It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by ANOK
If I had a 'license' to use an illegal substance and stood on the street using it, would you expect a cop to ignore me, or see if I actually did have a 'license'?
How can the idiot not reasonably expect to be questioned, in a country where people shoot people en masse? I appreciate the guys right to carry, but a little common sense would help also. Seems to me he is doing it to be purposely antagonistic. No one can seriously expect to openly carry, legal or not, and not be questioned.
It's not illegal to be naked in the street where I live, but if people call and complain the cops will make them cover up.
edit on 6/25/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by WhatAreThey
My standards are obviously just higher than yours.
... within the realms of that questioning being warranted in the first place.
The guy was not formally questioned. The cop asked him his name.
And we don't know the situation from the other side. What did the guy with the camera look like? How was he acting beforehand? I have stopped and talked to people walking down the road in front of my house many times... if they look like they might be out looking for trouble, I stop and ask "Can I help you?"
Again, there was no force used, no official detainment, no arrest, no charges. All the cop did was talk to him and ask his name.
It's not illegal until it becomes harassment, which was what was clearly happening to the man in the video. He wasn't just asking a question, but asking to see the man's ID. Over, and over.
Harassment is following someone every time they drive within jurisdiction, waiting to catch a wobble. Harassment is questioning someone every day for a month trying to find something, anything, to arrest them on. I saw harassment when I was younger... got news for ya, this ain't it.
If a common citizen did this to a mailman, for example, it would be a federal offense.
Title and code, please? Where is it illegal to ask a mailman for their ID?
False right out of the gate. There exist no federally mandated police investigatory guidelines that blanket every jurisdiction.
Such an outcry over asking for ID... it makes me wonder what the outcry would be if he had been ignored and found out later he was mentally ill and meaning to kill someone. According to what I have read so far, you would still blame the cop, only this time for not checking.
The man obviously felt like he couldn't just leave, going on about his day.
He obviously wasn't doing anything to give the officers probable cause to arrest him, or he would have been.
"Formally questioned", "official detainment" ... Split hairs much?
Harassment:
B. Three or more acts that are made with the intent to deter the free exercise or enjoyment of any rights or privileges secured by the Constitution of Maine or the United States Constitution".
It is a felony to harass a mailman.
Sure, most complaints don't get investigated unless they relate to a crime, statute, or local ordinance.
The cop turns out to be a rude and bothersome criminal once you add up all of his actions.
You just need to get it through your "bow down to authority" attitude that the police officer had no more of a right to do what he did than any other citizen.
As far as your last comment: I don't think that anyone who isn't doing anything illegal or clearly about to do something illegal should be investigated on a "just-in-case" basis. Your ideas are just preemptive for thought police.
Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by WhatAreThey
The man obviously felt like he couldn't just leave, going on about his day.
Oh, yeah... I must have missed the cell bars and handcuffs... no, wait...
Come to think of it, your perspective has some benefits. I was detained today by four red lights. I committed no crime! I wasn't allowed to go about my business! I want a lawyer!
He obviously wasn't doing anything to give the officers probable cause to arrest him, or he would have been.
So, you would have been OK with this whole thing if he had been arrested?
Police have the right as part of their job to investigate. Technically, the guy was impeding an investigation if you want to take it that far... but these cops showed... common sense!
The officer performed one act: questioning the man to ascertain his status and intent.
Thank you for proving my point... unless you want to count the twenty or so steps he took approaching him as twenty or so individual acts. Or maybe we could count each word in his request as a separate act. Better yet, each syllable! Wow, that's probably a few hundred acts... can we get the cop a life sentence here?
The only time a complaint is not investigated is when it is apparent the complainant is trying to harass someone. Typically that is also investigated... and results in legal charges.
It is a felony to harass a mailman.
And of course asking a mailman for his ID is definitely harassment if it takes more than three syllables or you walk more than three steps to do it, or any combination of the above.
Oh, so you convicted him then? I had no idea I was speaking to a judge...
I think the fact I still won't accept your personal interpretation of how you think the law should work speaks to that.
It's only this warped interpretation that makes him a criminal after he takes three steps toward someone unless he arrests them that I cannot agree with.
Ah, so all this is your opinion after all.
I would give you credit for finally admitting that, but it would take more than three characters. I wouldn't want to be charged with harassment.
