While searching “gun, today” on YouTube I found this video of a Houston Police officer arresting a member of Open Carry Houston for “failure to show ID” and trying to erase his cell phone video. Given the recent spate of outrage against allegedly overly-aggressive, indeed deadly police, this kind of incident highlights the fact that there are plenty of “rogue” cops on the street, ready to suppress lawful citizens’ rights. As YouTuber Common Sense points out, putting body cams on cops doesn’t guarantee that they’ll be switched on at the appropriate time. Once again, it all comes down to leadership and accountability, or lack thereof.

Recommended For You

185 Responses to Cops Arrest Open Carry Houston Member, Try to Erase His Cell Phone Video

  1. I hope they got fired.
    Even when 99% of cops are good people, the 1% of bad ones need to lose their jobs when caught red handed.

    • I called the Houston Police Dept’s Internal Affairs Division to report the Cop #4771 as violating a citizens rights.

      1-713-308-8900.

      I’m thinking about taking a couple of days off and going down to Houston to do some OC of some long arms. What is the law about an out of stater OC’ing in Houston,Texas?

      • What is the law about an out of stater OC’ing in Houston,Texas?

        Obey Texas laws, i.e., no pistols, only long guns allowed. Same laws for in-state residents and out-of-state visitors.

    • I also contacted Texas Open Carry to see if they are going to put a protest together. I offered to go down to join up if they let me know.

      • And, finally. Get a decent video/audio sunglasses. They give point of view, they record what a person is looking at and hearing and it is not obvious that they are recording everything; at least initially.

        Have a decoy phone recording as well that the police can focus on while the V/A glasses are also recording.

        • I have a code on my phone. Have to for work. I can record video and lock the phone to prevent them from erasing it. This is absolutely ridiculous. Not only do they not support the Second Amendment, but apparently the First as well.

    • Those are three cops that obviously need to lose their badges. And the one who tried to erase the video footage should be arrested for tampering with evidence, and should get a visit from the DOJ for violation of civil rights under color of law.

      (You can all stop laughing now.)

  2. Cue the patently false and indefensible accusations — unfounded nor even grounded in reality — of “cop-hating” here on TTAG.

    Just another bad apple among the many bunches of the good and decent ones.

    And the beat goes on.

    • What ”false” accusations?

      The officer stated he wanted to erase the video and lied about the ability to arrest for ”failure to ID”

      Texas state law on ”failure to ID” is only a couple of sentences long and is quite clear: You only have to provide ID if you’re under arrest. Either the officer is illiterate, ignorant of the law, or willfully ignoring the law to threaten someone. Which is it?

      • The cop was lying in order to try to obtain information concerning a possible crime. The Supreme Court says he can do that.

        • Reference for the SuprememJustice comment? If cops can lie, would that not create a doble statndard of “OK to lie to capture bad guys”, “OK to lie to entrap innocents”??

        • @Roymond: They cannot make up an underlying crime to investigate. Departments have been successfully sued for that in Ohio. There first must be some reasonable articulable suspicion that a crime has been, is being, or is abut to be committed. In this situation, there was obviously no RAS since they were talking about him being the same guy as before OCing. This was harassment and false arrest topped off with evidence tampering.

    • When the good apples make excuses for and cover for the bad apples then they are bad apples too. A good apple would kick the bad apples out of the barrel ASAP. Or else they’re just waiting for spoiling themselves.

    • Ubiquitous recording devices are changing police culture for the better. I wonder if this young man has consulted an attorney. They police should pay for their unprofessional conduct here. It is obvious that they were in the wrong.

      There have been numerous settlements in Northern states. Let’s see some in Texas.

      • The police won’t pay; the tax payers of Houston will.
        The police will have an internal investigation and determine that the officers complied with all department procedures.

        • Sue the officers individually. That should prevent them from using the department legal advisor. If they did, I would think they could be charged criminally with using government resources for personal use. Having to hire their own attorneys would sting them pretty hard financially.

    • I wonder at what point we will have video of the whole 1%? i would like to think with everything we’ve seen, we’ve crept past this arbitrary 1% (a number that is certainly just thrown out there to make cops look overwhelmingly positive ).

      In all seriousness, until I see law enforcement and government as a whole speak out against these actions, and bad cops held accountable (to the same extent any of us would be), I have to think the ratio of bad cops exceeds 1% to some degree.

      Where there is smoke, there is fire…and I’ve seen a lot of smoke.

    • To be fair: there are what – 500K, 750K police officers in the US? So, 1% of that number is still over 5,000.

      That said, I think the number *used* to be 1%. But now, I think that people with a specific psychological profile are being actively recruited to become police officers – and that specific psychological profile has naturally raised that number above 1%. What is it now? 5%? 10%?

      I still think the vast, vast majority of law enforcement officers are good. But the impact of bad police officers rises exponentially as their percentage rises. Even if the percentage of bad cops has risen from 1% to 2%, the impact and visibility of their actions rise by far more than that.

  3. “Failure to show ID?” I guess that’s in the Penal Law right after “failure to be a copsucker.”

    It’s not enough that almost every black person in America hates these jokers. Now they’re working on whites. Don’t laugh, my Asian friends. You’re next.

    • Oh we aren’t laughing. We are just as concerned when cops abuse their powers and overstep their authority. Without a mirror, we all don’t know what we look like, but feel and are American.

    • Texas cops love to threaten people with arrest for failure to identify, but the cops don’t know the law. You have no general obligation to identify, unless you’re a witness to a crime, you’ve been arrested, or you’re lawfully stopped while driving. Now, regardless of one’s obligation to I.D. or identifying voluntarily, it’s illegal to give an officet a false identity.

