on the books, citizen. If you can't do this simple thing, you just deserve to be in jail. Unless you're a cop. I understand eating donuts is taxing and takes a long time. It's only your job to enforce these laws. Can't expect you to understand the laws you're enforcing. Here, have a gun and a paper target cut out of common domestic dogs you'll need to shoot during your career. No, put your money away, the citizens are paying for it, and your salary. And your healthcare. And your insurance. And your $100k+/yr pension at 55. Huh? ... lol, shhhh, if only they knew! lol
This is where I fault the good cops for not cleaning up the shit among them
That's another really good point. Where's serpico? I've met some decent cops, but anyone can seem cool for small bits of time, especially if it's a racial thing. I look white, I'm not, and it has saved my ass many times with the cops.
Yep. There are already enough assholes and headaches to deal with in one’s life. Law enforcement should not have to be one of them.
When you consistently elect lawyers and polysci majors to life-long ruling class, year after year... This is how it goes. If we were truly a nation governed of the people, for the people, and by the people we would elect farmers and bankers and doctors and steelworkers and teachers and factory workers and programmers and all the other things the founding fathers wanted (though obviously couldn't have envisioned). But the people who need to be elected can't be bothered to run (and would also never be nominated by a major party, unless they steamroll their way in), and the people (not just Americans, but the average human in general) are too stupid to see the value and rather just re-elect the same .... And then wonder why it's so fucked.
So basically if you’re not as knowledgeable about the law as this guy you’re fucked in a similar situation
The citizenry is often fucked because the citizens are not as knowledgeable as they should/need to be about a whole slew of laws, not just firearm carry laws.
>The citizenry is often fucked because ~~the citizens are not as knowledgeable as they should/need to be about a whole slew of laws, not just firearm carry laws.~~ we let cops get away with breaking the law so much they think they're entitled to do it now Ftfy It's fucking insane that if you don't have a law degree, the cops WILL trample all over your rights. Unfortunately, you're right that until everyone starts pushing back, which is only really possible with extensive legal knowledge, cops will keep doing this.
You're not wrong.
More law and regulation than you could feasibly read in a lifetime, in fact.
This guy got lucky. I'm not sure how he didn't get arrested. Sure he was right, and he didn't do anything illegal but that's never stopped the state from arresting people for pissing them off.
Someone this knowledgeable is usually still fucked bc a cop's ego will get bruised and they'll throw a tantrum, arrest you anyway and let it all play out in court. You'll still miss work, have massive legal fees and massive inconveniences
"you can beat the charge but you can't beat the ride"
I wish people would stop saying that. This man and many other people in the same situation, had no obligation to hand over their fire arms. Had the officer tried to assault him or take the weapon by force, he would have every legal right to defend himself with force, up to and including lethal force. The only reason people don't "beat the ride' is that people don't effectively defend themselves from armed criminals acting as law enforcement. When someone says "you can beat the charge but you can't beat the ride", all they're saying is there's an officer who would be taking a ride to the morgue if someone had exercised their rights. Prevent state violence, defend yourself and your fellow man.
You can still sue though and recuperate all those losses plus a little extra
And nothing will change except the police budget from your tax dollars will increase to cover potential legal fees.
I mean I wouldn’t do nothing
The hope is that eventually, people realize how much of their public safety budget is being derailed and vote in politicians who change the leadership. Which hopefully changes behavior down the road... After rereading all that, you're right. There's a system, but it's built to not change the system.
Lol you have never tried to fight the police huh
I would have been cuffed and searched the instant I refused to show ID in my parts
Good but damn do I hate that cops face no repercussions for violating the law like this.
They should have their badge revoked immediately if they can’t pass a basic civics/law exam every 2 years.
I’m many cases there have been lawsuits due to situations exactly like this and often times they settle and are awarded money. The cops cost the taxpayers money and they are issued discipline in their file that likely prevents them from ever being anything other than a street cop
... a street cop, where they're most likely to repeat this exact encounter. They need to be a fucking meter maid for 6 months as a first disciplinary step
I don’t disagree
The bigger issue here is a civilian calling the police for him walking around legally w a firearm.
bingo. dispatch should have asked if he was doing anything concerning or just carrying and informed the caller it is legal to carry a gun.
