• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Santa Fe OC, the wrong way...

AH.74

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
443
Location
, ,
Your opinion is duly noted.

The man did not initiate any contact. He was not interferring. He was well away from the officer, he had a vested interest in recording, although he did not need one. The courts have routinely held that recording a LEO is not a violation of the law. That he was not found guilty of any crime speaks volumes. That, sir is not an opinion....those are the FACTS.

I'm trying to discuss this in good faith. There's no need for the confrontational tone.

He certainly did initiate contact. He came pretty darned close- too close for the officer's comfort. That's contact in my opinion. He had to be asked to move away.

He had no legitimate vested interest in taking video, other than being a PITA. Need or not- it wasn't his business.

If he had been arrested for interfering, there might have indeed been a good chance of his being convicted of a crime.
 

SovereigntyOrDeath

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 15, 2014
Messages
411
Location
Coeur D Alene, Idaho
I'm trying to discuss this in good faith. There's no need for the confrontational tone.

He certainly did initiate contact. He came pretty darned close- too close for the officer's comfort. That's contact in my opinion. He had to be asked to move away.

He had no legitimate vested interest in taking video, other than being a PITA. Need or not- it wasn't his business.

If he had been arrested for interfering, there might have indeed been a good chance of his being convicted of a crime.

Please get the facts of the video straight. The guy was called by his girlfriend who was getting pulled over. He was filming his girlfriends interaction with the cop.

Make sense now why he was there?

Should he have approached the cop from behind? Not advisable, but not illegal and since he didn't get arrested or charged, I would conclude the approach was legal.

He bruised the cop's ego and that is why the cop pursued the encounter. In my opinion.
 

AH.74

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
443
Location
, ,
Please get the facts of the video straight. The guy was called by his girlfriend who was getting pulled over. He was filming his girlfriends interaction with the cop.

Make sense now why he was there?

I hadn't recalled that it was his GF- appreciate the clarification. I agree now that he had an interest.

That being said- he could have remained across the street and zoomed the video. No need to actually approach.


since he didn't get arrested or charged, I would conclude the approach was legal.

He wasn't arrested because the cop chose not to arrest him. IMO he very well could have according to the interference statute in this state. And if the guy had been arrested, as I said above he would then have had to deal with it- which would have cost him time and money and the risk of being convicted. IMO it was not worth the risk.
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
I'm trying to discuss this in good faith. There's no need for the confrontational tone.

He certainly did initiate contact. He came pretty darned close- too close for the officer's comfort. That's contact in my opinion. He had to be asked to move away.

He had no legitimate vested interest in taking video, other than being a PITA. Need or not- it wasn't his business.

If he had been arrested for interfering, there might have indeed been a good chance of his being convicted of a crime.
Confrontational tone? Really? You can hear my voice? Nope, just checked and my microphone is turned off. :p
You might want to take a glance at my profile to see what I do and why before you suggest that I am not posting/operating in good faith.

I suspect you think I am being confrontational because I disagree with your assessment and conclusions.
  1. SCOTUS has ruled that recording a LEO in public is legal and not interfering with the officer. https://www.aclu.org/kyr-photo
  2. As to vested interest - his girl friend called him on his cell phone requesting assistance. That adds vested interest to what he already has a right to do.
  3. Had he been arrested, there is an extremely good probability of a positive Ka-Ching in his life.

How far away do you think he needs to be? Note he was across the street and did not approach the officer, which he could have done to ask a question, but likely would have had to step back if the officer asked him to wait. Does he need to be 50' away...100'? Answer: none of the prior.

BTW - I have personal experience with such. I was ready to go into a local Food Lion one night when the night mgr/stock boy told me I could not carry there. I waited outside while he called the police instead of getting the written rule he said he was getting to show me. Five cars and 6 officers showed up and tried to intimidate me. Told me to stop recording them and no pictures allowed. After getting what I needed, I asked if I was free to go - no response. I said, "Well then have a good night." and walked off and into a nearby restaurant. Within minutes a Sgt and and officer came in and said they wanted to talk to me. As I was on the phone with a private phone call and declined. They sat down. I got up and called a friend....bring a camera, I need a witness too. Meanwhile I refused to talk to the police and just sat there drinking my coffee...waiting.