      If you’re open carrying or otherwise going about your business and end up detained, you don’t have to provide identify yourself. If you don’t, though, 99% of cops will ticket and/or arrest you for failure to I.D.

      • I’ve never been a cop or anything, but I’m willing to bet that when a cop arrests someone there’s a form that has to be completed, and somewhere on that form there’s probably a block that asks for the specific penal code(s) that the person who was arrested had violated. What do they put in that block when they arrest someone for something that isn’t a crime?

        • From what I’ve seen, a determine cop will pick something that he believes that he can make the details appear to fit as an alternative. In this case… disorderly conduct, resisting arrest, wiretapping (recording), etc. Even though it’s utter bull, I’ve seen it done to cause the person as much grief as possible. In the end, if the victim doesn’t sue to department then there is usually no corrective action for that kind of abuse of privilege.

    • Actually, “Fail to ID” is in the Texas Penal Code. Class B misdemeanor, IIRC–up to 6 months in count jail.But, they have to have a legal reason to stop you and ask for ID, and you can ID yourself just by giving your name and DOB. Now I gotta watch the vid and see if/how bad these cops muffed it.

      • And I watched it, and they muffed it really bad. You do not have to carry any kind of written ID. And they know it. If they started going around arresting all those folks who somehow are unable to get an ID to be able to vote with–well, you can guess what would happen. Would lie to see some follow-up on this.

      • Actually, it’s a class C misdemeanor when you refuse to provide ID only AFTER being arrested.

        It’s a class B if you provide a false ID.

      • You should maybe actually read the penal code:

        Sec. 38.02. FAILURE TO IDENTIFY. (a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally refuses to give his name, residence address, or date of birth to a peace officer who has lawfully arrested the person and requested the information.

        For those with reading comprehension issues: no lawful arrest = no statutory compulsion to provide identifying information.

        • Not to mention ” if he intentionally refuses”, perusing the video makes clear that their was no intentional refusal to ID, just affirmation that no state ID was currently in possession.

        • Indeed. He told them that he would tell them his name, just as soon as they told him what he was being arrested for.

          The circular logic from the Neanderthal was “Failure to identify!”

  4. I don’t hate cops, nor do I really think all of them are bad, but I do hate the politicians and the unions who enable bad cops.

  5. Unfortunately it’s not unusual for cops to illegally erase your video to hide their actions. Just recently a cop erased another person’s video, only the vid was simultaneously being uploaded to the cloud, so even though the cops got the vid on the phone, they didn’t get the one on the cloud server and their actions of trying to cover up their behavior were found out.

    • I trust felony tampering with evidence charges were lodged against the offending officer then. Or did he just get an extra month of paid vacation while his buddies cleared him of any wrongdoing?

      • Generally criminal charges have to be brought to be able to charge with tampering with evidence — not sure of the specifics of Texas law, though. So this guy should find any statute possible and file a complaint with the D.A., and submit the video as evidence. If the D.A. doesn’t act… can’t you go over his head and get him for obstruction of justice?

        • criminal charges have to be brought to be able to charge with tampering with evidence

          How about when the video is evidence of a civil rights violation? That is evidence of a crime committed by a cop, not the citizen.

        • I agree with DG. It’s the cop that broke the law not the citizen, and then the cop tried to destroy the evidence of his own unlawful behavior. Now in my state, you need a permit to open carry within the limits of any city, and you must produce your permit if asked by police while carrying (although if you don’t have your permit on you, you will have to show up to court with it and the charges will be dropped – court costs probably apply). If that was the case the cop would have been acting legally, but apparently not in this case. Even if the cop was acting legally in harassing the citizen, erasing the tape would still be theft and destruction of personal property, unless the citizen was breaking the law in which case it would be destruction of evidence.

    • Cellphone video recorders need to have a “blogger mode” that lets a cop think he deleted a video recording but in fact is NOT deleted and able to be retrieved by the rightful owner when he gets his phone back and enters a password.

      • ACLU has made a smartphone app that automatically uploads the video to them as it’s being filmed, along with GPS data. If several people are uploading from the same location, it will notify them of each other, so e.g. if you’re the one stopped by the cop and start filming it, and they take away your phone, you can later find out if someone else was recording the same thing, and request their video. Those videos can also be automatically submitted for review by ACLU (they basically assume that if you have to use this, it’s because your civil rights were violated, or you expected them to likely be violated).

    • http://fivofilm.com/

      It’s a free application, seems to work pretty well, except when you’re in the boonies, with the only downside being that if you take a lengthy video and have it saved to your dropbox account it can kill your data plan, so it’s best to only use it when you need it.

  6. What’s that about black men open carrying so they won’t be harassed?!? I think I may even nudge my 40year old son to buy a gun. He’s questioning the PO-leece in the Garner mess…and maybe seeing lowlife mobs riot & loot with barely a whimper from cops got his attention.

  7. I would go after and sue these lousy cop’s gruppenfuhrers. I’ll see them in Hell if lousy cops ever show up at my house!

  8. First of all, the OCer did not fail to ID. He offered to ID. Second of all, under Texas law you only have to ID if you are arrested, not if you are simply asked or detained. Third of all, you are only required to verbally ID, you are not required to provide a DL or state-issued ID.

    • None of that matters to fascists.
      These OC videos need to be streamed real-time to a cloud service or three.
      There should be an app for that..something called “Digital Witness”, “Liberty in Action” or “Digital Submission”

    • Danny,

      Do you happen to recall the statute covering the requirements to show ID? That’s a handy piece of info I’d like to read, print off, and carry. Thanks!

      • http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/htm/PE.38.htm

        Sec. 38.02. FAILURE TO IDENTIFY. (a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally refuses to give his name, residence address, or date of birth to a peace officer who has lawfully arrested the person and requested the information.
        (b) A person commits an offense if he intentionally gives a false or fictitious name, residence address, or date of birth to a peace officer who has:
        (1) lawfully arrested the person;
        (2) lawfully detained the person; or
        (3) requested the information from a person that the peace officer has good cause to believe is a witness to a criminal offense.
        (c) Except as provided by Subsections (d) and (e), an offense under this section is:
        (1) a Class C misdemeanor if the offense is committed under Subsection (a); or
        (2) a Class B misdemeanor if the offense is committed under Subsection (b).
        (d) If it is shown on the trial of an offense under this section that the defendant was a fugitive from justice at the time of the offense, the offense is:
        (1) a Class B misdemeanor if the offense is committed under Subsection (a); or
        (2) a Class A misdemeanor if the offense is committed under Subsection (b).
        (e) If conduct that constitutes an offense under this section also constitutes an offense under Section 106.07, Alcoholic Beverage Code, the actor may be prosecuted only under Section 106.07.

        • You are welcome. Remember, you are only required to ID once arrested, not simply detained or if requested. However, if you are detained and decide to ID of your own free will, you must not lie because that is unlawful.

          Also, if you are driving your car (you mentioned keeping this in your vehicles) you must provide a valid DL anyway as that is part of the motor vehicle laws.

        • Anner,
          Just to be clear, that law does not apply if you are pulled over by an officer. Being pulled over is a form of arrest, even though you’re not placed in cuffs. Keeping it handy in your vehicle is good, but keep in mind it won’t work for being pulled over.

      • Be careful, 24 states do have stop and ID laws in response to Hilbel. Four states’ laws (Arizona, Indiana, Louisiana, and Nevada) explicitly impose an obligation to provide identifying information.

        • Not sure about the others but Indiana’s law isn’t a blanket “show me your papers”! Note the “who has stopped a person for” part. There has to be an articulable infraction first.

          “IC 34-28-5-3.5
          Refusal to identify self
          Sec. 3.5. A person who knowingly or intentionally refuses to
          provide either the person’s:
          (1) name, address, and date of birth; or
          (2) driver’s license, if in the person’s possession;
          to a law enforcement officer who has stopped the person for an
          infraction or ordinance violation commits a Class C misdemeanor”

  9. Though I do not advocate open carry, I do believe that people who choose open carry should not be harassed by any person cop or otherwise as long as they are not acting aggressively or threatening anybody. My question to those people who despise anybody that chooses to open carry, how are we going to practice our second amendment right if we can’t conceal carry? Do we just give up and never take the gun out of the safe? No! We peacefully assemble and raise awareness that we have the second amendment right that allows us to protect our families and our property against any aggressor that would wish to do us harm.

  10. This won’t change until we as citizens AND the prosecutors deal with these deleted video incidents as armed robberies.

    Yes, that’s what this is – theft of the video itself.

  11. Someone needs to make an app that streams the video from your phone to storage somewhere outside of the local jurisdiction. Preferably multiple locations in multiple countries. Then it would notify someone of your choosing, perhaps a lawyer, who could then download and keep the video with lawyer-client privilege attached.

    • The fact that you communicated the video to an attorney would be within the scope of the attorney-client privilege(maybe), but never the video itself. All one needs to do is make sure that the video is stored in a secure location, which of course coulod be an attorney, or it could be simply uploaded to the internet at large where it will live forever.

      • http://fivofilm.com/

        Free, and it sends video straight to your dropbox account, and to the dropbox account of anyone else you specify (attorney, wife, neighbor’s wife, neighbor’s wife’s pool boy, etc.) Even if the camera is turned off mid-recording, it still works. I haven’t tested it to see if it’ll send the video even when the phone is violently destroyed, but it might…

      • Attorney-client privilege isn’t necessary: generally, the defense is not obligated to share evidence with the prosecution, even though the reverse is true. It’s one of those nifty protection things.

  12. YT common sense?????

    Seriously?

    I don’t even have to disagree with this post, but YT comments have been as reasonable or logical as 4chan.

    • Because they are all “brothers.” Unless your last name is something like “Serpico,” in which case you get set up and shot in the face.

  13. If you listen to the banter between the cops during this encounter you hear something very interesting. This is the language of aggression, it’s what you’d hear from street thugs outside a bar who’ve just cornered someone they know they can push around. The cop doing the questioning has taken the lead and is performing for his buds. He’s asking questions but really isn’t interested in the answers he’s getting. His real focus is on how the other cops are responding to him. He’s playing a role.

    This is the theater of cops on the street, it’s something they’ve been doing for a long time. For these guys, this is just normal interaction with civilians. On police forces, there’s a tacit understanding that this sort of things goes on all the time and is acceptable behavior. Of course not all cops do this, but if you’re in the presence of a cop who does, it’s best to not say anything.

    But now there’s a new problem. People are making videos of these encounters and, for the first time in their police careers, these kinds of cops are finding that their rude, abusive, and illegal interactions with the public are being made visible in ways that they never thought possible. Within minutes of jerking a private citizen around, an abusive cop suddenly finds himself immortalized on public media. This is how real change takes place. For the first time, private citizens have found a way to penetrate the blue-wall of police protection. It’s only a matter of time before police departments will start reviewing videos, unofficial or otherwise, when officers come up for promotion. When that starts to happen, and when cops start losing promotions or not getting hired, then we’ll start seeing real change in police culture.

      • It sounds like Garrison Hall knows that cops are civilians by his reference to private citizens, and he is just taking the dramaturgical approach to viewing cops as actors who are performing specific roles when they put on their costume of authority and gun. The major problem with performing the role of a state sanctioned immoral thug is when the cops believe that the role they play is essential to the fabric of society, which is reinforced by cops and copsuckers delusions of grandeur. Cops are more of criminal enablers than criminal deterrence anymore, and since cops have no duty to protect American citizens they lose all credibility except in the bought and paid for criminal system. The criminal justice system has become a for profit business heavily invested in the stock of criminals and is no longer a system of justice for the innocent.
        What happens if the open carrier would have used his second amendment as intended by our founding fathers and said no to tyrannical demands, and used his rifle as the only option of recourse to emphatically state NO i do not consent to your authority. Demonized and justifiably shot dead by a corrupt agent of the state acting outside of legal authority is what it would have made the open carrier, instead of an American exercising his first amendment and protecting it with his second. When certain individuals are the only ones playing by the rules and others brazenly flaunt their breaking of the rules, doesn’t that make the first group suckers or as we call them in America just comfortably middle class.

        • “It sounds like Garrison Hall knows that cops are civilians by his reference to private citizens, and he is just taking the dramaturgical approach to viewing cops as actors who are performing specific roles when they put on their costume of authority and gun.”

          Think we should give a pop quiz at the end of this thread? [ 🙂 ]

    • Carrying my ‘public drama’ meme a little further. . . . The open carry guy obviously had a role to play in all of this too. He was hardly a casual bystander and was out there to make a point. That said, I wonder if his video would have gone differently if he had simply showed the cops his ID as requested? Basically, his role in the interaction was to make a point about open carry in Texas, something that’s pretty important. But he immediately chose to conflate open carry with not showing his ID (i.e., “papers”) when requested by the police. This strikes me as a something not nearly as important as as the right to openly carry a gun. Yet, that is the issue that proved to be the catalyst that pissed off the cops and got him busted. Yes I know he doesn’t legally have to do that, but what if he’d simply honored the cops initial request and showed his ID? The interaction may have gone entirely differently and—who knows?—maybe he would have scored some good points with the cops. It’s always a good idea to carefully choose your battles

      • Nope. Here in Ohio, while exercising some of our rights, we retain the rest. We aren’t interested in “scoring points” with cops. Why the fvck would we? We obey the law and we expect them to do the same. End of story. If you begin licking boots, you’ll have boots in your face all day long.

      • Garrison Hall,

        Having to show your I.D. to police — while engaged in a lawful activity and having harmed no one — and having to hide or keep your guns at home are both facets of the same problem: a tyrannical state.

        Anyone is free to approach anyone and ask anything — and the person that you approach is free to respond or not respond. In this case police approached the demonstrator and asked him for his state-issued identification. And the demonstrator was free to provide that state-issued identification or not. Of course the police did not honor that demonstrator’s free choice to not display state-issued identification. That is just as wrong as failing to honor a person’s free choice to carry a firearm openly or concealed in public.

        • Agreed. But, this being Houston, there’s a low probability that anything meaningful will happen to change these cop’s behavior. This whole thing just seemed like a routine to me, something they’ve done countless times, over long careers on the Houston PD. You’re completely right that the OCer can make an issue of—if he get’s a lawyer (something OC Texas really ought to do, btw). But, he probably won’t for obvious reasons. So what we’re left with is another video of an ugly encounter with cops. Those cops are most likely going to go on being cops. In their world, there are either a**holes or good people. By showing that he was a “good people” who just happened to be open-carrying a gun might well furthered the cause of open-carry in Texas. Just sayin’.

        • It’s easy to push a guy like this OC’er around when there’s just one of him and probably dozens of police on shift at that particular time, but just imagine is there were thousands of guys like him OC’ing all at the same time, all day long every day. They wouldn’t have time, and furthermore, they wouldn’t have the beans.

        • What’s been effective for us is follow up large and small group open carry walks. The walks don’t end until the local police department train their officers as to law. In between the large, organized walks, any small groups and individuals that have free time make sure that they OC in the area.

      • The police had no legal reason to as for his identification, so why should he provide it? To appease the police?
        He wouldn’t be out there in the first place if his only goal was appeasing the police. He’s there to show that rights exist and they cannot be legitimately threaten by authorities, so why on Earth would he voluntarily engage in giving up a right?

      • Based on that cop’s attitude, this is how that could have gone down:

        Cop: “Let me see your ID”

        Citizen: “Alright, officer, it’s here in my wallet”

        *Cop shoots citizen*

        Cop: “Y’all saw him make that furtive movement towards his belt, he was reaching for another gun!”

        • Funny you mention this, I had an incident with Dallas PD that was a “hes going for his knife” while reaching for my ID that resulted in a couple of cracked ribs and a concussion. Let out the next morning, charged with nothing, after being arrested at my place of work where this happened (a club in Deep Ellum) and having no idea about the legal system at 22 at the time.

      • Garrison- at least you conclude the lesson on symbolic interactionism with an example of how some people see a person of authority and comply no matter what, and others see the badge as an immediate symbol to start acting out a different role. These roles are usually expressed through being nervous, full of contempt, or knowingly being the one in control during the encounter and allowing the officer some leeway to a point, nation of laws after all. These responses are based upon the individual’s own experiences, which dictates if the person holding a badge is deserving of complying with. The man has a right to be carrying a gun and a person being paid to enforce the constitution should not be so willing to break it or abuse the power entrusted to them by politicians, since they don’t get paid to protect us.

        • True. What was going on in the video was a negotiation which was hugely dependent upon the social skills the citizen and the cops displayed. Typically cops like this try to define the situation by being belligerent and threatening (the whole “command voice” thing, usually rather poorly performed). Without some pretty concentrated training, everyday citizens can’t be expected to negotiate effectively with guys like this. (What’s interesting to see, however, is what happens when belligerent cops suddenly find they’re talking to a criminal defense attorney who IS well-versed in police procedure . . . ) It all depends on what he’s trying to accomplish of course, but I think the OCer’s perfectly legal refusal gave the cops a reason to escalate their aggressiveness and that effected the quality of his open-carry demonstration. Doing that let them define him as an a**hole and things went downhill from there. Of course they probably would have defined him as an a**hole anyway. But, then, maybe not.

      • he immediately chose to conflate open carry with not showing his ID (i.e., “papers”) when requested by the police

        No he didn’t. And why should he be “have” to do something he wasn’t legally required to do just to stay out of jail? How about if you let cops search your house without a warrant whenever they want? After all, like cops say, why should you mind if you have nothing to hide? You might have some illegal NFA items!

        The cops even admit on video that they knew this guy because they had interacted with him before while he was OCing.

        As others here have stated, we–and this OCer in particular–follow the law, and it’s not too much to expect that the police do the same.

        if he’d simply honored the cops initial request and showed his ID [t]he interaction may have gone entirely differently

        Again, why should one be required to accede to a cop’s unlawful demands to stay out of jail? And that’s just what they were. A cop can request, but he can’t demand unless you have already been arrested for committing a crime.

      • If he just stayed home watching college football on the boob tube and kept his rifle in the safe then he wouldn’t have been harassed either.

        I saw another OC video titled “Nicest Cop Ever Confronting Open Carry Demonstrators”. In that video, two guys were OCing. When the cop showed up, the first thing he did was disarm the two guys and unloaded their weapons. The next thing he did was request ID and they complied and asked for the officer’s ID and he complied. Then they started having a conversation about their ARs. The cop showed the guys his AR and basically told the guys that their Windham Weaponry AR was crap. Well two minutes ago that cop was afraid of that crap.
        Bottom line, of course you can bee 100% compliant to the illegal requests of a cop and he will be nice as can be. The truth in the matter is, his personal desire should not trump our rights.

      • Basically, his role in the interaction was to make a point about open carry in Texas, something that’s pretty important.

        Actually, his sign had something to do with common law grand juries. With his long gun, he was merely exercising a right in a lawful manner.

        • Is this something along the lines of blaming the pretty girl in a skirt for getting raped? She asked for it, right?

      • Yes I know he doesn’t legally have to do that, but what if he’d simply honored the cops initial request and showed his ID? The interaction may have gone entirely differently…

        The interaction went wrongly because the police officer acted wrongly and unlawfully toward a person lawfully going about his business, exercising his rights in a lawful manner.

        “You’re scaring people out here…” – the police could have caused the interaction to go differently by avoiding it entirely. If dispatch and officers who interact with hoplophobes start informing people that lawful exercise of a right is not a cause for police investigation, people will stop reporting law-abiding citizens doing nothing wrong.

        “Do you have ID? Why don’t you have ID? I have to prove that you’re not a felon in possession of a gun” – the police could have caused the interaction to go differently by not demanding ID without first articulating specific, reasonable suspicion that an otherwise law-abiding citizen was acting unlawfully.

        “Let me have your gun” – the police could have caused the interaction to go differently by not unlawfully seizing the property of a law-abiding citizen.

        “You’re fixing to go to jail for failure to identify” – the police could have caused the interaction to go differently by not unlawfully arresting a law-abiding citizen.

        Need I go on?

    • I agree completely!

      However i this case the guy with the gun was seeking an altercation with LE. He got it and I do not feel sorry for him one bit!

      • Wow, you equate visibly practicing a right as “seeking police altercations”? Maybe you should call the police department and report your actions before you do them, just to be certain they don’t mistake you as someone visibly practicing a right, and seeking an altercation.

  14. All states have laws that make it a crime to destroy evidence in criminal cases. This cop should be prosecuted for destruction of evidence.

  15. Sue the PD for violation of civil rights. The only that’s going to stop them is if incidents like this start affecting their own budgets/wallets. You owe it to the next guy. Otherwise they’ll just keep on doing it.

  16. This is clearly an issue (one of many of course), of lack of training by the beat cops. If the sergeant arrived and released the open carry guy, then of course that mean he was doing nothing wrong (illegal). So, why the hell didn’t the detaining officer also know or at least acknowledge that he wasn’t doing anything illegal, but just inform the open carry guy that people are freaking out, and that is the reason for them stopping, and politely suggest that he go on his way. Then at least they “did something” and at the same time didn’t violate the persons rights.

    Until police are held fully accountable for their illegal actions, and as long as they continue to cover for each other, cameras or not, this shit is gonna keep happening. Any cop that covers for another’s illegal actions, is just as bad, and of course, we rarely recognize the good cops, but we sure as hell notice the bad ones, and thatcertainly doesn’t help anyone.

    • The cops knew that the victim wasn’t breaking the law and that they were. That’s the main motivation for them to delete the video… it was evidence of their criminal behavior.

    • Instead of informing the OC’er that people were scared of him, why not educate the scared callers about the fact that what the OC’er is doing is not illegal? You ever hear those ridiculous 911 calls where someone calls 911 because McDonald’s won’t sell them breakfast at 10:29, or the calls people make to 911 when Popeye’s runs out of biscuits? Should the cops have to respond to Taco Bell when they refuse to give a customer extra mild sauce? No, because failure to give extra mild sauce is not a crime, and sending cops to places in response to reports of non-crimes is a waste of time, resources, and in this case, it resulted in a cop harassing an OC’er.

  17. What surprises me is how many police (seem to) believe that a citizen is required to produce identification when it is demanded, and further, how many police it is “illegal” for citizens to video police in public. Just this past week, a Texas DA detective was forced to quit because he (a) demanded ID from a woman who was videoing an incident across the street, and (b) arrested her for “interfering with an investigation” when she refused to identify herself and sought to leave. Tellingly, the detective justified his demand for identification on the basis that “I don’t know that you are not a part of the (incident).” There is no obligation to identify oneself until the officer has at least a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity–and this guy had none. It has gotten to the point that everyone is a criminal until they prove themselves otherwise. And there is no legal obligation to assist the police in their investigations. (Just don’t lie to the feds. That is a felony.)

    • In Texas, there is no obligation to identify until you have been “lawfully arrested”.

      TEX PE. CODE ANN. § 38.02 (a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally refuses to give his name, residence address, or date of birth to a peace officer who has lawfully arrested the person and requested the information.

      Section (b) says you are guilty if you give false information when asked.

    • Mark N.,

      See my comment below … we are all hostages of the Almighty state. We are no longer The People of Texas, or California, or the United States of America. Rather, we are subjects to the ruling class and their enforcers (police). That is why their enforcers believe that they can mistreat all of us the way that they do.

    • It has gotten to the point that everyone is a criminal until they prove themselves otherwise.

      I understand that you are an attorney with experience and I agree with your post. However, it might be a matter of “moving in different circles” but the above has been what I’ve seen demonstrated as typical cop-think for at least the last three or four decades. This is nothing new for some of us.

    • The police an seize a phone as evidence and hold it while they get a warrant if they have probable cause that it contains evidence of a crime, however. It’s a careful line to tread.

  18. It just occurred to me that we are all victims of Stockholm syndrome. We feel an obligation to be nice to our captors and don’t even realize it.

    Think about it seriously for a moment. Why are we obligated to do anything for law enforcement officers when we are engaged in lawful activities and have not harmed anyone? Why are we obligated to identify ourselves when we are engaged in lawful activities and have not harmed anyone? Even more importantly, why are we obligated to have state issued identification cards and stated issued tax I.D. numbers to present to law enforcement when they approach us?

    Those last two points should make it quite clear that we are literally hostages of the state. Can you imagine the reaction if police ever arrested an adult who had never acquired a state issued identification card? Why do we have to have one?

    • Fear: No one wants to have a cop mad at them. The cop has absolute control over you from the moment the interaction starts. Until streaming media and cell phone video cameras popped up, you had no response to a police report stating you physically assaulted the officer, resisted arrest, etc. Even if you had an eye witness stating you were 100% peaceful throughout the encounter, the police report is the gospel in the eyes of the court.

      The path of least resistance is getting an ID, showing it when asked, and praying all police encounters result in “have a nice day.” The threat of a nightstick across the face, twisted arms wrestled into handcuffs, and a long night awake in the slammer keep the sheep in line.

      It is fear, and it’s disgusting.

      I’m one of them. Looking through my wallet, I have 3 gov-issued photo IDs (mil ID, driver’s license, and CHL). One is necessary to drive, one is necessary for work, and one allows me to do something the Constitution says I can do. The implications for having no ID are heavy: no job, no driving, and no concealed carry.

      I agree with your thoughts, and it’s depressing to think how willingly we submit to police authority in our daily life…especially when the police derive their authority from those they serve. So, for now, I go “baaaaaa” during these encounters.

    • For that matter, the government owns your name: they demand that if you want a different one you have to go ask them and pay for the change.

  19. Dirty contact, dirty arrest, dirty attempt at erasing the evidence. That should result in termination, but probably won’t. Sad.

    • Accur81,

      I agree with your assessment. Can you begin to explain why nothing ever happens to these d-bags? They almost never seem to be fired much less prosecuted for deprivation of civil rights.

      • The short answer: inherent statism. Too many people are comfortable with the police having a monopoly on the use of force. This will be viewed by many as simply a mistake on the part of the police. We see it for what it is – something far more insidious. If the lowly taxpayer were to make a similar mistake, the wheels of “justice” would move quickly to mete out punishment.

        Unless you are capable of rapidly perpetuating independent thought, police accountability will be elusive on this arrest. This OCer needs the services of an effective lawyer.

        The other issue is that police rarely have individual accountability for their enforcement actions. Police unions are strong, typically have public and political support, and employ a lot of lawyers.

        • “Too many people are comfortable with the police having a monopoly on the use of force.”

          Also they don’t care until it happens to them. Same goes for all the suburban middle-class white conservatives parroting “blacks have nothing to complain about”. How the fvck would they know?

  20. When that bubba swaggered up I thought it was a parody of a bad 70s Burt Reynolds movie….

    Boy, you in a heap a trouble….squeal lahk a peeg!

  21. It seems like some of these open carry types confuse liberty with license. The 2nd Amendment gives us the freedom to bear arms, but no implied license to use (or flaunt) them irresponsibly. How would a cop know whether or not a person standing at a busy urban intersection with a firearm is (poorly) exercising his constitutional right or actively plotting some kind of mayhem? It’s too bad the cops in this situation overreacted, but the guy with the gun deliberately provoked the whole thing. He’s damned lucky some other armed citizen didn’t see him first and take him out with a well placed shot.

    • By lack of his taking up defensive cover, by the fact he was not pointing the weapon at others,and finally by lack of his firing at innocent bystanders.

      How do I know if the person with a laptop sitting next to me is exercising their right to surf the internet (clearly not a ‘right’ per se, but stay with me), or using that technology to steal my identity as I sit idly by? Should I throw their laptop to the ground and crush it, simply because of all of the EEEEEEvil they could be doing with it?

      I agree – it’s itching for potential conflict, but that doesn’t make the conflict justifiable.

    • Umm. Well, he was standing at an intersection holding a sign announcing his support for open-carry. That doesn’t appear to be flaunting or irresponsible to me. But, hey, that’s just me.

    • By that same logic, today I was a mere cotton panel and a few millimeters of denim away from indecent exposure!!! OH MY, SOMEONE GET HIS ID!!! We have to ascertain his intentions before it’s too late!!!

      • One reason I love Oregon is it is very strong on freedom of expression. Here, he could have been naked and open-carrying, and if he framed the nudity as exercising the freedom of expression, just as open carrying is freedom of expression and carrying a sign is freedom of expression.

      • So on the one hand, we can’t conceal without a permit, because guns are scary, and on the other hand, openly carrying them, as is a right (for long guns) in Texas, is bad and should draw police attention? Wow, I guess if we all turned our guns in then the police would feel much safer.

    • It seems you are the one confused. Never read the “Bill of Rights” huh? Or just not that up on comprehension? How many states allow open carry? Have you never noticed that open carry is typically allowed even when concealed carry is restricted?

    • Its amazing to even think that your being serious with that post.
      Everyone else, this Al guy is the very reason why cops feel its ok to just demand things like ID from us when there is no legal cause to. Its because Al here, and folks like him, are too eager to give up some freedom for the illusion of safety provided by the police.

      Try to get this through your head Al, its legal to carry a rifle. It doesnt matter that people like you, or bad cops, disagree with it. Standing on a corner with a sign, or even walking down the street with a rifle slung over your shoulder is NOT “flaunting it irresponsibly”.

      You state: “How would a cop know whether or not a person standing at a busy urban intersection with a firearm is (poorly) exercising his constitutional right or actively plotting some kind of mayhem?”

      He doesnt, and its irrelevant. If you arent suspected of a crime or have not given any articulable reason that you are about to commit a crime, you should be free from harassment.

      You know, your analysis is no different than that of racist coips back in the 60s and 70’s who would stop someone because of their skin color. “whos to say that black guy isnt about to commit a crime? I mean hes just walking around, i better stop and check his ID”

      Your a disgrace.

    • Maybe you weren’t paying attention well enough?

      The victim was merely standing on a street corner, holding a sign (with a message, by the way, that had absolutely nothing to do with firearms).

  22. When cops can’t figure out something as simple as how to turn off / erase cell phone videos (are they really that complex?), we are all a bit safer.

  23. This is why the “rule of law” crowd makes me want to vomit. It’s just a saying that generally old white Republicans believe in.

    There is no rule of law, there is a rule of man if there was a rule of law than cops and politicians would be held to and they are not.

    They kidnap this man while armed and they violated his rights. They belong in federal prison end of story.

    For any of the cops who witnessed this and did not say anything, they should be fired immediately and never working law-enforcement ever ever again.

    That’s why there’s 99% of good people and 1% bad people is a bunch of nonsense. There are plenty of bad people who work in the government, including cops, and a bunch of people who aren’t bad, but that you have a cover or do not report or do not stop bad actions of others. They are just as guilty, they are just as disgusting, and people need to wake up to this crap.

    • The bad people wind up being the Alphas, and all the betas (like the guy who showed up first) are afraid to go against them.

    • Of course any cops standing by not correcting their fellows are just as guilty — it’s called conspiracy to commit.

    • This is why the “rule of law” crowd makes me want to vomit. It’s just a saying that generally old white Republicans believe in.

      Our country was founded as a Republic. “Rule of law” has specific, intentional, and important meaning.

      What would you prefer? Mob rule (democracy)? Anarchy?

      • It’s nonsense that people are sold on. Government employees are not held to law like the average person is.

        Charlie Wrangle doesn’t pay taxes, he gets “censured”.

        If you don’t pay taxes, you go to jail and your family starves.

        • It’s nonsense that people are sold on.

          It’s the worst form of government – except for every other form of government that has been tried.

          Again I ask: what is your alternative?

        • Free market competition. No more monopolies tied to a geographical landmass. No more people calling themselves the state who people mindlessly worship them under a guise of “patriotism”.

          Spooner was right about the U.S. Constitution and that was in the 1850’s.

        • Free market competition. No more monopolies tied to a geographical landmass. No more people calling themselves the state who people mindlessly worship them under a guise of “patriotism”.

          So: anarchy,then?

        • Voluntarism (anarchy means white socialist Europeans in black throwing Molotov cocktails.

          Or secession/nullification is a decent option.

          It’s not imperative upon me to come up with a moral alternative to a immoral organization (governments as they exist today).

        • anarchy means white socialist Europeans in black throwing Molotov cocktails

          an·ar·chy
          ˈanərkē
          noun
          1. a state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority.
          “he must ensure public order in a country threatened with anarchy”
          synonyms: lawlessness, nihilism, mobocracy, revolution, insurrection, disorder, chaos, mayhem, tumult, turmoil
          “conditions are dangerously ripe for anarchy”
          antonyms: government, order

          2. absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual, regarded as a political ideal.

          Really, it’s okay. You can admit to being an anarchist.

        • Why are you making this about me? I gave other options.

          You seem to be suffering from cognitive dissonance, you can parrot the constitution or why this government is the best (like comparing deadly cancers).

          You can theorize all you want, if the demographics keep going as they are, the government (police/military) will take your guns under the guise of “following orders” and you will rot in a cage.

          In the meantime, keep paying all your taxes and keep bending over.

          All monopolies grow and fail. Every government is a monopoly.

        • It is not at all like comparing deadly cancers. Asinine analogy. It is more like knowing that in nature no distilled, bottled water exists…and making a decision as to whether to drink from a quick moving stream or dirty standing water. The people can allow the stream to become polluted by poor choices, but that choice is theirs. The stream is the better choice by far. One cannot choose to go without water.

  24. This is the perfect example of why they should have body cameras. It will slow down incidents like this. I know what is being said about they just won’t turn them on for this kind of stop. But I think that is a little simple minded. From the video there was at least 3 officers that went to the scene. 2 idiotic patrol officers who thinks the constituion is when you build a house and a sergent that appearently knows there is a law that is above him. All three of them would need to respond with no cameras on, that would need to be a department policy which would be easy enough to find out and change. If you just have one officer who doesn’t turn the camera on then it will become a question of why but if any action was ever taken against the officer the burden of proof would shift. Not to mention in a case like this you have the citizen who is still taping and who asked if the officer is recording so he can’t say that he forgot to turn the camera on. I am not saying that it would solve all problems but the risk on the part of the citizen is low and areas that already have their officers wearing cameras have had up to an 80% drop in complaints- I’ll take those odds.

    • I like the idea of having courts presume the cop’s account needs to be shown to be true if the camera wasn’t on. Right now, if the “tape” ends up conveniently missing the courts tend to believe the cops anyway. I’ll bet that if we shifted the presumption we’d suddenly see a sharp increase in video equipment reliability by sheer magic (since no actual repair/replacement of the system would happen, magic would be the only other alternative explanation, right?) and a sharp decrease in the number of complaints.

      • I like the idea of having courts presume the cop’s account needs to be shown to be true if the camera wasn’t on.

        I’ve never understood why, in the absence of any evidence one way or the other, the accuser’s account is taken as assumed true unless refuted. If a police officer arrests someone, his word is the accusation. Accusation is not evidence.

    • I now wear a body camera as do many of my buddies. (One of the guys bought it for me.) Interactions with officers that I don’t even know have gotten very polite since wearing it. It’s impressive how an obvious and professional looking body cam has had such an effect. Perhaps a video recording society* is a polite society as well?

      {* I don’t support cameras everywhere in public, 1984 style, but body cameras seem to do the job so far.}

  25. No matter your agreement/disagreement with OC, it has certainly brought a big bright light to unlawful actions by police officers, and done a lot to educate folks on what officers can and cannot do.

    • And videos like this are having an enormous impact, something that extends far beyond the immediate interests of OCers or People Of The Gun. Many people, often for the first time in their lives, are seeing police behavior they’ve not seen before. Blacks and Hispanics usually laugh when I tell them this because they’ve seen cops behave this way their whole lives—it’s a rule rather than an exception with them. But for middle-class, more affluent, white Americans—people who wield real political power—it hasn’t been. Until now. This video shows iconic bad-cop behavior. People will see it over and over and over again. It’s destroying the “blue wall of silence” that has traditionally shielded bad police behavior for view. This is how change happens.

    • In a round about way, that’s part of the deterrent effect of the right to bear arms. Government can give lip service to the right but the proof is when the right is actually exercised in public every day. Open carry is keeping government in check through its exercise; just not always in the same way as some might have envisioned.

  26. They put their lives on the line everyday to protect us….Horse S**T more like they go to work every day to bully us and then they wonder why people call them PIGS!

  27. “When that starts to happen, and when cops start losing promotions or not getting hired, then
    we’ll start seeing real change in police culture.”

    Sadly…IN YOUR DREAMS. Cops always protect their own. Even when video taped those
    mythical “99%” still stand around and watch felony acts by their “brothers in blue” without
    lifting a finger. Ever seen a cop cuff another cop….NEVER happen. Grew up in a little
    Dakota town where the county sheriff lived just down the street and was respected for
    respecting the law so keep your badge licking comments to yourselves….

  28. Any cop who refuses to report bad behaviour, twist the truth to secure a conviction or get a friend / fellow out of trouble is one of “those” cops.

    Cops need to be held to a higher standard and therefore by keeping silent about abuses are just as guilty of them.

    For all those who think TTAG is anti cop, maybe they need to take a good hard look and wonder why the police are disdained by society at large now.

    Officers remember; the Badge doesn’t automatically confer respect. It is the people who wear the badge that need to EARN, that respect and admiration.

  29. (LEO thinks…) I know what I learned. Every damn phone I snatch from someone is getting chucked onto the front seat of the cruiser and staying there for the duration of whatever I’m doing.

  30. Letter/comment from Houston PD officer to Texas Open Carry:

    We got this today from an HPD officer who asked that I not reveal his/her name for obvious reasons. I asked to share this because it is important that we understand that there are good cops out there and they deserve recognition, even if anonymously. He knows who is and we know who he is. It’s good to know that not all HPD cops are like the ones in this video. We have had many contacts with HPD over the past two years, all positive.

    “Sir. You don’t know me but I am a Houston Police Officer. My comment here is in no way official or a representation of the department, I wanted to apologize for the conduct of the officer I just watched on the video with one of the OCT people. The officer, in my opinion was way out of line. I know that it does not make it better for the person who had this happen to him. I can only hope that the chief does the right thing. I promise you that that officer is not indicative of the majority of us.”

    https://www.facebook.com/groups/opencarrytexas/permalink/378752282287696/

    • Aside from this anonymous letter, has there been any more on this incident?
      I’m assuming nothing in the media but do we know if the citizen is pursuing any action?

      Sorry if I missed something substantive in the comments. I tried to read them all…

      – Bubba

  31. Also remember, the WORST thing you can do is talk to a cop. Keep your mouth SHUT. Answer NO questions. Say nothing. You are not required to talk to any cop.

  32. We are a bunch of volunteers and starting a brand new scheme in our community.
    Your web site provided us with valuable info to work
    on. You’ve performed a formidable job and
    our entire community will likely be grateful to you.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *