Ugh, not sure what to think. Detained

R

rdm6680

Banned
I don't like people baiting the cops. Its stupid. But, here is the video anyway. This guy has probably never seen a vagina either. Has nothing better to do.

Detained For Open Carry Video
 
i seen that vid before and i think the citizen knows his rights more so than the cops do and was right and standing his ground here.....i'm glad the cops didn't way over step their bounds as well in this situation
 
eagleeyes said:
i seen that vid before and i think the citizen knows his rights more so than the cops do and was right and standing his ground here.....i'm glad the cops didn't way over step their bounds as well in this situation
Click to expand...

They didn't overstep their bounds because they knew they were being recorded, if there was no camera who knows what the cops would've really said.
 
Yeah...well...I think I would have handed over the license.

Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you have to have and produce ID, aside from all firearms issues, like, to be a human in the United States. Isn't there some kind of vagrancy law or some such thing?

But I'll hand it to the guy, he knew his stuff. He needed to slow down and breathe a little, but overall, good show, old chap.
 
this is not nazi germany.......yet but if we keep complying to nazism we will soon be living like the german citizens did in nazi germany at that time and it's getting more and more absurd.....and technological as well

 
localgirl said:
Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you have to have and produce ID, aside from all firearms issues, like, to be a human in the United States. Isn't there some kind of vagrancy law or some such thing?
Click to expand...

Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, 542 U.S. 177 (2004), held that statutes requiring suspects to disclose their names during police investigations did not violate the Fourth Amendment if the statute first required reasonable and articulable suspicion of criminal involvement. Under the rubric of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), the minimal intrusion on a suspect's privacy, and the legitimate need of law enforcement officers to quickly dispel suspicion that an individual is engaged in criminal activity, justified requiring a suspect to disclose his name.

The Court also held that the identification requirement did not violate Hiibel's Fifth Amendment rights because he had no reasonable belief that his name would be used to incriminate him; however, the Court left open the possibility that Fifth Amendment privilege might apply in a situation where there was a reasonable belief that giving a name could be incriminating.[1]
Click to expand...

Hiibel holds that you must identify yourself not that you must hand over ID
 
In Indiana, if you are legally required to identify yourself, then you are not required to produce a state-issued photo ID. You can satisfy that requirement with name, address, and DoB.

Now, try that with a mind-numbed police patrol drone and see if they don't arrest you for failure to identify.
 
i understood you don't have to give a cop your name unless they are writing you a summons or have a legal reason to suspect you of something or detaining you for a legal purpose......they guy in the video didn't even give his name for reasons he cited
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New Threads

Members online

Total: 160 (members: 1, guests: 159)

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
49,523
Messages
610,662
Members
74,992
Latest member
RedDotArmsTraining

Share this page

Back
Top