My friend showed up and immediately started taking HD pictures outside before he came into the restaurant. We talked for a bit and checked outside - the officers were gone. The power of recordings, two cameras, and a friend willing to come to my assistance.

The next day the manager of Food Lion gave me his personal cell # and a signed permission slip/permit to carry in that Food Lion. The night mgr. was caused to move on to other employment. The Sgt. involved was given desk duty and shortly thereafter resigned to go to a much smaller dept. elsewhere. Those are also facts, not opinion.

Now I have added a dash cam to my tools. Not because I expect trouble, but because I wish to avoid it AND will not give up my RKBA (particularly OC) to placate someone else's opinion that I am a PITA.

That,sir, is discussing in good faith. You are entitled to your opinion, but do not try to sell such to us here as truth, reality, or the final word. We've been down that road before. Hope you learn to look beyond your knee jerk emotions and are able to grow taller from the effort.
 

AH.74

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
443
Location
, ,
Confrontational tone? Really? You can hear my voice? Nope, just checked and my microphone is turned off. :p
You might want to take a glance at my profile to see what I do and why before you suggest that I am not posting/operating in good faith.

I suspect you think I am being confrontational because I disagree with your assessment and conclusions.

That,sir, is discussing in good faith. You are entitled to your opinion, but do not try to sell such to us here as truth, reality, or the final word. We've been down that road before. Hope you learn to look beyond your knee jerk emotions and are able to grow taller from the effort.

I never said you weren't operating in good faith.

I took your tone as confrontational because of the words you stressed, and your use of the word sir. I have no issue with you disagreeing with me.

As far as your last statement, I will say there is no need to be like that. I was only trying to take part in a discussion- that I now regret. Would you be happy with me leaving the forum?

According to the wording of the interference statute, that cop could have arrested the guy. And then he would have had trouble to deal with- and there would have been no "ka-ching" to him at all.
 

SovereigntyOrDeath

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 15, 2014
Messages
411
Location
Coeur D Alene, Idaho
He wasn't arrested because the cop chose not to arrest him. IMO he very well could have according to the interference statute in this state. And if the guy had been arrested, as I said above he would then have had to deal with it- which would have cost him time and money and the risk of being convicted. IMO it was not worth the risk.

I empathize with your fear of loss of freedom, money and time. I too have complied with illegal, unconstitutional commands by those that think they have the power. For those same reasons and because I thought I was doing the right thing by being compliant.

What happened was that I woke up from the Matrix and realized the Truth. My awakening came through education. Reading the Constitution, Bill of Rights, Federalist Papers. Researching the Uniform Commercial Code, The Bible, etc....etc.....etc.....

I realized how much I was taking for granted the Blessing of being born in the greatest country the world has ever known. Our God given rights, etc.

How many brave men and women have died or injured so we have a 2nd Amendment or IV Amendment to the Constitution?

I realized that being compliant to tyranny, I was dishonoring those brave men and women.

They did not chose the easier, softer way. The path of least resistance. No, they did not!
 
Last edited:

HPmatt

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2013
Messages
1,468
Location
Dallas
I empathize with your fear of loss of freedom, money and time. I too have complied with illegal, unconstitutional commands by those that think they have the power. For those same reasons and because I thought I was doing the right thing by being compliant.

What happened was that I woke up from the Matrix and realized the Truth. My awakening came through education. Reading the Constitution, Bill of Rights, Federalist Papers. Researching the Uniform Commercial Code, The Bible, etc....etc.....etc.....

I realized how much I was taking for granted the Blessing of being born in the greatest country the world has ever known. Our God given rights, etc.

How many brave men and women have died or injured so we have a 2nd Amendment or IV Amendment to the Constitution?

I realized that being compliant to tyranny, I was dishonoring those brave men and women.

They did not chose the easier, softer way. The path of least resistance. No, they did not!

