OPEN CARRY VIDEO

[J-cat]

Have you been abused by cops?

[Echidin]

It's one thing to exercise your right to open carry and go about your daily business, but to approach a cop on a traffic stop while exercising that right just seems like you're looking for trouble. You don't know if that LEO has had a similar situation in the past that went south. I don't blame him, I would feel pretty uneasy as well if I were the cop.

[Greg-Dawg]

The officer should've taken the dude in for failure to identify.

Some states require identification.

[J-cat]

Does NM require identification?

[J-cat]

N.M.Stat.Ann. Sec. 30-22-3 (misdemeanor offense to conceal identity "with intent to obstruct the due execution of the law or with intent to intimidate, hinder or interrupt any public officer" in the performance of his duties).

I think in this case the duche did not violate the law, but he still acted like a duche.

[joepamjohn]

It just goes to prove that some people just should not have guns let alone open carry. Sadly the anti's think that is all of us, and a-holes like this give them all the more reason to think that way.

What possible positive outcome could have come from confronting an officer like that? My take is, you go looking for trouble and one day you will find it. I would have loved to see the cops do a colonoscopy on the dude with his own camera.

It won't be long before guys like that get laws and ordinances changed so you can't OC, so enjoy it while you can.

[joepamjohn]

the guy video taping has conjones grandes...

He's a freakin idiot.

[joepamjohn]

The Open Carry Cameraman is an idiot but the cops turned out to be liars and idiots and they are held to a higher standard than a random idiot. Plus if the cop was so concerned when he walked up on his traffic stop
he should have drawn down on him and proned him out and called for back-up code 3. I do not think the cop even saw the gun until he was following him.

You are right he probably did not see the gun which proves that the cop was just doing his job and that should have been respected. I am sure the cop went back to his car and was asking himself why a guy would come walking up on me with a video camera as he watched the guy walk away.

Once the camerman turned and walked away (no doubt to better expose the gun) the cop noticed it and and had every right to ask him questions.

I also don't think the cops were liars, I think they just did not know the OC laws that well. I will bet the next time both of those cops meet another OC guy (who won't see it coming) it will turn out a little different since they will then know what to do, since it was obvious that both cops were not as privy to the OC laws as the a-hole camera guy was.

I also bet the babe in the car was not even his GF.

[CitaDeL]

While I dont wholly support this persons activist methodology, I think most of the posters on this thread have missed one supremely salient point.

The open carrier was not arrested because there was no crime commited.

Further, he stuck to his ground by not volunteering to be the subject of an investigation of a non-crime. If we can disregard the rather douchey opening of the video, where he makes his presence known to the officer- we learn a very important technique in defending our rights. Officer McFriendly is not entitled to the open carriers identity without reasonable suspicion that a crime is afoot. Whether or not the open carrier is a 'prohibited person' is irrelevant until a crime has been commited. These officers did lie in an effort to get the open carrier to voluntarily comply to a search... and their bluff was called.

[bombadillo]

Quote:
N.M.Stat.Ann. Sec. 30-22-3 (misdemeanor offense to conceal identity "with intent to obstruct the due execution of the law or with intent to intimidate, hinder or interrupt any public officer" in the performance of his duties).

I think in this case the duche did not violate the law, but he still acted like a duche.

I don't know, I'd say he did a thorough job intending to obstruct the officers duties by making him unnerved with a man behind him with a gun and a video camera. He absolutely intimidated him in the regard that behind his back there was a man unknown to him with a firearm and could have had any intent to use it. I think those two points made it "Interrupt any public officer" in the performance of his/her duties.

[Kerplow]

Yes, it is true that the cameraman has eggs of steel, but was it smart and/or worth the risk.... I say NO.

i wonder how that would have gone down without the camera?
i have seen cops get waay more perturbed by waay less.

if he's that worried about what happens to his girlfriend when she gets pulled over, he should invest in a camera for her car. it seems like the guy has an agenda and is looking for trouble.

[J-cat]

Quote:
N.M.Stat.Ann. Sec. 30-22-3 (misdemeanor offense to conceal identity "with intent to obstruct the due execution of the law or with intent to intimidate, hinder or interrupt any public officer" in the performance of his duties).



I don't know, I'd say he did a thorough job intending to obstruct the officers duties by making him unnerved with a man behind him with a gun and a video camera. He absolutely intimidated him in the regard that behind his back there was a man unknown to him with a firearm and could have had any intent to use it. I think those two points made it "Interrupt any public officer" in the performance of his/her duties.

Here's a case:

http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:YgN9Ocsfj38J:ftp.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/51/51.F3d.1531.94-2108.html+N.+M.+Stat.+Ann.+%C2%A730-22-3&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

I think the courts interpret this statute as requiring the person to be under some sort of criminal suspicion first.

[tbhracing]

What is with these "Am I free to go" rebels with a video camera? Are they just looking for fame and internet glory?

If you going to go challenge LE with a chip on your shoulder, its not smart.

[corrupt]

I liked this video in what's related

[CCTACTICAL]

Here's a case:

http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:YgN9Ocsfj38J:ftp.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/51/51.F3d.1531.94-2108.html+N.+M.+Stat.+Ann.+%C2%A730-22-3&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

I think the courts interpret this statute as requiring the person to be under some sort of criminal suspicion first.