Albuquerque Police Arrest Man For Carrying Legal Weapons

"...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. :-(

cloudcroft said:

"...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. :-(

Click to expand...

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. "

"(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.

cloudcroft said:

"(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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

cloudcroft said:

The "suspect's" mouth or behavior escalated the situation into an arrest.

Click to expand...

I saw comments on this and watched and listened in earnest to see what was being referred to.

I saw and heard nothing to this end.

He made statements such as "it's not illegal" and "it's legal to do this" and things like that. I heard no attitude, nothing disrespectful, and nothing impolite. He was not rude, did not raise his voice, and seemed to undertake no actions which would indicate behavior escalating the situation into an arrest. He seemed genuinely concerned about the cops not knowing what they were talking about.

Would you kindly elaborate on what exactly you saw or heard to make this observation?

I'm not really worried about the cops as most are fine. I'll worry about the "rogue" cops when they are encountered -- in 63 years now, so far so good. I've heard of worse happening to people. Not me, though. Not yet, anyways.

Yes, I've experienced some cops deliberately or inadvertently misapplying the law (not sure) but most cops have been fine. Then again, like that time I was stopped at 1:45am in the morning (in a residential are that had been experiencing higher burglary rates, and my car/driving pattern looked "suspicious") and there were 3 of them (one first, then backup arrived and 2 more), well, I prefered not to argue any legalities or civil rights -- real or perceived -- with them on-site...did not want to give them any reason to take me to the hospital to get "repaired" and then to jail. I'll leave that "standing tall" to others here more highly principled and don't mind duking-it-out (or worse) with cops over some point of law. Frankly though, I didn't think it was a big deal...except I DID want to hit one of them who was a well-known jerk in that department and NEVER got fired despite all the complaints against him. HE was one of the bad cops that SHOULD have been kicked-off the force. So the apparently prevalent practice of cops not getting rid of their bad apples -- on their own (THEY know who they are), before the public demands it -- or even TOLERATE bad cops DOES bother me. Regardless, that's just how it is.

But then I'm not really worried about criminals out there, either...even though they'd be a whole lot simpler to deal with. Bang. ;-)

Don't care either way, frankly, as it's not an issue for me (and presently, I've more important issues to deal with).

Besides, do you think what you and I believe -- and post here in this forum -- is going to make ANY difference or impact out there in the real world? Is anything going to change?

Hardly.

It's mostly an exercise in self-expression, as in any other forum. Means little (if anything) in the grand scheme of things. Life goes on.

Cops will continue to be cops, and do their jobs for better or worse. If I am ever "seriously abused" by them, then I will pursue some sort of legal action...hopefully fruitful enough to get that condo in Hawaii. And yes, with taxpayer money but that's not MY fault -- I'll take it anyway.

Until then, however, the cops out there are not on my short-list of daily life problems...

AH74

I did not SAY this particular guy did or did not do anything. Don't care what he said or didn't say. I was speakng in-general (hypothetically), re: cops stopping someone who on the surface is not doing anything illegal.

I was NOT THERE, neither was anyone else here, so neither I nor anyone else here a witness to what actually happened. Only the cops or possible bystanders (if any were there to witness the incident) know ALL the facts. And maybe it's just me, but *I* need more than hearsay-evidence to come to a definite (and correct) conclusion re: this incident.

Consequently, and since I don't believe all I read/hear in the media, all I and we can do here is engage in speculation.

...which I am now done with.

Please resume your normal programming...

Fair enough. I thought you were referring to this situation.

I agree with the general observation that many people do "talk their way" into trouble. That's one reason, when I do come into contact with members of law enforcement, that I am exceedingly polite and respectful (and say as little as possible). Even more so since I began cc'ing. Not that it happens often, but a little of that attitude goes a very long way.

True, but remember that even hard-core convicts are usually "polite and respectful" -- comes from all that time in prison being told what to do and when to do it. FEW are the bad-ass types requiring extraction teams "to communicate and explain" things to them. ;-)

So, although I ALSO am polite and respectful -- AND I should add honest with cops when I am stopped (don't make excuses) -- I ALSO know that stuff alone does not define me to them as a good law-abiding citizen...they need a bit more time (and clues) to sort that out.

