This video from Pete Eyre of The Motorhome Diaries is one of the best examples of standing up for your rights I've ever seen. This video is the second of Pete's used by Cop Block, a non-profit organization founded by Adam Mueller, another member of The Motorhome Diaries. I think one of the best examples Pete sets in this video is his calm demeanor and unwavering resolve. He has a strong command of what the law really is, and makes them abide by it.
The short version of the situation was Pete's girlfriend was pulled over by an officer, and Pete went to the scene to make sure she was okay. Pete was open carrying, which is not a crime in New Mexico, nor is it something that requires a special license of any kind. The officers repeatedly lie as to what the law is in this video, as you will see. He leaves the officers dumbfounded, and without showing them his ID.
Cop Block is "a decentralized organization that highlights cops breaking the law and the action taken to seek accountability." I highly recommend bookmarking that page, and take notice of the potential something like Cop Block has in terms of actually resisting the "police state" we discuss and write about so much. Watch the video below and read the accompanying post over at Cop Block.
- Blog Policy
- Login or register to post comments
Connect with YAL
to the YAL channel on 
Upcoming Events
-
Info This seminar offers an introduction to the thoughts and thinkers of the...
-
Info The contrast between liberty and power in the history of the...
-
Info The summer’s final Freedom University boasts lectures on the hottest...
-
Info This is an all day, family-friendly convention for freedom-minded folks in...
-
Info Taking RSVP now for a June 30th - July 1st convention.We need to secure...
I usually agree with people who defend rights and create these videos(for police and border patrol). But honestly if you are open carrying walking by a cop and filming especially when you have some one pulled over and they're issuing a ticket. If I was a police officer I would feel my life may be endanger and ask for the persons ID as well. This is pretty reasonable.
Yes he can ask for ID but he doesn't have the power to force an individual to. If the cop felt alarmed after the polite, well explained young man, well, the cop is then on a power trip.
Anonymous - my gf was stopped by someone open carrying that was also filming (camara-mounted squad car). I care for her safety. I arrived on the tail-end of her traffic stop. I did so without violating anyone's rights or any man-made legislation. Seems pretty reasonable in my book.
Seems any time anyone does anything out of the 'norm' they are harassed or worse by the police. Why do they police feel such an incredible need to assert their authority at the expense of citizens feeling free in their own country? Always on a power trip...Let me be free in my own streets for godssake.
As a lover of liberty AND a public safety professional, I have to disagree with the method in which the author approached the scene. I agree with the author's right to carry and to film a law enforcement officer. However, if he was truly a passive observer he would have never approached the officer while he was making the stop. He could have stood on the sidewalk on the passenger side of the car, in view of the officer, and filmed from there. The officer was completely right in asking him to step back from the scene. Then the author chose to move obliquely to the officer, effectively requiring the officer to divide his attention between his traffic stop and the armed bystander.
Had this occurred on my emergency scene, I also would have immediately called for police assistance- there are just too many crazies out there to assume that the author had innocent intentions.
Everything that happened after the 1 minute mark was simply the police trying to bully him - the officer no longer had any reason to fear for his safety at that point. But prior to that the author was in the wrong, and I think the officer actually handled it quite well.
I understand what the officer believes, but his mistake is he calls it "his scene." He is just one of the people at the scene. It's not his scene.
Some ridiculous comments here...
"If I was a police officer I would feel my life may be endanger and ask for the persons ID as well. "
Fine, they can ask for it. But it's not a legal requirement for the person to show it.
Keep in mind that people who are open carrying go near other people too - can these other people also require the open carrier to produce ID? No, don't be silly.
America is "land of the free and home to the brave." Officers must be willing to sacrifice their own safety. Rights take precedence over safety. After all, that's why officeres get paid. If the officer doesn't feel safe, that should take priority over a citation, and he should leave. If he's to weak or scared to do his job, fire him and get someone else, or stop pestering people with useless citations to make money for that state or country that's wasted anyway.
Anyway, that's not the case. This on-walker was no threat obviously. The officer just thought he could push him around, but he was wrong.
Sorry Todd, but I do believe there is an implied threat here. Putting on a badge does not deprive the officer of HIS right to be free from harm - he may choose to put himself into hazardous situations as part of his job, but that doesn't suddenly abrogate his rights as a citizen and as a person. Police are taught from day one that there is not such thing as a "routine traffic stop", and someone attempting to approach and divide the officer's attention is reasonable cause for concern, regardless of whether or not that person is exercising their right to open carry.
