Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 53

Thread: Albuquerque Police Arrest Man For Carrying Legal Weapons

  1. #1
    Campaign Veteran smellslikemichigan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Troy, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,321

    Albuquerque Police Arrest Man For Carrying Legal Weapons

    http://abq.policecomplaints.info/blo...nt_rights.html
    "Albuquerque police recently arrested and charged a man who was apparently doing nothing more than carrying a firearm.
    According to public records obtained by Police Complaints, the man was seen near San Pedro and Central one evening in August, riding a bicycle and carrying a rifle. Out of respect for his privacy, we have chosen not to release the man’s identity. But we can tell you about the officers who stopped him."
    "If it ain't loaded and cocked it don't shoot." - Rooster Cogburn
    http://www.graystatemovie.com/

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    "may I blink?" ... what a joke ... don't like a guy with a rifle? Then follow and watch him if you like...

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    , Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    127

    St John v McColley

    This is going to be expensive for the officers, the department, and the city. St John v McColley says it all. This was in the 10th circuit--in New Mexico--Alamagordo in fact and serves notice that this action was VERY illegal and the officers should have known what they were doing was wrong.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    454
    It is indeed disturbing that the police cannot seem to follow or even understand the laws. If I were the guy in question I would absolutely be filing a law suit. These kinds of things are unacceptable.

  5. #5
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    El Paso, TX
    Posts
    1,877
    Most people -- even cops I guess, fearing being held responsible if such a guys DOES do something later and they did NOT stop and check him -- still see these people as possible psycho-shooters on their way to or from a shooting incident RATHER than an armed citizen exercising his rights (I didn't include "her" because I don't know of any woman likely to be carrying like this). People don't see ENOUGH OCers out there in public to get used to it yet...and probably NEVER will, as FEW people OC in ANY state, not just CO. VERY FEW people in ANY state even CC, and the subset of OCers is a fraction of that CC set.

    That's just how it is nowadays...how do you sort it out?

    Didn't read the article so I'm NOT addressing the "arrest" part (if he was found to be acting legally, then OF COURSE he shouldn't have been arrested -- that's a given), I'm just saying that in light of an increasing # of workplace/school/mall/restaurant (and so on) shooting incidents nowadays (and more to come), "checking the guy out" may be in order.

    I just try to see both sides of the issue.
    Last edited by cloudcroft; 11-14-2012 at 04:43 PM.

  6. #6
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by cloudcroft View Post
    Most people -- even cops I guess, fearing being held responsible if such a guys DOES do something later and they did NOT stop and check him -- still see these people as possible psycho-shooters on their way to or from a shooting incident RATHER than an armed citizen exercising his rights (I didn't include "her" because I don't know of any woman likely to be carrying like this). People don't see ENOUGH OCers out there in public to get used to it yet...and probably NEVER will, as FEW people OC in ANY state, not just CO. VERY FEW people in ANY state even CC, and the subset of OCers is a fraction of that CC set.

    That's just how it is nowadays...how do you sort it out?

    Didn't read the article so I'm NOT addressing the "arrest" part (if he was found to be acting legally, then OF COURSE he shouldn't have been arrested -- that's a given), I'm just saying that in light of an increasing # of workplace/school/mall/restaurant (and so on) shooting incidents nowadays (and more to come), "checking the guy out" may be in order.

    I just try to see both sides of the issue.
    In light of the heavy increase in seditious writings in recent years, checking out your computer may be in order.

    Does your examination of both sides of the issue extend to ratifying government's implied argument that exercising an enumerated right justifiably gives rise to suspicion? Did your examination of both sides of the issue include slippery slope?
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    454
    Quote Originally Posted by cloudcroft View Post
    I just try to see both sides of the issue.
    I am very surprised to see this from you.

    There is only one point here. Were the actions against the law? If not, no reason for suspicion. Hence- no reason for being detained.

    You CAN NOT assume wrong-doing.

    The APD should pay for this, big-time.

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by cloudcroft View Post

    I just try to see both sides of the issue.
    Yes, me too.