And of course, no wants/warrants for me coming back over their radio...

AH.74 said:

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?

Click to expand...

First:A copy of the ruling should be here: http://www.handgunlaw.us/documents/agopinions/NMSupCtRulingonTakingFirearmsDuringStop.pdf

Second: Just because a negative has been codified doesn't make it correct. Not only that, your reasoning is incorrect and counter to law. If the law doesn't state something explicitly it most definitely is incorrect to assume what your are assuming. The law must explicitly state the action that makes something illegal, or the actionable item that allows legal action by LE.

Third: Yes I am saying that officers should NOT be able to do this. The 4th amendment is still part of the constitution. Officer safety is a fallacy, used only to violate your rights.

nuc65 said:

First:A copy of the ruling should be here: http://www.handgunlaw.us/documents/agopinions/NMSupCtRulingonTakingFirearmsDuringStop.pdf

Second: Just because a negative has been codified doesn't make it correct. Not only that, your reasoning is incorrect and counter to law. If the law doesn't state something explicitly it most definitely is incorrect to assume what your are assuming. The law must explicitly state the action that makes something illegal, or the actionable item that allows legal action by LE.

Third: Yes I am saying that officers should NOT be able to do this. The 4th amendment is still part of the constitution. Officer safety is a fallacy, used only to violate your rights.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the link. I gave it a quick read but will follow up with a more in-depth study later.

Whether something wrong (in your opinion) is codified is not the issue- the fact that it has been and is part of the law is what really matters.

I know how the law works, thank you. And obviously the Supreme Court felt the way I did in its conclusion, so my assumption was not incorrect.

I understand how you feel about an officer disarming you. But the fact that several states allow it means that they feel it's a rather important thing to do when necessary and appropriate. And it's not just entirely about violating your rights; the officer also has the right to be able to do his job without getting shot. Which happens much more often than we all would like, is that not the case?

AH.74 said:

Thanks for the link. I gave it a quick read but will follow up with a more in-depth study later.

Whether something wrong (in your opinion) is codified is not the issue- the fact that it has been and is part of the law is what really matters.

I know how the law works, thank you. And obviously the Supreme Court felt the way I did in its conclusion, so my assumption was not incorrect.

I understand how you feel about an officer disarming you. But the fact that several states allow it means that they feel it's a rather important thing to do when necessary and appropriate. And it's not just entirely about violating your rights; the officer also has the right to be able to do his job without getting shot. Which happens much more often than we all would like, is that not the case?

Click to expand...

The right to bear arms comes before the right to be free from search and seizure without warrant. You obviously believe the government is there for your benefit and would never do anything to violate your rights.

nuc65 said:

The right to bear arms comes before the right to be free from search and seizure without warrant. You obviously believe the government is there for your benefit and would never do anything to violate your rights.

Click to expand...

And you obviously feel free to make ridiculous assumptions.

I believe in police officers not getting shot and killed while doing their jobs. If that means they have the legal right to disarm people they come into contact with while they check the situation out, then so be it. The law supports that in many states and therefore there is no "violation of rights." As you pointed out yourself, the Supreme Court supported it.

The situation at hand is different- they should have just let him go after checking him out. Instead, they arrested him in clear violation of his rights.

AH.74 said:

And you obviously feel free to make ridiculous assumptions.

I believe in police officers not getting shot and killed while doing their jobs. If that means they have the legal right to disarm people they come into contact with while they check the situation out, then so be it. The law supports that in many states and therefore there is no "violation of rights." As you pointed out yourself, the Supreme Court supported it.

The situation at hand is different- they should have just let him go after checking him out. Instead, they arrested him in clear violation of his rights.

Click to expand...