Maybe a law against cell phone use while driving is a stupid law, but if it was put on the books, it is the officer's job to enforce it. Legally, it IS his scene to control, as he (presumably) had probable cause to believe a law was broken and was acting in his official capacity as an agent of the state (at least that's the way it is in my state, and is the same for firefighters on a fire scene and EMTs at a medical emergency). You can't logically insist that police follow the laws that you do like while asking them to ignore the ones you don't. If you would rather just do away with police officers entirely just say so, but that sounds too much like anarchy for my liking.
Again, everything that happened after the one minute mark was just police bullying, and I hope the Santa Fe Police Department educates its officers about open carry. But I would never recommend that someone approach an officer making a traffic stop the way Pete did, armed or not!
This was a bit painful to watch. I love liberty, I love the rule of law, and I love the principles of holding public servants accountable. But I feel like the videographer was wrong to approach an officer during a traffic stop. He intervened where no intervention was requested nor needed. This post does not help the liberty movement or YAL.
Ronald, I appreciate your comments but have to respectfully disagree. I think the more you and I can hold accountable those who perport to work for us the better off we'll be.
I know when I go into Wal-Mart or Best Buy the employees will actually have an incentive to help me and not violate my rights. I look forward to the day when the same is true for the provision of law enforcement.
If you have the time/interest I encourage you to check out The Enterprise of Law by Bruce Benson.
Excellent job dude!
last i checked, the patriot act allows for officers to request id on demand, and also they could've taken this guy in for "obstruction of justice" for approaching the scene and taking the officers focus off of the person in violation of the law. honestly, i cannot stand most police officers i have encountered, but these guys, especially the plain clothed cop, seemed to be more respectful and peaceful than any cop i have ever seen before.
oh, and just for the record, i do not agree with the patriot act, or obstruction of justice laws, but if you're gonna grab a camera and go after corruption, abuse, and try to expose terrible laws, please pick your battles a little wiser. all videos like this do is make people like us look retarded.
One area where I disagree with most libertarians is cellphone laws. In my opinion, driving while fumbling around with a cellphone is just as dangerouse as driving drunk. Thus, it places others in direct physical danger and is, therefore, a direct public safety issue. The Bill of Rights does not entitle people to be reckless on the road. Being someone who had to get out of a fish-tail at 65 m.p.h in an SUV because of an obliviouse lady on her cellphone almost side-swiping me *and* whitnessing *another* lady side-swipe a guy in his truck on the freeway (who was on her cellphone), I may be a little bit biased. Open carrying, however, does not put people in danger when done responsibly.
William, I hear you, but I have to disagree. It sounds like we're on the same page re open carrying. We realize that individuals can carry responsibly, and that their right to do so (to defend their person) cannot be stripped away despite the actions of a few. Similiarly, one shouldn't be denied the use of their property at a given time due to man-made legislation simply because others are unable to do so safely.
If you take your views couched in "public safety" to their logical conclusion then why not advocate that driving a vehicle be made illegal?
Also, back to your point, an unforseen consequence of outlawing talking on cell phones while driving is that some people resort to texting. Which usually means even less attention is paid to the road.
I agree that people who open carry should be able to do anything they want as long it is not in violation of the law. Some people do not have drivers license and asking for ID is like NAZI germany gestapo asking for your papers. Are we subjects or are we free men? Ben Franklin said if you giveup essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, you deserve neither liberty nor safety. I would like to revise that and say if you violate essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, you deserve neither liberty nor safety. The patriot act is unconstitutional therefore nullified. The bill of rights cannot be violated, those are natural rights or God given rights and cannot be violated unless there is declaration of war of which the last declaration of war was WWII. liberty and safety are at opposite ends of the spectrum. The more liberty we have, the more unsafe it is. Try San Quentin for maximum security if you want to be safe. "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty, than those attending too small degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson
@William: You say someone, "fumbling around with a cellphone is just as dangerouse as driving drunk. Thus, it places others in direct physical danger and is, therefore, a direct public safety issue." If this is the case, how do you define "dangerous" and where do you draw the line? I think smoking while driving is dangerous. Should it be banned as well? I think eating while driving is dangerous too, so ban it too? Having the government "protect" us from the dangers of others is a huge threat to individual liberty and a quick way to advance the police state.
And with the video, I understand the principles behind this and I support what this guy is doing completely. But it really seems like these officers, if uneducated and uninformed, genuinely seem like nice guys simply trying to do their jobs. Does this excuse them? No. Its ridiculous when cops don't know the laws they're supposed to enforce (or worse, they lie in order to get compliance).