    Side 1: cops had no right to harass the guy

    Side 2: cops are the one in the wrong

  9. #9
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    @ McBeth

    Please read what Cloudcroft actually wrote.
    Last edited by Citizen; 11-14-2012 at 05:29 PM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  10. #10
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    El Paso, TX
    Posts
    1,877
    Perhaps my recent trip to the Optometrist (to get new glasses, to see things better) didn't go as well as I had thought?

    ...will check with my doctor and get back to you critics later...

    ;-)
    Last edited by cloudcroft; 11-14-2012 at 06:26 PM.

  11. #11
    Regular Member FreeInAZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Secret Bunker
    Posts
    2,573

    Lightbulb

    Quote Originally Posted by cloudcroft View Post
    Most people -- even cops I guess, fearing being held responsible if such a guys DOES do something later and they did NOT stop and check him -- still see these people as possible psycho-shooters on their way to or from a shooting incident RATHER than an armed citizen exercising his rights (I didn't include "her" because I don't know of any woman likely to be carrying like this). People don't see ENOUGH OCers out there in public to get used to it yet...and probably NEVER will, as FEW people OC in ANY state, not just CO. VERY FEW people in ANY state even CC, and the subset of OCers is a fraction of that CC set.

    That's just how it is nowadays...how do you sort it out?

    Didn't read the article so I'm NOT addressing the "arrest" part (if he was found to be acting legally, then OF COURSE he shouldn't have been arrested -- that's a given), I'm just saying that in light of an increasing # of workplace/school/mall/restaurant (and so on) shooting incidents nowadays (and more to come), "checking the guy out" may be in order.

    I just try to see both sides of the issue.
    You make some good observations. I know that talking with ones relatives is a way to start dialog. The Holidays are coming maybe we could share our OC/CC No C opinions. I always carry a firearm it's(they) are never out of arms reach unless its at one of those place deemed a Coroner's Employment Zone aka Pistol Free Zone.

    Communication is always key to winning the hearts and minds of the masses. What better place to start than family. With any luck they will pass the conversation along.

    On a side note* both the OP & I have both been illegally detained ourselves for OC in MI. It is always for a concerned caller that they (LE) show up. It's always "how do we know you're not a felon"? I have on one occasion answered in the politest voice I could muster: " Well officer ____ based on the clear violations of the law that have taken place so far, I guess I should be asking you that question." Response: F@#K YOU! Funny thing is whenever there is a group of OCers together it is rare that they are ever approached by LE. I guess Felons never assemble in groups?

    There are some very good police out there, this I know to be the case from personal experience. However when a good officer does not do anything to stop a bad officer/criminal, doesn't he/she too become what they are supposed to be fighting?
    Last edited by FreeInAZ; 11-14-2012 at 06:37 PM. Reason: clarify, fix fat finger goofs
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    "You must be the change you wish to see in the world" by Mahatma Gandhi

    “Your beliefs become your thoughts. Your thoughts become your words. Your words become your actions. Your actions become your habits. Your habits become your values. Your values become your destiny.” by Mahatma Gandhi

  12. #12
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,915
    Police arrested the man and charged him with disorderly conduct and concealing identity. No firearms-related charges were filed. However, Officer Marcia Benavides is heard on video explaining that they stopped the man simply because he was seen carrying a weapon:
    30-20-1. Disorderly conduct.
    Disorderly conduct consists of:
    A. engaging in violent, abusive, indecent, profane, boisterous, unreasonably loud or otherwise disorderly conduct which tends to disturb the peace; or
    B. maliciously disturbing, threatening or, in an insolent manner, intentionally touching any house occupied by any person.
    Whoever commits disorderly conduct is guilty of a petty misdemeanor.



    30-22-3. Concealing identity/
    Concealing identity consists of concealing one's true name or identity, or disguising oneself with intent to obstruct the due execution of the law or with intent to intimidate, hinder or interrupt any public officer or any other person in a legal performance of his duty or the exercise of his rights under the laws of the United States or of this state.
    Whoever commits concealing identity is guilty of a petty misdemeanor.