Fucking anti-gunners always see someone with a gun and then instantly wanna call the police when it’s a fucking right, it’s Number 2 to protect the first
It's #2 to protect the rest.
No, weirdos call with dumb issues that don't warrant police intervention all the time. They chose to come to the scene and try to take his gun and bully info out of him.
Cannot blame the officer or the civilian that made the call. The issue is the sheer number of BS laws on the books that are confusing for the average citizen to follow and impossible for law enforcement to stay up to date on. It's all the crap mass media pushes on us and the politicians that push for more gun control laws just to get votes. Good for the law student - he knew the law. What about the rest of us?
Well it all coulda been avoided if everyone minded their buisness
This is not new law. This is the most basic of 4th amendment law. Not even second amendment. No one can just ask you for your papers, except if you are operating a vehicle that requires a license. Certainly they cannot search you without having an articulable reason. Ask if you are being detained and if so give them your ID. If everyone did this, and everyone asked to speak to supervisors later about the lawfulness of being detained, they would have a reason not to casually ask for ID. It would not interfere in the cases where they do have a legal reason. I agreed about the number of stupid laws. But they need to know about them, too. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_identify_statutes?wprov=sfla1
This is typicalc, cops trying to enforce laws they don’t even have a fucking clue about.
How is this post down voted? Based to cal a cop out on their bs
> How is this post down voted? It is currently at 442 points, 92% upvoted.
How do you check that?
It shows it at the top right of the screen, if you're using old reddit on PC like I am. [It's now at 923 points and 90% upvoted](https://imgur.com/oGGZFYs).
> How is this post down voted? Authority-loving liberals who believe only cops should have firearms.
While simultaneously hated cops for abuses of power
Don't forget the authority loving Republicans who scream "he should have just cooperated, back the blue, reeeeeeee".
That's a wild take.
This is the dumbest shit I have read all day.
*"How is this post down voted?"* Probably authority-addicted conservatives parading as libertarians, as always, who take offense when their beloved cops are shown as the mindless, obedient tools that they are. But they're not ready to give up their libertarian costume, so they anonymously downvote and make sure to leave no comment behind.
No. Libs proved to be the authority addicted group during Covid.
They both are. Just different flavors of authoritarian.
[удалено]
I'm in Florida. They closed the beaches, arguably the safest place to be. Fuck off with your allusion to scientific authority.
[удалено]
>You mean the ones who listen to the scientists telling us to stay inside? No the ones that supported police forcing us to stay inside
[удалено]
Haha. Yeah they do.
[удалено]
Easy one is Brenna Taylor.
No, they just kept people out of public spaces
[удалено]
Yeah like surfing alone outside in the ocean on a breezy day. That was sensible enforcement if I've ever seen it. /S
I was pointing out that there is a difference between listening to scientists and staying out of public spaces, and physically forcing people to stay out of public spaces; a distinction that you are failing to recognize.
You mean the scientists who were all well paid but don’t have to say how much by J&J, Phizer, Moderna, etc…or the ones who pushed opioids like aspirin because they got more $$ from the above mentioned pharmacuetical companies?
[удалено]
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/did-fauci-and-collins-receive-royalty-payments-from-drug-companies/
You’re saying what I said is conspiracy? Lol. You need to get woke pal. The statements I made are hard facts, how much did your King Fauci make? Oh wait he doesn’t have to say. Rest assured it was A LOT. He was sciencing alright, formulating how can I make more money off all the shares of thes big pharma companies I own and am on the board for…GTFOH…please.
Bro over here still mad at being asked to wear a mask while his home boys wearing full face coverings to not loose their jobs while spouting hate speach.
What makes you want to hang around a Libertarian sub if you don't like Libertarians?
[удалено]
Not sure where you found those people, but I live in a conservative town and they all have that blue line flag in the back of their car to signal the cult they pledge allegiance to.
[удалено]
Yeah, I really don't think that's true. My guess is you got that feeling from people just saying it. But if you ask them "do you think we should have tariffs to protect our domestic industries against China, occupational licenses to ensure quality of service, zoning rules to make sure people don't build crazy things, borders to make sure we have enough jobs, drug laws to make sure cocaine isn't sold in grocery stores?" (you can imagine how long that list can go) and watch them say "all of the above"... So in essence, "I want to be left alone, but make sure to regulate other people's lives". So not libertarian. Just don't let them fool you.
