Open carry patriot confounds police

[hollohas]

You do realize that there are 4th and 5th amendments to the US Constitution, right?

Pretty sure they didn't search or seize anything from this guy nor was he put on trial or accused of a crime without a grand jury. Nothing was taken from him.

Just because they asked for his ID doesn't mean they broke any of his rights.

It's a non-issue.

The guy open carrying had no rights infringed. He was not cuffed. He was not beaten. He was not held against his will or searched in anyway. He was not arrested or even detained as he keeps saying. He says they shouldn't keep asking him questions without an attorney...that's wrong. It's his job to keep silent if that's what he wants. They can ask him questions all day long with or without a lawyer. What most people don't understand is that the right to an attorney only means they can't use anything you say in court if they keep asking you questions after you have asked for an attorney.

I agree that he was totally within his rights to not give his ID and obviously the police did too becuase they didn't take it by force or arrest him. The police didn't nothing wrong either. They simply ASKED for his ID...where's the issue?

What I am saying is that I would have given these two particular officers my ID. They were professional and polite. I for one don't believe that the police are out to get me and I'm not going to give them a hard time for doing their job.

[hip55]

LEOs can ask all day for IDs, but citizens who are not committing or involved in criminal activity are not required to carry or provide an ID. Nor do I have to let an LEO into my home without a search warrant.

Nowhere is it written that a Colorado resident is required to carry an ID except when operating a motor vehicle. Residents are not required to carry or provide ID to anyone while open carrying a firearm.

Also, you don't even have to speak to a LEO - that is your 5th amendment right.

[hollohas]

LEOs can ask all day for IDs, but citizens who are not committing or involved in criminal activity are not required to carry or provide an ID. Nor do I have to let an LEO into my home without a search warrant.

Nowhere is it written that a Colorado resident is required to carry an ID except when operating a motor vehicle. Residents are not required to carry or provide ID to anyone while open carrying a firearm.

Also, you don't even have to speak to a LEO - that is your 5th amendment right.

I don't disagree at all. Even the Statute I mention above says you maybe required to provide identification "if available"...implying people aren't required to have it in their possession.

[BigBear]

nvm

[hip55]

Agreed.

The 4th & 5th amendment are just as important as any other one, but most people fail to understand much less excercise these rights. I would guess that each and everyone on this board is quite passionate about our 2nd amendment rights and does what they can to promote a better understanding to those around us who are ignorant.

Without our constitutional rights we are just fodder to be pushed around by those that maintain power. To not stand up for your rights when incorrectly confronted by officials that do not understand the law is a failure as a citizen of the United States of America.

[ronaldrwl]

nvm

Nevermind?
Come on Bear get it out

[Elhuero]

probably another cops vs. pets wisecrack

[Byte Stryke]

Nevermind?
Come on Bear get it out

probably another cops vs. pets wisecrack

BB has already had his pee-pee slapped for that and apologized.
C'mon Guys

[jim02]

As long as these guys keep it civil I love to see them remind the leo's of our rights.
No reason to hassle the leo's but when they come to hassle you its nice to remind them of that little document called the Constitution.

[kidicarus13]

The guy open carrying had no rights infringed. He was not cuffed. He was not beaten. He was not held against his will or searched in anyway. He was not arrested or even detained as he keeps saying.

So if the guy would have walked away after he was initially stopped he would have been allowed to leave the presence of the officers without negative repercussions? I doubt that would have been an option with these officers until they had time to think it through as they wisely did. Limiting one's movement is a detention by definition regardless of the length of time he was detained or what you choose to call it.

BTW: I'm not rooting for the police or the guy fishing for the police's attention.