    Unless the gentleman in question had identification with a name/address different than his true identity, I doubt a "concealing name" charge is going to stick. I'd be willing to bet (even without seeing the incident report) that what he did was refuse to answer when his name was demanded.
    Last edited by Fallschirmjäger; 11-14-2012 at 07:12 PM.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    454
    As was pointed out in the video, the caller was anonymous. Anonymous callers' rights should in no way ever take precedent over anyone else's- in this case the person riding his bike down the street in a legal manner.

    As far as identification- show me the law in this state where it says you must carry ID, and identify yourself to an officer who has no legal reason to detain you.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Lyman, Maine
    Posts
    905
    When did this happen. The video looks to be time stamped 02/12/2007. Is this old news or am I reading the time stamp wrong? The "Case History" link in the story says the arrest took place in August 2012 and the charges were dismissed against the man on Nov 5 2012
    Last edited by boyscout399; 11-15-2012 at 09:10 AM.

  15. #15
    Opt-Out Members
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Clovis, New Mexico, USA
    Posts
    219
    This actually happened in Aug 2012. The date stamp on the officers lapel cam was wrong. This happens when power from the device backup battery that keeps the bios info is lost - much like your old computer when the backup battery [usually a little coin battery on the motherboard] dies and is replaced.

    On the face of this arrest, APD is certainly open to legal action for violating this mans Constitutional rights in NM. However, without more information, it's hard to make a sound judgment. Based on what we see in the video and the information that's generally available, it sure looks like APD is liable but we certainly do not have all the information. Comments about the mans appearance - "skinhead" - are intended to portray him in an unfavorable light and are unfounded.

    This is going to be an interesting case to watch. I think APD is going to have to really dig deep to justify their actions. In NM, the mere presence of a firearm is not probable cause for an arrest. As to withholding identity, it does not appear the 30-22-3 applies in this case.

    Steve Aikens

  16. #16
    Regular Member NavyMike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Eastside, Washington, USA
    Posts
    196

    Story update

    http://abq.policecomplaints.info/blo...ms_arrest.html


    Case dismissed - officer failed to show up for the court hearing.
    cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscripti catapultas habebunt

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    454
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyMike View Post
    http://abq.policecomplaints.info/blo...ms_arrest.html


    Case dismissed - officer failed to show up for the court hearing.
    Criminal case, yes; civil case- yet to come.

  18. #18
    Activist Member nuc65's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Lynchburg, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,121
    Quote Originally Posted by AH.74 View Post
    Criminal case, yes; civil case- yet to come.
    Good thing the Abq taxpayers have really deep pockets and continue to employ LE who like to push the boundaries of the law.

    I noted that police complaints makes a statement about the respect of the legal carry in a vehicle, but it should be noted that the NM supreme court overturned long held NM case law and now allows the LEO to temporarily seize a firearm for 'officer safety.'

    This is something that NM Citizen's need to codify against.

    9/7/12 – NM Supreme Ct Ruling that officers can take possession of firearm during stop.
    When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force.

    excerpt By Marko Kloos (http://munchkinwrangler.wordpress.com/?s=major+caudill)

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    454
    Quote Originally Posted by nuc65 View Post
    Good thing the Abq taxpayers have really deep pockets and continue to employ LE who like to push the boundaries of the law.

    I noted that police complaints makes a statement about the respect of the legal carry in a vehicle, but it should be noted that the NM supreme court overturned long held NM case law and now allows the LEO to temporarily seize a firearm for 'officer safety.'

    This is something that NM Citizen's need to codify against.

    9/7/12 – NM Supreme Ct Ruling that officers can take possession of firearm during stop.
    I'm not sure I understand what you mean. What does the vehicle law have to do with it?

    First of all, please give us citations to the supreme court ruling and the long-held case law you are referring to. A date is not enough.

    Second of all, it has been codified: in the NMAC it has been established since the CC act went into effect that officers have the right to disarm licensees. If they have the right to disarm licensees, non-licensees would also fall under this right of officers (NMAC 10.8.2.20).