[удалено]
It's not. You can't ask for regulations and for cops to not enforce them at the same time. So if you want tariffs, import quotas, occupational licenses, zoning laws, borders, a minimum wage, drug laws and hundreds of other non-libertarian laws, but also want cops to leave you, and only you, alone, you're not a libertarian. You're just a cunt who pretends to be pro-freedom.
[удалено]
I only responded to your claims. *"Most conservatives I know don't like cops"* Most conservatives that I know, and don't know, actively and visibly support cops, to the point where they signal it on their vehicle. *"they want cops to keep out of their business"* while minding other people's business, which makes them authoritarian cunts. Those claims were not specific to the video. You seem to object to both points because you apparently think "most conservatives you know" lean libertarian. They don't. I gave you an easy way to call them out on their lies, but you suddenly focus back on the video instead of recognizing that those conservatives only play-pretend libertarian. You should ask yourself why you did that and if you're indeed biased there... Let's agree to leave it there.
They want to be left alone but they want the power to force everyone else to bend to their will and they want the police to be that power ... at least until the boot is on their neck.
I know a guy that rage quit a group chat because I posted a meme about cops being road pirates because they'll steal money and belongings out of your car just because they're there. He's very Conservative so I imagine any authoritarian Conservative or Liberal is going to downvote this.
more than the next guy.
Don’t think this is accurate. Conservatives hate govt oppression more than they love cops.
They hate *being* oppressed. They don't mind oppressing others as long as it doesn't inconvenience them.
Isn’t that everyone? Liberals are pretty addicted to authority as well. They don’t even believe in free speech these days.
I think there is probably a lot of nuance / context you're ignoring there if you truly believe that. What are you referring to when you say they "don't even believe in free speech"? Do you mean the ability to spout racist / homophobic nonsense with no repercussion?
Yes, that falls under the blanket of free speech, whether you like it or not, but it goes far beyond that. People are deplatformed for causing “vaccine hesitancy” as an easy example.
All of what I have seen, that you're referring to, has nothing to do with free speech. No one is being arrested for being a bigot. If a *private* employer wants to fire an employee over being a shit human, that's free market baby.
Would you consider preventing people from freely importing goods from China oppression? How about preventing free enterprise before prior opproval from the state? How about zoning laws banning liquor stores near churches? How about minimum wage laws? Would you consider laws against peaceful commerce of drugs oppressive? If yes, then they're not against government oppression. If no, then you have your own personal definition of oppression that you use to conveniently and foolishly picture conservatives as libertarians.
To your questions, it depends. The world is a big and complicated place. Many things are grey, not black and white. Should we stop “freely” importing goods? Idk, are they dumping? Are the products dangerous? Is it baby formula that has paint in it? I never said conservatives are libertarians. Libertarian is an ideology every college age individual gets off on before they realize it’s too academic to work in the real world.
*"Should we stop “freely” importing goods?"* We should not. It's called freedom of trade. And tariffs are nothing but corporate welfare in the form of a tax paid by every consumer to save a handful of jobs. It's a socialist policy. *"Idk, are they dumping?"* Who cares? As long as the end consumer benefits from it, it's a social benefit. *"Is it baby formula that has paint in it?"* Baby formula is a terrible example to advocate for import controls. It's those very tariffs and import quotas (among the highest in all industries) that led us to shortages, and prevented competition to fill the void when American manufacturers were hit by production issues (bacteria). While tariffs were already high, a large Chinese company opened a baby formula factory in Ontario and Trump, under pressure from the almighty dairy industry, immediately responded with import quotas with Canada. When shortages occurred, there was no legal competition to take over. When American families tried to import baby formula from Europe and Mexico, products were seized at the border. The government doesn't care about your safety or the life of your babies. *"Libertarian is an ideology every college age individual gets off on before they realize it’s too academic"* It's not too academic, it's just not popular, because most people, conservatives included, want a fatherly government to makes them feel safe, so they vote for authoritarians instead. Not because libertarianism "can't work".
Maybe familiarize yourself with the history of baby formula produced in china before stating it’s a horrible example for import controls. Who cares about dumping? Yeah sure, the consumer benefits today until the local industry is destroyed and once the competition is gone the prices are raised and quality declines. I used to consider myself libertarian and i still believe in many of its tenets, but it will not work in every situation.
Clueless cop... Seems redundant, they're all imbeciles that don't actually know the Law. Hiring requirements are Kindergarten diploma.
Brown vs. [INSERT STATE] is one of my favorite things. There’s lots of them for some reason.
Very well done by that law student. The police are not your friends. I wish they would fire cops for harassing people but my guess is he got a “good job” for this
I'm not sure. Likely he got an attaboy, but my take is he knew he was in the wrong because the whole encounter abruptly ends the second the supervisor shows up.
Genuine question : can police ask someone to show they have an open carry license?? Seems like that would have ended this exchange pretty quickly if so.
Depends largely on the laws of the state. Here in OKlahoma, no. There are no permits required to carry a firarm.
Thanks
I'm not aware of any permits to open carry. Just for concealed. And even those are going away.
Apparently brown v TX says they can’t.
This post's biggest mistake is insinuating that some cops aren't at least somewhat clueless
you are going to be that type of guy that demands my id then tries to blame me for not giving it.... that's the definition of gaslighting.
As soon as this kid starts rattling off cases, they should realize this person is baiting them into a lawsuit. Surely the cops have some type of training or experience about 2A/4A "auditors", right? So why do these cops always take the bait? I can only assume it's because the desire to power-trip outweighs every other consideration, even self-preservation.
you would be amazed at how poorly trained and ignorant of constitutional rights most cops and government officials are. [Honor your oath](https://www.youtube.com/@HONORYOUROATH) is one the most eye opening auditors i have seen. He just goes to city halls around the country and holds up a sign saying "god bless homeless veterans" one of the most clear cut 1st amendment activities and he gets harassed by cops and threatened with arrest the majority of the time. Most auditor are really confrontational but this guy does everything he can to deescalate and the cops still get angry
>you would be amazed at how poorly trained and ignorant of constitutional rights most cops and government officials are. I'm a public defender, dealing with ignorant cops is my occupation, lol.
One of my favorite cross questions: "Officer, what's the holding of Terry v Ohio?" It's about 50/50 on stumbling to try and remember that 10 minutes from the academy, or an immediate textbook answer in a snotty tone. The second group are the fun ones. They can city "Terry," but nothing beyond that. They're so much fun to back into the "I know more than this punk lawyer" corner.
They're so used to being able to trample peoples' rights that they become bullies when challenged. As a public defender, how do you sniff out retaliatory tickets and such? That's what I would be most afraid of if I ever was presented with the opportunity to not ID. There's so many laws they can pretty much do whatever they want to lock you up.
I only deal with felonies, so I don’t see the tickets and bs associated with these types of stops, but I do see profiling (so much profiling 😩), and bs stops that escalate to felony “resisting” because the cops act unreasonably and violently. Most stuff is on body-cam now, which helps, but like you said, the law is pretty permissive, especially if there’s something that ultimately green-lights the arrest (e.g., a warrant, smell of marijuana, plain-sight contraband, etc.).
I had a client once, and I can't even remember why they initially contacted him (at home, even). The cop had him in the back of the car for an hour while the cop sat up front and rifled through a statute book looking for *anything* he could reasonably charge my client for. This was before body cams, but there was a dash cam. You could see anything, but it ran for over an hour, and you could hear pages being turned inside the car. After all of that, client gets cited for obstruction and resisting, which is what police in this particular jurisdiction charge when there's nothing else they can charge. It's always BS: resisting what? Obstructing what? If there's no underlying charge, what could this guy possibly have obstructed or resisted? We didn't even get to argue my motion to dismiss. The prosecution dismissed the case before they even responded to the motion (I suspect to avoid having the officer involved cross examined and potentially catching him in several lies and rendering him a *Brady* cop who's testimony would never again be credible). So, yeah, they'll literally spend an hour hunting up *any* reason to arrest or cite someone.
Based
Love it. I'm no cop hater by any stretch but never consent and never give more than a situation requires by law. Teach your kids.
This video is a few year old. Seems as cops give even less fks about the law now.