I have read once, and am preparing to read a second time - the 7 volume set of books on Geo Washington by the late Richmond resident Douglas Southall Freeman. He goes into great detail on the British use of Bills of Attainder to try and stop smuggling - a super blanket warrant not limited to person date and time - would really piss you off when you got in the way of anyone in government.

When the cop says 'what have you got to hide' - that is the 250 y/o nuclear button for the 4A[emoji1].

I would have zoomed from the far side, rather than coming out into the street. Audio was still there.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
I never said you weren't operating in good faith.

I took your tone as confrontational because of the words you stressed, and your use of the word sir. I have no issue with you disagreeing with me.

As far as your last statement, I will say there is no need to be like that. I was only trying to take part in a discussion- that I now regret. Would you be happy with me leaving the forum?

According to the wording of the interference statute, that cop could have arrested the guy. And then he would have had trouble to deal with- and there would have been no "ka-ching" to him at all.
When you say that you are trying to discuss in good faith and that I am being confrontational, that implies I am not operating in good faith.

However, I am absolutely not trying to cause you to leave the forum. I'm trying to cause you to look into things more deeply before you react - you made several misstatements early on which myself and others have pointed out - they significantly diminish your opinion/argument.

That I called you "sir" is hardly a term of disrespect or insult. Have I been frustrated with your apparent lack of understanding -yes, but using "sir" places you on the footing of being an adult worthy of such a courtesy.

As to the legality of the mans' conduct:
"The Supreme Court's refusal to grant certiorari in the case doesn't necessarily mean the justices endorse the lower court's ruling. But it does mean that at least six of the current justices weren't so opposed to the ruling that they felt the case needed to be heard.

The 1st and 7th circuit decisions mean that it is now technically legal to record on-duty police officers in every state in the country. Unfortunately, people are still being arrested for it. Police officers who want to make an arrest to intimidate would-be videographers can always use broadly written laws that prohibit public disorder, interfering with a police officer, or similar ordinances that give law enforcement wide discretion."

"The charges are almost always either subsequently dropped or dismissed in court, but by then the innocent person has been illegally detained, arrested, sometimes jailed, and possibly paid expensive legal fees."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/27/supreme-court-recording-police_n_2201016.html

When illegally arrested, jailed, and caused to incur legal fees, expect that a civil suit to follow and most frequently to be won. That is in my book a significant Ka-Ching.
 
Last edited:

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
He had no legitimate vested interest in taking video, other than being a PITA. Need or not- it wasn't his business.

So, the citizenry have no "legitimate vested interest" in providing oversight of the police. Got it.

Thanks, it's always nice when somebody provides the KO rebuttal to themselves.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
So, the citizenry have no "legitimate vested interest" in providing oversight of the police. Got it.

Thanks, it's always nice when somebody provides the KO rebuttal to themselves.
He, telling us, what another citizen's business is, or should be, KO'd his position.
 

AH.74

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
443
Location
, ,
So, the citizenry have no "legitimate vested interest" in providing oversight of the police. Got it.

Look, I already said I was mistaken about the vested interest. I opened the video, saw which it was and that I had seen it years ago, and closed it as I did not have time to watch the whole 9 minutes. I did not recall that the girl was his GF.

Oversight of the police does not mean you need to stop and do it on the side of the road as it's being executed- if in fact he had not known the girl that is.


He, telling us, what another citizen's business is, or should be, KO'd his position.

I am stating my opinion. I do not believe it is my business to stick my nose into the actions of police as they are carrying out their actions with other members of the public on the roadside. If you think it's your business to do that on the side of the road, please feel free.
 

AH.74

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
443
Location
, ,
"The charges are almost always either subsequently dropped or dismissed in court, but by then the innocent person has been illegally detained, arrested, sometimes jailed, and possibly paid expensive legal fees."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/27/supreme-court-recording-police_n_2201016.html

When illegally arrested, jailed, and caused to incur legal fees, expect that a civil suit to follow and most frequently to be won. That is in my book a significant Ka-Ching.

You've already stated your position on this- and I am not in disagreement with any of it.

However- here is the relevant statute I have been referring to:

ARTICLE 22
Interference with Law Enforcement

30-22-1. Resisting, evading or obstructing an officer.
Resisting, evading or obstructing an officer consists of:
A. knowingly obstructing, resisting or opposing any officer of this state or any other duly authorized person serving or attempting to serve or execute any process or any rule or order of any of the courts of this state or any other judicial writ or process;

According to the definition of "obstructing," the officer could have legitimately (IMO) arrested this guy for approaching him as he carried out his process. The officer was caused to take his full attention away from the task at hand. What if, during those moments, the driver of the car had produced a hidden handgun and shot the officer? An officer was just shot in Baltimore during a traffic stop- you know this stuff happens.

The officer could very easily have just arrested the guy and then things would have had to be sorted out later. And the prosecution could very well argue that it was an entirely legal arrest. And the judge could very well have agreed with that position. Are you going to tell me that there is 100% chance that is all off-base?

As I said, I have seen first-hand someone being arrested for interfering. And it was for approaching an officer as he was carrying out a process.
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
I approached a cop once while OCing. He was doing coppy things at the end of my (narrow) street – lights on and all – and for whatever reason it seemed prudent to explicitly communicate to him my intention to drive my car around him in the remaining space so that I could go about my business. Since he was preoccupied (and surprisingly oblivious), I stopped 10 meters back or so and approached on foot to a similar distance as the guy in the video in order to accomplish inform him of my plan (the cop had no issue with my approach nor my intention, BTW).

I guess I should have been arrested for "obstructing", or at least tailed and eventually hassled. That would teach me my place, right?
 
Last edited:

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
You've already stated your position on this- and I am not in disagreement with any of it.

However- here is the relevant statute I have been referring to:

ARTICLE 22
Interference with Law Enforcement

30-22-1. Resisting, evading or obstructing an officer.
Resisting, evading or obstructing an officer consists of:
A. knowingly obstructing, resisting or opposing any officer of this state or any other duly authorized person serving or attempting to serve or execute any process or any rule or order of any of the courts of this state or any other judicial writ or process;

According to the definition of "obstructing," the officer could have legitimately (IMO) arrested this guy for approaching him as he carried out his process. The officer was caused to take his full attention away from the task at hand. What if, during those moments, the driver of the car had produced a hidden handgun and shot the officer? An officer was just shot in Baltimore during a traffic stop- you know this stuff happens.

The officer could very easily have just arrested the guy and then things would have had to be sorted out later. And the prosecution could very well argue that it was an entirely legal arrest. And the judge could very well have agreed with that position. Are you going to tell me that there is 100% chance that is all off-base?

As I said, I have seen first-hand someone being arrested for interfering. And it was for approaching an officer as he was carrying out a process.
Not sure what point you are trying to make with "what if." I don't find "what if" possibilites in the statute(s).

A police officer can arrest someone for anything (rightly or wrongly) and it may be up to you to correct that - to that regard nothing is 100% assured.

Bottom line though, the man was not arrested/charged - so see no problem. The incident is finished/over unless the man considers filing a complaint or pursueing civil action.
 

wabbit

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2011
Messages
153
Location
briar patch, NM
while it may be acceptable behaviour shown in the video, please do not forget NM's LEs have a huge problem of shooting and killing a high percentage of civilians whenever, real or perceived, they feel threatened.

what may be acceptable in other parts of the country, some of us in the land of disenchantment maintain a low profile with our firearms when around those who are suppose to maintain the peace.
 

cloudcroft

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 13, 2007
Messages
1,908
Location
El Paso, TX (formerly Colorado Springs, CO)
True, as per the Albuquerque protests recently. But so far, no OCers have been shot (or even CCers I guess).

Most people's mouths and/or behavior get them shot, and I'm not aware of any OCers who would behave that way towards cops, since being armed also, they are especially careful not to escalate an incident.

But it would be interesting to know not only how the ABQ Police Chief views OCers (or CCers if differently), but also how the average ABQ street-cops view them.

So how does the average CCer/OCer in ABQ compare/contrast with those people who HAVE been shot by police?
 
Last edited:
Top