Why do you believe that everyone who carries a gun and is not a cop is going to presumably shoot the cop? My ridiculous assumption is that you are a cop and don't believe in individual rights as your posts that are antifreedom and anticitizen but pro-cop clearly show. I pointed out that the Supreme Court of NM mistakenly supported it. There is no right to officer safety by disarming legally armed citizens.

nuc65 said:

Why do you believe that everyone who carries a gun and is not a cop is going to presumably shoot the cop? My ridiculous assumption is that you are a cop and don't believe in individual rights as your posts that are antifreedom and anticitizen but pro-cop clearly show. I pointed out that the Supreme Court of NM mistakenly supported it. There is no right to officer safety by disarming legally armed citizens.

Click to expand...

If all you are going to do is twist my statements and make insulting accusations when my posting history clearly indicates the opposite of what you say, I am done discussing this with you.

Oh- and I have never been in law enforcement. Another bad assumption.

AH.74 said:

I believe in police officers not getting shot and killed while doing their jobs. If that means they have the legal right to disarm people they come into contact with while they check the situation out, then so be it.

Click to expand...

IF the officer has reasonable articulable suspicion that the person they have detained has committed a crime, is committing a crime, or will shortly commit a crime,
THEN the officer is allowed to pat down the person's outer clothing in search of weapons.

IF the officer has reasonable articulable suspicion that the person they have detained is
BOTH armed AND dangerous (they are not synonymous, those are two separate conditions which need to be met),
THEN the officer is allowed to temporarily take the weapon for the duration of the stop.

Simply being armed is not RAS of a crime, nor is it RAS of being dangerous.

Those are all SCOTUS decisions.

Also, what situation are you referring to? The fact that someone is walking down the street (or shopping, or having dinner) while lawfully armed? There's nothing to check out. Or rather, there's exactly as much to check out as if that officer saw someone driving down the street or going into a church. (None at all.)

And as others have pointed out, there aren't that many people who are armed who are dangerous. A LAC who is OC is in fact likely to be safer than the officer (w/r/t firearms & wrongful shooting). Even the FBI admits that criminals don't OC, & they practically never use holsters. Surely professional officers keep up on current research in their field? (IIRC, that study was from 2007.) So they're stopping & hassling people they know to be non-criminals, engaged in non-criminal behaviour.

I've read the cases and understand and agree with all that, thank you. I wasn't referring to any specific situation, I was responding to someone who was being unreasonable and accusatory.

I stated way upthread that I am completely opposed to what the ABQ PD did, for all the same reasons you described.

And again I will point out that there are a high number of police officers killed each year. Some of them in situations which on the face seem like the ones in question.

DocWalker said:

THESE COPS NEED TO BE FIRED.

Click to expand...

Not sure they need to be fired but they (the entire organization) need to be better educated in these situations. State court of appeals has declared, in short, that concealing identity is considered to be either refusing to provide ID or even delaying in providing ID to officers engaged in the execution of their lawful duties. People being asked for ID are considered as being "detained". In order to be detained, officers must have reasonable suspicion that a person has either engaged in or is engaged in criminal activities. The dispatched call report doesn't support any such doing and the evidence from tape/lapel recording only helps the person involved.

The police were wrong in this case. Any evidence (for example:weed) that would have been obtained in this incident, subsequent to detention, would also have been dismissed. Somebody has a good strong case against APD.

cloudcroft said:

"The "suspect's" mouth or behavior escalated the situation into an arrest."

Click to expand...

I simply wanted to go on a bicycle ride to alleviate pain symptoms related to a cervical fusion that occured while on active duty... there was no articulable reasonable suspicion... i was placed under arrest before i had been asked my name for the first time.... and i stated 2 times that if there were reasonable suspicion i would gladly give my name.... the only "reasonable suspicion" the many officers could give .... (after being placed in handcuffs in the back of the car)"you are not under arrest you are only being detained.... we are detaining you because you have weapons on you so we need to check and see if you are a felon or even allowed to have weapons"... i stated," that doesnt sound legal and if you have reasonable suspicion i have or am about to commit a crime i will gladly give my information" the only thing my mouth did was inform the officer that my intent was to be free from an unconstitutional search and seizure of my person and property...