Driving is a privilege
If he were committing a crime in the presence of the officer, or had aroused probable cause that was warranted and not against case law then I would have no problem with it.
Ultimately, the cops showed that they waste tax-payer dollars and impede on individual rights by harassing free men with demands for ID.
You are intellectually ridiculous enough to believe this harassment statute requires tree distinctly separate acts to constitute harassment and that a repeated (even 50 or 100 times apparently) act doesn't apply to harassment. You are not able to process the meaning of "three or more acts". I'm not here to give reading comprehension lessons.
If that's what you really want to believe, you keep doing it. You make the police sound like a very efficient and helpful force.
I see you enjoy putting a lot of fallacious "filler" in your arguments.
Originally posted by interupt42
reply to post by gimme_some_truth
If the guy is walking around with a gun in the open for no reason,
Originally posted by gimme_some_truth
Originally posted by interupt42
reply to post by gimme_some_truth
If the guy is walking around with a gun in the open for no reason,
I don't recall this man stating his reasons for having a gun...Do you? So, really, you can't fairly speculate as to what his reasons were...He was within his legal rights and THAT is what matters.
Originally posted by gimme_some_truth
He was within his rights, the cops determined he was within his rights, during his detainment and he was free to leave because he was completely within his rights....
You seem to think he did something wrong... He didn't...
Originally posted by Shark_Feeder
Originally posted by interupt42
reply to post by gimme_some_truth
If the guy is walking around with a gun in the open for no reason, then he is seeking attention and bad attention at that. He might have the right to do it (for now), but he is surely providing the politicians ammo to eventually take that right away.
Enough guys like the one in the video start doing things like that, it won't be long before congress will happily step in and legislating new laws to protect us.
So by your logic... all of those ohh so offensive "stand up comedians" I see on TV everyday are only an excuse to remove my 1st ammendment right? You know how offensive they can be afterall.
Are you trying to say the the gov't has never tried to restrict or restrict the boundaries of freedom of speech?
Google’s founder Sergey Brin
"Imagine my astonishment when the newest threat to free speech has come from none other but the United States. Two bills currently making their way through congress -- SOPA and PIPA -- give the U.S. government and copyright holders extraordinary powers including the ability to hijack DNS and censor search results (and this is even without so much as a proper court trial)"
www.washingtonpost.com...
Originally posted by Shark_Feeder
Exercising our rights is an excuse to remove them?.
Originally posted by Shark_Feeder
WTH did you go to school?
Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by WhatAreThey
Driving is a privilege
Now you get to define "warranted"... based your previous legal 'definitions', it might mean "blue" for all I know.
The fact remains that you apparently expect the officer to sit in his car and read magazines until a criminal jumps in front of him and commits a crime.
Exactly how much more did it cost taxpayers for him to walk across the street and talk to the guy? He is going to get paid for every hour on duty regardless of what he is doing during that time. He cost taxpayers exactly ZERO dollars by his actions.
I sincerely hope you are not here for that; I don't think you would be very good at it. By your definition, a police car that turned their sirens on three times in an attempt to pull a driver over who did not press a charge would be guilty of harassment. I assure you they are not.
I believe tasers should be outlawed for police to have, or at least that repeated or unnecessary use of them should be treated as attempted murder.
that they are human beings and citizens like anyone else, with the exact same rights, and that because of all this they deserve a certain amount of respect until and unless they show otherwise through their actions.
When the officer approached, he did not know if the guy was just exercising his right, was a felon trying to conceal his identity
was mentally unstable
with a stolen gun, etc., etc., etc.
He asked to see the gun, a ploy to find out if the guy might have intentions of shooting him
and disarm him
Nothing that happened in this instance was illegal: carrying the firearm, questioning a citizen, refusing to answer, asking three times, nothing. Your opinions, which are not borne out by either legal terminology nor common sense, are simply angry wishful thinking against someone you hate terribly for no other reason than the job they do.
Originally posted by Ark005
The guys filming this seems like he set this up knowing how people and the police would react.
I would agree with the police on this one.
Someone walking down the street will scare people who aren't familiar with the laws will call it in. The police are required to respond any safety issue. But the officer acted as I would expect a decent person to act.
That being said the person filming seemed a little on the confrontational side, like he was trying to get a specific response from the officer. These types of people are as much a problem as the over zealous cops out there.
How many people walk outside with a gun and a camcorder for fun?
With his attitude I think both his gun and his camera should be taken away.