    It is not an uncommon thing or even unreasonable for officers to have this ability, in many other states it is the same. Are you saying officers should not be able to do this?

  20. #20
    Regular Member DocWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Mountain Home, Idaho, USA
    Posts
    1,968
    Quote Originally Posted by cloudcroft View Post
    Most people -- even cops I guess, fearing being held responsible if such a guys DOES do something later and they did NOT stop and check him -- still see these people as possible psycho-shooters on their way to or from a shooting incident RATHER than an armed citizen exercising his rights (I didn't include "her" because I don't know of any woman likely to be carrying like this). People don't see ENOUGH OCers out there in public to get used to it yet...and probably NEVER will, as FEW people OC in ANY state, not just CO. VERY FEW people in ANY state even CC, and the subset of OCers is a fraction of that CC set.

    That's just how it is nowadays...how do you sort it out?

    Didn't read the article so I'm NOT addressing the "arrest" part (if he was found to be acting legally, then OF COURSE he shouldn't have been arrested -- that's a given), I'm just saying that in light of an increasing # of workplace/school/mall/restaurant (and so on) shooting incidents nowadays (and more to come), "checking the guy out" may be in order.

    I just try to see both sides of the issue.
    Trying to see both sides is one thing but to restrict liberty and freedom is another.

    Would you be comfortable with the goverment and cops restricting your travel for security reasons, how about inplanting a tracking device?

    Lets start with them pulling over cars just to check if they have a DL?

    If you would like to live in a police state like Germany in the late 30's and 40's or the USSR in the 70-80's then that is what you advicating by saying cops can just stop someone that isn't doing anything wrong.

    People get into car accidents
    People shoot up places

    Maybe if places like schools and theaters (Aurara) didn't restrict LAC from carrying you wouldn't have as many shooting instead of going after people doing nothing wrong.

    I don't want to live in a police state and be told where to work, when to take a vacation, where to go, and how to live.

    Giving up freedom for "percived" security is a good way to loose both......

    Tomas Jefferson?

  21. #21
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    El Paso, TX
    Posts
    1,877
    "...advicating [sic] by saying cops can just stop someone that isn't doing anything wrong." -- DocWalker

    I did nothing of the kind...please improve your comprehension skills.


    P.S. No news from my Optometrist. :-(
    Last edited by cloudcroft; 11-19-2012 at 03:09 PM.

  22. #22
    Regular Member DocWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Mountain Home, Idaho, USA
    Posts
    1,968

    Angry

    Quote Originally Posted by cloudcroft View Post
    "...advicating [sic] by saying cops can just stop someone that isn't doing anything wrong." -- DocWalker

    I did nothing of the kind...please improve your comprehension skills.


    P.S. No news from my Optometrist. :-(
    My appologies but your quote..... made it sound like your advicating cops "just stopping to check the guy out" even if he hasn't done anything illegal.

    Please correct my comprehension of "checking the guy out" meaning?

    Below is your direct quote.

    "Didn't read the article so I'm NOT addressing the "arrest" part (if he was found to be acting legally, then OF COURSE he shouldn't have been arrested -- that's a given), I'm just saying that in light of an increasing # of workplace/school/mall/restaurant (and so on) shooting incidents nowadays (and more to come), "checking the guy out" may be in order. "

  23. #23
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    El Paso, TX
    Posts
    1,877
    "(if he was found to be acting legally, then OF COURSE he shouldn't have been arrested -- that's a given)"

    That's what I meant. My "understanding" why cops would check someone out does not mean cops should be allowed to act illegally. I don't think "checking someone out" is or ever has been illegal, but arresting someone for OCing (if that's the ONLY "charge") IS illegal. The cops should have known that so why would they do/risk it? Still, maybe there was some OTHER reason the OCer got arrested. Besides, lots of people simply TALK their way into jail -- ask any cop. The "suspect's" mouth or behavior escalated the situation into an arrest.

    Do cops sometimes make bad/illegal arrests? Yes. Is this one of them? Don't know, wasn't THERE.

