Legal for Police to lie?

[dehalter]

Annoyed Man,

I agree with you on most points. I have seen that video about a year ago. I love it. I have shown it to my sons. He probably should have shown his ID. However, I like the defiance of authority. I would have said, "yes I have a firearm, so do you"!

It must be the freedom lover in me. Like Katrina, unless the cops have a warrant, they cannot come into my house and look at my guns. It is the LAW!! I will be happy to tell it to the judge.

[JNMAR]

This may seem like a very elementary question. I'm not trying to be sarcastic or intentionally obtuse. I've seen a couple of comments in this thread stating, "unless you are detained or you can be detained until verification". I realize that one is under arrest if they've been handcuffed but honestly back in my younger days I don't ever remember being told that I was under arrest or being detained, etc.

So, regarding having to give your name, tell the truth, etc. how is one to tell that he/she is officially detained or is officially under arrest? Is a traffic stop being "detained"? Some of you who are in the know please enlighten me.

[The Annoyed Man]

Annoyed Man,

I agree with you on most points. I have seen that video about a year ago. I love it. I have shown it to my sons. He probably should have shown his ID. However, I like the defiance of authority. I would have said, "yes I have a firearm, so do you"!

It must be the freedom lover in me. Like Katrina, unless the cops have a warrant, they cannot come into my house and look at my guns. It is the LAW!! I will be happy to tell it to the judge.

must... not... rant... aaaaaaarrrrrrrrrgggghhhhhhh!!!

[rant]
The cop was not asking to come into the guy's house. He was asking him for ID. World of difference. Had the cop been asking to come into my house to look for guns, I would have said, "come back with your warrant" and shut the door in his face. Defiance of authority is fine if it is properly motivated. But Crips and Bloods are defiant of authority too. Does that make them figures to be admired? No. Why? Because sometimes the person in defiance is just plain in the wrong. The dude with the video camera was in the wrong and not really justified in doing what he did.

In this particular case, I try to give the cop the benefit of the doubt. It is true that the cop was wrong about the law, and he let his temper get the best of him and should have just left it alone. But that said, the cameraman did interject himself into a situation that was clearly none of his business, in a quasi-aggressive manner. He probably lied about the woman who was stopped being his girlfriend. If I were that cop, red lights and flags would have been going off all over the place. The dude is lucky the cop couldn't pop smoke and call in an airstrike. The videographer picked the fight, deliberately, to elicit the response he wanted to get, to try and make cops look ignorant about the law and bad people. It was a "gotcha" moment of political theater which is puerile and stupid when done by anarchists and leftists, and it is puerile and stupid when it is done by gun rights activists.

I look at the sum total of who has done more for the 2nd Amendment in their lives — a guy like Charles Cotton for instance, who has devoted his life to the proper application of political power and infighting within the system to positively affect the rights of gun owners with an actual track record of success; versus a guy like this yahoo who drives around and picks fights with cops for bits of video theater. This guy isn't worthy to carry a guy like Charles Cotton's jockey shorts. He's a loose canon, an out-of-state trouble maker, and he is going to do more harm than good in the long run for gun rights in New Mexico. I pray to God that he doesn't come to Texas. That's why I actually don't think the video is in any way amusing.
[/rant]

As always, this is my opinion only, and it is worth exactly what it cost to read it. Sorry about the rant. I'm going to 12 step that particular habit of mine.

[rm9792]

This may seem like a very elementary question. I'm not trying to be sarcastic or intentionally obtuse. I've seen a couple of comments in this thread stating, "unless you are detained or you can be detained until verification". I realize that one is under arrest if they've been handcuffed but honestly back in my younger days I don't ever remember being told that I was under arrest or being detained, etc.

So, regarding having to give your name, tell the truth, etc. how is one to tell that he/she is officially detained or is officially under arrest? Is a traffic stop being "detained"? Some of you who are in the know please enlighten me.

A traffic stop is "under arrest" until you are released, any offense but speeding can be jail time. Traffic stops require the driver to have ID though and is moot for this discussion. Passengers however do not have to produce ID and I have had several times the officer asked my passenger for ID. I have been asked for it as a passenger by DPS and I told them I wasnt carrying any. He looked at me like I was speaking martian or something but didnt press the issue. I had a seatbelt on so nothing for him to pursue. I would assume that being detained is tricky to define but you would know it if it were happening. Possibly if they were to "ask" you to stay for a while till they determine if you are the person they are looking for then it might be best to just sit to avoid actual arrest, booking, record, etc because you wanted to be obstinate. I dont agree with this angle at all but the real world isnt like TV where they just walk out of the room as the cops sit meekly by.

[puma guy]

TAM "puerile" WOW! I mean it!

[dehalter]

I will not rant, I just will reply to some of what you said:

The cop was not asking to come into the guy's house. He was asking him for ID. World of difference.

My reply:

I consider my wallet part of my "house/personal" property. So, if I am not driving, you cannot look at it, unless I am under arrest. Again, I will gladly tell the judge.

You said:

In this particular case, I try to give the cop the benefit of the doubt. It is true that the cop was wrong about the law, and he let his temper get the best of him and should have just left it alone.

If the cops were correct, they should have arrested him. They did not, as he had the incident on camera. Made them think twice.

You said:

But that said, the cameraman did interject himself into a situation that was clearly none of his business, in a quasi-aggressive manner. He probably lied about the woman who was stopped being his girlfriend. If I were that cop, red lights and flags would have been going off all over the place.

My reply:

Red lights for what? Other than being an ass, he broke no law that I could tell.

You said:

The dude is lucky the cop couldn't pop smoke and call in an airstrike.

My reply:

Sounds like a police state to me?!?!?!

You said:

The videographer picked the fight, deliberately, to elicit the response he wanted to get, to try and make cops look ignorant about the law and bad people.

My reply:

He did prove that they did not know the law. They need to be educated on the law. After-all, they are tasked for enforcing it.

You said:

I look at the sum total of who has done more for the 2nd Amendment in their lives — a guy like Charles Cotton for instance, who has devoted his life to the proper application of political power and infighting within the system to positively affect the rights of gun owners with an actual track record of success; versus a guy like this yahoo who drives around and picks fights with cops for bits of video theater.

My reply:

No argument here. God bless Charles Cotton!!!

[The Annoyed Man]

TAM "puerile" WOW! I mean it!

I'll bet you didn't think I knew that word.

[The Annoyed Man]

Hey dehalter, good response. BTW, my rant wasn't aimed at you in particular. It was aimed at video guy. Folks like that just get under my skin. Peace to you.

[gigag04]

unless the cops have a warrant, they cannot come into my house and look at my guns. It is the LAW!! I will be happy to tell it to the judge.

Exigent circumstances can get them in your house without a warrant. As can seeing contraband in plain view (though plain view gets tricky with the curtilage of the house being private etc).

I politely suggest learning the laws you intend to discuss prior to teaching them to a magistrate. There are SCOTUS opinions on each of the rights enumerated in the bill of rights. They have a very significant impact in how LE interacts with the public.

[puma guy]

dehalter wrote:
"My reply:

He did prove that they did not know the law. They need to be educated on the law. After-all, they are tasked for enforcing it."

I take no issue one way or the other on most of the comments I've read in this thread. They are opinions. I agree that there are a lot of LEO's as well as civilians that need education on CHL rights (open carry in this case), however, and with out wanting to seem oxymoronic to my previous statement - the two LEO's he engaged are probably not thinking about taking a continuing education course on laws pertaining to carrying. Most likely they have formed a negative opinion of at a minimum the guy with the camera and at the worst all RTC advoctates. We need to have all the friends we can gather, most importantly LEO's. There are better way to point out that there is lack of knowledge regarding RTC law, maybe even having some dialogue without the machinations.

[dehalter]

Hey Annoyed Man,

My rant was not at you either. I am, just a little sensitive about police not knowing the law. I was almost arrested for legally carrying a gun in a state park. The only reason I did not get arrested, is because I happen to be with this LEOs cousin. Since I am good friends with the LEOs cousin, I was able to send him all of the necessary documentation to educate him.

And yes, this camera guy did not help our cause. He was an foot and was looking to cause trouble. Something I would not do. For me it is "Yes officer" and "No officer".

Hey gigag4,

I know that jack booted thugs can kick my door down and take my guns. I have seen the videos in New Orleans. If an officer knocks and says let me see your guns, my response will always be "Get a warrant". It will not be done with my consent, period. Of course, I will be polite. So I do know the laws and my rights. Again, I will tell it to his "magistrate".

[gigag04]

So I do know the laws and my rights. Again, I will tell it to his "magistrate".

I understand you think you do - however, there can be reasons where police can get in your house without a warrant. If you know the laws why do you continue to stand by an incorrect position?

[dehalter]

So I do know the laws and my rights. Again, I will tell it to his "magistrate".

I understand you think you do - however, there can be reasons where police can get in your house without a warrant. If you know the laws why do you continue to stand by an incorrect position?

Here is what I said:

"I know that jack booted thugs can kick my door down and take my guns. I have seen the videos in New Orleans. If an officer knocks and says let me see your guns, my response will always be "Get a warrant". It will not be done with my consent, period. Of course, I will be polite. So I do know the laws and my rights. Again, I will tell it to his "magistrate"".

I stand by above statement. I will not submit to that kind abuse. Again, I will not give permission to come into my house. And I will tell it to his "magistrate". I just hope you are not the magistrate.

So I do not have an "incorrect position". I am only stating what I would do. Now it may get my teeth kicked in, like the little old lady in New Orleans. I realize that. I just hate police states, and will not abide.

Come and take it!!! That is all I can say!!!

[SQLGeek]

I stand by above statement. I will not submit to that kind abuse. Again, I will not give permission to come into my house. And I will tell it to his "magistrate". I just hope you are not the magistrate.

Not to put words in Gig's mouth (or keyboard?) but I think you're misunderstanding.

Gig isn't talking about going door to door and collecting firearms. All he is saying is that there are certain situations where it is legal for the police to enter your home without a warrant. As Gig said, they are called exigent circumstances.

Your statement below is not always correct.

unless the cops have a warrant, they cannot come into my house to look at my guns

http://www.lectlaw.com/def/e063.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Emergency conditions. 'Those circumstances that would cause a reasonable person to believe that entry (or other relevant prompt action) was necessary to prevent physical harm to the officers or other persons, the destruction of relevant evidence, the escape of a suspect, or some other consequence improperly frustrating legitimate law enforcement efforts.' United States v. McConney, 728 F.2d 1195, 1199 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 824 (1984).

[gigag04]

Even destruction of evidence gets tricky. Usually the officer will get in, get everyone and take them outside , and then make them wait while a warrant is sworn out.