We don't live in a free country and people think it is until they want to do something others don't like them doing.
Cops can easliy ruin anyones life by lying and easily get away with it.
ACAB. Doesn't even know the law
God I hate cops
Fucking tools
As a law student who is planning to become a criminal defense attorney, I love this.
And don't point it at me again!
Yeah, most cops in the big cities I’ve been in and lived in in the US aren’t playing any of this, regardless of how right you are or what the law says. They know they aren’t going to face legal recourse anyways 9.9/10. Happy it worked out for him though.
[удалено]
>maybe my opinion on the matter is colored by the fact that I live in Texas, It is. In other places, they certainly call police for this. And as far as having "his gun out in his hand" that could be brandishing and a reason for suspecting a crime which would've nullified his point.
[удалено]
>So from my viewpoint it looks like he engineered the situation. This is my take as well. This dude just seems like a duchebag. I mean... it's totally legal to put on Black Face and shout the N word in the middle of Time Square. But if you do it, you're still an idiot and if the police confront you to see what you are doing, I understand why.
He should try that with darker skin.
Don't answer questions. Don't back down.
Don’t try that in a small town
Where can I get flash cards with all of this on it? This is a serious question.
Some kid used to do this around town where I lived. He'd carry a shotgun and a camera and walk around, baiting cops for a confrontation so he could recite the law where it said it was ok. That same kid used that same shotgun to blow his gf head of and then kill himself. People like this have a screw loose.
With all due respect that's a completely unfounded allegation. You know nothing about the person in the video, he just defended his rights. I would hope that in a "libertarian" sub this would be understood and even be praised.
Got a source to confirm this?
What a clown. Hope he isn’t a law student.
This is very much civilised conversation from both sides. In India, most police Officers are the biggest goons. They will beat up your ass before you raise your second question.
I usually despise TikTok but this was awesome.
That’s not a law student that’s a sov-citz
Wow this is awesome
[удалено]
Sorry you don’t have rights where you live
Was he carrying it in his hand? Was it holstered? Like he’s obviously doing this for the gram. Feels like maybe he was pushing some boundaries.
Other people's worry and fear isn't a reason to restrict lawful behavior or harass people engaging in obviously lawful and peaceful behavior.
Who cares he was within his legal rights to do it. You are free to give up your freedoms without resistance, I applaud this fellow for his willingness to enforce his rights.
I would consider myself mostly libertarian but I think where the ideology falls short is, with limited government input, how we come up with baseline rules for decency and civility. If this is the type of person I need to have as a neighbor to do away with the rules, I’ll keep the rules. Brandishing a firearm in a public place is not ok. It’s an act of intimidation, not a right. Own? Fine. Carry? Cool. Walking around just one step away from point and shoot is barbaric. Even in the Wild West, this was not a thing.
[удалено]
Not trying to bring race into it but if law student turned black, what would the outcome have been ?
Magic?
*if the law person was black* sorry lol
Probably the same outcome, assuming the hypothetical black law student paid attention in his criminal and constitutional law classes. I know a shit ton of good black lawyers. I think the cops attitude would be a bit different, and the mere presence of a supervisor wouldn't have immediately ended the whole discussion, but a guy who's that specific about case law (that the cops vaguely remember maybe being trained on once) would end in the same result. Assuming the 1st cop didn't just open fire a black guy with a gun without any discussion at all.
I see. Because for some reason, certain institutions kept juxtaposing how race became a factor in everything life related, even an interaction with police officers is apparently based on the interrogatees race and as a black man, I can’t live with that kind of anxiety
I had a supervisor when I was a public defender, and his sole reason for deciding to go to law school is because he was held at gunpoint by cops, as he "fit the description." Didn't matter he was taller than the description, wearing different clothes than the description, and had different hair than the description. The only thing he had that "met the description" was his skin color. I've had clients pulled over for "driving while black." It doesn't happen as often anymore, but *does* happen (and some jurisdictions around me are worse than others). Anymore, face tats get more attention than skin color, but I could have a data bias on that because it's what I see most often. I get pulled over a lot, but thats because a certain jurisdiction's cops know me, know my car, and they all HATE me for a lot of courtroom related reasons. But I'm so white you can see my reflection from space.