    So, for example, while I can "understand" why a kid goes to school and shoots bullies, that doesn't mean I "officially" approve of that solution to the bullying problem.

    And I wasn't advocating a Police State, either...so those are wrong (too extreme) conclusions re: where I was coming from.


    P.S. I think most people here have no idea what it's like to be a cop, what they are supposed to put up with from people on the street, and that may be partly why they seem anti-cop. I'm not, although I HAVE met BAD cops. We weren't THERE when this ABQ guy was arrested, but maybe he got "negative cop attention" for something ELSE, not just OCing (which would be an illegal arrest if that's ALL he was arrested for). Who knows? So since I was not THERE, I am not going to speculate further.
    Last edited by cloudcroft; 11-19-2012 at 04:57 PM.

  24. #24
    Regular Member DocWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Mountain Home, Idaho, USA
    Posts
    1,968
    Quote Originally Posted by cloudcroft View Post
    "(if he was found to be acting legally, then OF COURSE he shouldn't have been arrested -- that's a given)"

    That's what I meant. My "understanding" why cops would check someone out does not mean cops should be allowed to act illegally. I don't think "checking someone out" is or ever has been illegal, but arresting someone for OCing (if that's the ONLY "charge") IS illegal. The cops should have known that so why would they do/risk it? Still, maybe there was some OTHER reason the OCer got arrested. Besides, lots of people simply TALK their way into jail -- ask any cop.

    So, for example, while I can "understand" why a kid goes to school and shoots bullies, that doesn't mean I "officially" approve of that solution to the bullying problem.

    And I wasn't advocating a Police State, either...so those are wrong conclusions re: where I was coming from.

    P.S. I think most people here have no idea what it's like to be a cop, and that may be partly why they seem anti-cop. I'm not, although I HAVE met BAD cops. We weren't THERE when this ABQ guy was arrested, but maybe he got "negative cop attention" for something ELSE, not just OCing (which would be an illegal arrest if that's ALL he was arrested for). Who knows? So since I was not THERE, I am not going to speculate further.

    I only refered to your comment that "checking someone out" could also apply to stopping someone with no RAS "just to check them out" even if it is against the law. A cop can't "legally stop cars at random "just because" they might be doing something wrong. A cop could observe without contact from a distance if he/she likes. Nobody would be in a uproar about someones civil rights then.

    As for people being anti-cop; I'm not one of them I have family that are cops, I attended the acadamy in Meridian Idaho and was a CO at the Idaho Max Security prison (aka prisnyland by the offenders from California). Most of my friends either work for the city PD or Elmore County Sheriff. In 9 years I have only met one so called officer that shouldn't be in the job. Make that two I was partnered with one working federal security when he was forced to resign from the city PD while under investigation for dating underage girls. Lucky he wasn't my partner long as he was eventually arrested and convicted. Glad they didn't try to arrest him while we where on duty, I never felt safe with him backing me up. Sure I had my vest, weapon, OC, ASP but never trusted him.

    So the comment of "checking someone out" just with no RAS and now your "negative cop attention" comments do concern me as to me negative cop attention would equal "contempt of cop" which is also not illegal. It may not be wise but it isn't illegal.

  25. #25
    Regular Member DocWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Mountain Home, Idaho, USA
    Posts
    1,968
    Lets put it another way.

    1. Is it legal to OC in the state? Yes
    2. Is it legal to ride a bike in the state? Yes
    3. Is it legal to OC while riding a bike in the state? Yes

    The answer is Yes.

    What is the officers RAS to stop the OCing bike rider? NONE

    After ILLEGALLY stopping the LAC on the bike what law did he break as contempt of cop isn't a law? Disorderly conduct...please

    The cops know they screwed up and didn't show for the hearing as they didn't want to be ripped a new one by the judge.

    The city will pay and it needs to be on the news, I hope the citizens have to pay sevon figures on this one for allowing these rouge cops their bully mentallity. I hope the citizens that pay taxes even know about this but I bet they won't.

    THESE COPS NEED TO BE FIRED.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •