Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Chairboy on August 08, 2007, 10:59:42 AM
-
A guy was walking down the sidewalk in New Hampshire recently, open carrying his pistol in a holster. A safety officer saw this and stopped him, and the way the citizen handled it was pretty good. A useful and informative example of a good way to handle this type of bad-stop by an officer who doesn't know better. Respectful of the officer, firm exercise of rights, and getting a recording:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FWXnK5UyRI&eurl=
-
good for him.
-
A clarification, by 'bad stop' I don't mean "ZOMG JACK BOOTED CONSPIRACY!!!!11!1!!eleventy!!", just assuming that the officer didn't know better.
-
cops who don't know the law.:O
-
this is just human nature, down where the rubber meets the road. most places have laws that allow police officers to detain persons who's presence and demeanor appear to be unusual for the location and time of day.
Couple that with the understandable fact that an officer will want to know more about a potential threat.
Citizens in NH no doubt report people walking around carrying guns, even if it is legal. I presume this is a new law. Until a whole lot more people exersize that right in NH, I think this fella should expect to be stopped until there is a comfort level. I note that the subject did not elect to test the law while driving a vehicle....
To me, its much ado about nothing, really, by some people who make a hobby out of playing where the rubber meets the road. That is where the friction is... and it appears it is their right to openly carry, and if so, the cops will eventually get used to it when it becomes common.
-
Interesting video. The guy's friend is an annoying tard.
-
Originally posted by SteveBailey
Interesting video. The guy's friend is an annoying tard.
Ya he was trying to provoke a reaction.
shamus
-
I did notice one thing the open carry tester could have done to make this a safer "test".
On a stop like that, which the officer has a right to do, very few cops would have allowed the subject's partner to walk around like that, going back and forth, appealing to others on the street, throwing his hands up in the air, and interjecting while they are trying to find out what is going on. That understandably makes officers a little nervous, and I don't recommend it. Perhaps it is part of the hobby - you know - to sort of make things more interesting. In that respect, I don't really characterize this encounter as completely respectful.
-
Just what I was gonna say the friend seemed to be a Michael Moore wanna-be.
-
As far as I can tell, the annoying git was a friend who came out of the bar he was walking to, so this wasn't any sort of planned event. That guy was borderline hysterical, I applaud the patience of the cops in not letting him get to them. He shoulda stayed inside.
-
The foreign guy in the video didn't appear to have a holster. Was the gun just tucked into his pocket?
-
Wow that was some poor officer safety... the state troop had his gun hand in pocket, then he uses his gun hand to write / use radio, no arms distance, no gun side protection, all while letting an armed individual stand there holding a phone that could have easily been used as a weapon.
Meanwhile the portly dude has both hands in his pockets and is allowing the annoying guy to flail his arms and walk around with out one "watch your back" to his partner. He's in an obvious crossfire with no attempt to control the situation, zero command presence... at one point several cops had their backs to the armed dude... not very sharp.
Personally, either the armed dude sits, puts hands where I can see them and does everything I say when I say, or he goes to jail for delaying / obstructing (Ca PC148). The instant he didn't put the cell phone down, he goes to jail... the police don't have to argue with people into compliance re: officer safety.
Same with Mr annoying, he stays far enough away so as not to interfere, or he goes to jail too... situation over.
-
Marine,
Honest question
What do you think about someone sauntering down the street with a sidearm in plain view?
And guys please don't flame him for answering honestly I'm really curious as to his take. I watched the film and, while I'm in favor of having the right to carry, there are enough loonies out there that I'd probably be pretty nervous if there was someone walking down my street with a glock on their hip.
-
There's only about 7 states where open carry is unlawful or so restricted as to be meaningless.
In the others, you can open carry, although some require a license and/or a few other minor regulations.
-
Originally posted by x0847Marine
Personally, either the armed dude sits, .... does everything I say when I say, or he goes to jail for delaying / obstructing (Ca PC148). The instant he didn't put the cell phone down, he goes to jail... the police don't have to argue with people into compliance re: officer safety.
I hope I run into you in this situation some day(without the tard friend of course). Your department will pay my way through the rest of my life.
Does what you say, when you say? Please, please try that on me, then arrest me. Good luck on whatever new career you choose afterward.
-
'RESPECT MY AUTHORITY!"
(http://202.164.186.122/404error/cartman.jpg)
-
Originally posted by SteveBailey
Interesting video. The guy's friend is an annoying tard.
times a bazillion!!!!
He could have made a easy situation very dangerous...
-
protect and serve at work.
"don't block the sidewalk"
"the signs are illegal"
"turn off the camera"
:rofl
-
Originally posted by x0847Marine
Wow that was some poor officer safety... the state troop had his gun hand in pocket, then he uses his gun hand to write / use radio, no arms distance, no gun side protection, all while letting an armed individual stand there holding a phone that could have easily been used as a weapon.
Meanwhile the portly dude has both hands in his pockets and is allowing the annoying guy to flail his arms and walk around with out one "watch your back" to his partner. He's in an obvious crossfire with no attempt to control the situation, zero command presence... at one point several cops had their backs to the armed dude... not very sharp.
Personally, either the armed dude sits, puts hands where I can see them and does everything I say when I say, or he goes to jail for delaying / obstructing (Ca PC148). The instant he didn't put the cell phone down, he goes to jail... the police don't have to argue with people into compliance re: officer safety.
Same with Mr annoying, he stays far enough away so as not to interfere, or he goes to jail too... situation over.
Wow, thats a major erosion of the rights of the citizen in the U.S.
-
Originally posted by AquaShrimp
Wow, thats a major erosion of the rights of the citizen in the U.S.
Yeah makes you glad he is just one of the board crackpots and not a cop anymore.
-
Originally posted by x0847Marine
Wow that was some poor officer safety... the state troop had his gun hand in pocket, then he uses his gun hand to write / use radio, no arms distance, no gun side protection, all while letting an armed individual stand there holding a phone that could have easily been used as a weapon.
Meanwhile the portly dude has both hands in his pockets and is allowing the annoying guy to flail his arms and walk around with out one "watch your back" to his partner. He's in an obvious crossfire with no attempt to control the situation, zero command presence... at one point several cops had their backs to the armed dude... not very sharp.
Personally, either the armed dude sits, puts hands where I can see them and does everything I say when I say, or he goes to jail for delaying / obstructing (Ca PC148). The instant he didn't put the cell phone down, he goes to jail... the police don't have to argue with people into compliance re: officer safety.
Same with Mr annoying, he stays far enough away so as not to interfere, or he goes to jail too... situation over.
I suppose you would have came up to the guy with your own weapon drawn and ordering him to the ground right? Or threatned him with arrest the first time he said no I don't have to give you that information?
There is allot more to officer presence than being a hard ass.
I've been stopped a few times while I've been openly carring my sidearm and it was no big deal. I got the basic "Sir do you have a permit for that weapon?" "Yes I do." "May I see it please?" "Sure here you go." Officer calls it in on his radio, hands me back my permit and says "Have a nice day sir."
Now if an officer ever comes up to me and gives me a bunch of crap and starts ordering me around, we're going to have a problem. You can bet I'll be filling charges against the officer.
-
Originally posted by AquaShrimp
Wow, thats a major erosion of the rights of the citizen in the U.S.
Nah, you could have sued his department for 26 bazillion dollars and you would have won.
-
Not to be seen as trying to erode anyone's rights, but I do have a question...
If he isn't required to show some sort of proof that he has the required permits, how are the police supposed to know he does in fact have them?
Don't get me wrong - I'm a big believer that the 2nd Amendment needs protecting - but at the same time, wouldn't it be fine to just show your ID real quick, and have the officer say, "Sorry for the delay, have a good one, Sir?"
It certainly beats standing around for 10 minutes in what could easily be a very nervous situation for everyone.
-
Originally posted by Hornet33
Now if an officer ever comes up to me and gives me a bunch of crap and starts ordering me around, we're going to have a problem. You can bet I'll be filling charges against the officer.
This is an important thing to know: you have a legal right to resist an unlawful arrest. Believe it or not, this includes deadly force. If a cop pulls a gun on you in an unlawful arrest, and you end up killng the cop, you have committed no crime.
-
Originally posted by SteveBailey
This is an important thing to know: you have a legal right to resist an unlawful arrest. Believe it or not, this includes deadly force. If a cop pulls a gun on you in an unlawful arrest, and you end up killng the cop, you have committed no crime.
Just make sure you're a millionaire with a great lawyer. Cops lie too, and the same loopholes that can get you out of trouble can make your arrest "lawful" as well.
-
Originally posted by Vudak
If he isn't required to show some sort of proof that he has the required permits, how are the police supposed to know he does in fact have them?
Many states do not require a permit for open carry.
-
Originally posted by Vudak
Just make sure you're a millionaire with a great lawyer. Cops lie too, and the same loopholes that can get you out of trouble can make your arrest "lawful" as well.
You call the right to resist an unlawful arrest a "loophole"?
-
Originally posted by SteveBailey
Many states do not require a permit for open carry.
Last time I checked it wasn't required in Cali, but the gun has to be unloaded and the law said the police could assume that it was loaded and stop you to check. (this was the last time I read the penal code on it years ago)
I would never try it here, Xmarine was a cali cop after all.
-
Originally posted by SteveBailey
You call the right to resist an unlawful arrest a "loophole"?
Nope, don't think I did?
I'm just saying, that's a nice little law you've brought up, now welcome to the real world. You kill a cop that tried to unlawfully arrest you, you're in trouble.
But hey, by all means, try it for yourself :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Vudak
Nope, don't think I did?
I'm just saying, that's a nice little law you've brought up, now welcome to the real world. You kill a cop that tried to unlawfully arrest you, you're in trouble.
But hey, by all means, try it for yourself :rolleyes:
I think everyone here just wants the police to be polite when it is warranted and not come off like a giant hardon like Xmarine.
-
Originally posted by Vudak
Nope, don't think I did?
You kill a cop that tried to unlawfully arrest you, you're in trouble.
No, you're not and there's case law to back it up.
-
Originally posted by SteveBailey
No, you're not and there's case law to back it up.
Look, Steve, I really don't want to get into it with you...
All I'm saying, is that if you kill their partner, the charges that were originally and unlawfully brought against you, are all of a sudden going to turn into something that would have been lawful.
I've been arrested enough times. My friends have been arrested enough times. I work at a place where all we do is deal with people who've been arrested enough times.
The police do what they want. Sometimes they get caught, many times they don't. Do you really want to make that gamble to prove a point?
Wouldn't it be wiser to just get off the unlawful charges via the courts rather than try to be a hard*** right back to the cops and escalate the situation for, basically, nothing but pride?
Then again, maybe cops where you live are different than the ones up here. Who knows.
Again, not trying to strike a nerve or dispute you. Technically, you are of course right. But, c'mon, what do you honestly think the average joe who tries it is going to find?
-
nm
-
Originally posted by SteveBailey
I hope I run into you in this situation some day(without the tard friend of course). Your department will pay my way through the rest of my life.
Does what you say, when you say? Please, please try that on me, then arrest me. Good luck on whatever new career you choose afterward.
I was going to say something to that effect in language that was a bit more coarse then you put it.
We'll go with your statement instead.
:aok
that being said. The guys buddy deserved to be body slammed to the ground,cuffed and taken away the moment he did the hand but in front of the other cops face.
Or as soon as the subject at hand was resolved.
Personally I dont see how the cell phone could have been used as a weapon.
That statement is downright rediculous.
LOL Try attacking me witha cell phone and you'll be real embarrassed explaining it in the ER how a cell phone ended up in your rectum
-
Originally posted by Vudak
Look, Steve, I really don't want to get into it with you...
The police do what they want. Sometimes they get caught, many times they don't. Do you really want to make that gamble to prove a point?
Wouldn't it be wiser to just get off the unlawful charges via the courts rather than try to be a hard*** right back to the cops and escalate the situation for, basically, nothing but pride?
Then again, maybe cops where you live are different than the ones up here. Who knows.
Again, not trying to strike a nerve or dispute you. Technically, you are of course right. But, c'mon, what do you honestly think the average joe who tries it is going to find?
I certainly wouldn't let a situation to escalate to the point of deadly force merely to prove a point, of course not.
The cops where I live are quite accustomed to open carry so they wouldn't make the same career ending mistake as Xmarine says he would.
And, the next step in our discussion is what you brought up. How badly does one need to be right? in other words, I think the circumstances would dictate how far one would want to take a confrontation about wrongful arrest.
I think most circumstances wouldn't warrant serious resistance but what about something unknown/extreme like this: You are eating at a restaurant outside w/ your wife and 4 young children. You have opted to carry open because you are in Wisconsin and there is no concealed weapons allowed but you can carry open legally, no permit required. A person in uniform approaches you and demands your firearm and says he wants to talk to you.
I'm not sure what you would do but I can tell you that short of a gunfight, he's not going to get mine. This "cop" has just asked me to disarm myself, unlawfully, while he himself is armed with a gun. For all I know he is not a cop at all, since he obviously doesn't know the law. I'm not going to render myself unable to defend my family with an armed person confronting me, simply because he has a nice police uniform on.
Certainly the above is extreme. Just as certainly, things like this HAVE happened.
Finally, let me make something clear, I have no interest in getting in a scuffle w/ the police, I appreciate the job they do and I am "pro" cop. I have no dreams of being a tough guy or being put in any kind of situation that we've discussed. I'll be happy if I never again have to pull my weapon.
I just do not like the way the govt has chipped away at the second amendment and continues to do so.
Steve
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
The guys buddy deserved to be body slammed to the ground,cuffed and taken away the moment he did the hand but in front of the other cops face.
Beyond the mistakes the police made in this video(tactically speaking) I thought they showed great restraint for not dealing with the guy that waved his hand in front of the cops face. I believe that guy was really pushing the bounds of DC.
The tard is lucky he didn't make inadvertant contact with one of the cops or we might have seen a very different ending. Had I been the guy with the gun, I would have told the idiot to shut the hell up and made it clear to the cops that I was NOT with him. IMHO the loudmouthed tard was the most dangerous catalyst in the scenario, not the civi w/ the gun.
-
No, the open-carry guy held his phone out so that tard-buddy could be heard on the broadcast. It's all about creating drama... period... and tard-buddy was inadvertently helping his cause.
Turn on a camera and watch people fall over themselves to see who can be the most outrageous, the most scandalous, the most dramatic. Open-carry guy was trolling for trouble and reactions, and guess what?
-
Trolling for trouble? He had parked his car and was walking into the bar when the safety officer stopped him. He was broadcasting via phone so there was a record.
-
Legally, what information are you REQUIRED to provide to a police officer, and what can you legally refrain from?>
-
I found it interesting that the guy didn't have to back up his name and address with proof.
So you got this guy with a gun and a loon for a friend (who seems to get off on enhancing situations) and all you can do is ask his name without blocking his way.
I'm kinda feeling sry for these US cops - talk about cards stacked against.
-
As a citizen of New Hampshire, Im ignorant to the open carry law. Personally I dont feel the need to prance around with a pistol at my side. As if the cops dont deal with enough stress, we have people (probably lawyers out on hobby day) trying to stir the pot.
I do appreciate the message where it puts the cops in their place as servants not masters however. I just think making a scene, and challenging them on the street, basically belittling them isnt the way to educate people.
Now imagine that same scene if it was in LA and that guy was a black man.
-
Originally posted by Flint
I found it interesting that the guy didn't have to back up his name and address with proof.
Why? He wasn't committing a crime.
Or are you arguing that he should show his papers please?
-
Originally posted by cav58d
Legally, what information are you REQUIRED to provide to a police officer,
No information whatsoever, if you aren't operating a motor vehicle, or breaking the law. You are not required to carry ID on you. Since driving is a privilege, one must have a DL in one's possession when operating a MV.
-
Filth, you DID catch that the guy was just walking down the sidewalk and the police detained him, right? How is that OK if he's not violating the law? The police officer was in the wrong, how does HIS mistake turn into the fault of the improperly stopped?
-
Just saying that in this day and age there are a lot of liers out there - if you wern't a threat and had no weapons - no problem. The fact that you're carrying a 9mm, new to town and have an inciteful slogan on your t-shirt means maybe we should have a chat.
I mean jeez - Was calmly handled and no one got hurt. Pisses me off that guys who spend their lives trying to protect the communities that they grew up in and love are such easy targets.
Why does everyone have to be a lawer these days.
-
That might be true in your country, but in the United States, it's considered a violation of constitutionally protected civil rights.
A right that isn't exercised is no right at all.
You may wish to review the following site:
http://papersplease.org/id.html
-
The headboy at my old school had the right to graze sheep and all manner of farmyard animals on the local common - needless to say he did not exercise that right.
Just because something can be done, doesn't mean it's obligatory. Responsiblilty works both ways. I understand that the man who was stopped exercised his legal rights but why not co-operate.
Why not pull out your driver's licence and say "here you go officer" I am who I say I am. I am exercising my right to legal carry. Oh yeah, and pls excuse my friend, he's just had a bit too much caffine.
Instead - let's take you're concern for saftey for the local citzens and turn it into a monty python sketcth.
"OOHHHHHHhh - did you see that! Help, I'm being oppressed!"
Both parties acted responsibly as far as I could tell. Moutains out of molehills.
-
Originally posted by Flint
Just saying that in this day and age there are a lot of liers out there - if you wern't a threat and had no weapons - no problem. The fact that you're carrying a 9mm, new to town and have an inciteful slogan on your t-shirt means maybe we should have a chat.
I mean jeez - Was calmly handled and no one got hurt. Pisses me off that guys who spend their lives trying to protect the communities that they grew up in and love are such easy targets.
Why does everyone have to be a lawer these days.
Cool, so you had a problem w/ his first amendment rights as well as his second. Why not go after the 4th as well? Take his shirt and gun.
-
1st - freedom of speech or religion no? No problem with that, you want to advertise you may have a few issues then that's just fine by me -
2nd - you believe you're in a militia, and have the right to bear arms - ok ... been a topic of discourse for decades, isn't ever going to end overnight.
4th - something about searches isn't it - ... without probable cause.
-
Question -
If gun laws were restructured so that it was easier for law-abiding citizens to purchase, own, and carry firearms, with many less restrictions than some areas currently have, and if CCP's were less of a hassle to get, would it be a fair trade-off to have to carry your CCP and/or DL and produce it when asked?
Because I understand that there are many, many people in this country who really will stop at nothing to get rid of the guns (good luck :rolleyes: ) and for that reason, I can see how people would currently be aghast at any more chipping away of their rights (such as having to produce a license), perhaps seeing it as one more nail in the coffin... But, at the same time, I have a hard time justifying the sentence, "It is unreasonable for a citizen to be required to carry and show, when asked, identification proving that he/she is in fact, legally entitled to carry his/her firearm."
Don't get me wrong - I'm not for restricting firearms. I'm for, on average, lessening restrictions against them, but I do think this is one little chip that would be worth taking. If you have your permit, you go on your way. It might take 10 minutes, sure, but, then again, so did this video, right?
I'm not trying to stir the pot here, and if anyone would like to convince me otherwise, I'll listen with open ears.
Edit - I would like to make it clear that I've reviewed the site Chairboy listed, and am not convinced by the argument that since "well financed" terrorists would be able to get around intricate IDs, they're not worth much.
-
Its common sense. I mean if the guy was walking down the road with a can of gas and a lit torch, committing no crime, wouldnt you want to check him out? Both are legal to carry...but in the wrong hands dangerous. A guy walking down the road, especially how they appeared to be doing it, would make me stop and ask some questions.
What would have happened to that cop if he had said.."Howdy sir " and 5 minutes later that guy pulled his piece and shot someone?
People would be screaming that the cop should be charged. We live in a screwed up world. If that guy was such a respectful citizen he would have showed the cop his license and said " I hope I didnt cause a stir, but I am in my rights to carry this weapon. I have no felonies."
This land of victims is too busy being victimized than to use a little common sense and restraint.
-
Originally posted by FiLtH
Its common sense. I mean if the guy was walking down the road with a can of gas and a lit torch, committing no crime, wouldnt you want to check him out?
The above guy could be construed as commiting Disorderly Conduct and could be arrested.
-
I find that I agree somewhat with vudak.
Open carry should be the right of the state and/or city or private property owner to decide..
call it an "attractive nuisance" if you will... forbid open carry in the city limits but...
the state has no right to say you can't be armed. concealed carry should be perfectly legal.
lazs
-
Originally posted by SteveBailey
This is an important thing to know: you have a legal right to resist an unlawful arrest. Believe it or not, this includes deadly force. If a cop pulls a gun on you in an unlawful arrest, and you end up killng the cop, you have committed no crime.
Many folks here do not even read directions to play a game.... you think they would school themselves in law to be able to tell the difference between lawful and illegal. NO! Many would think, hey this aint right, and then follow your directions.
Complying with the Officer is a good idea... unless your a trouble maker.
-
Originally posted by SteveBailey
The above guy could be construed as commiting Disorderly Conduct and could be arrested.
Disorderly Conduct, wow. Now there is a totally arbitrary and nebulous concept that could be applied to any freaking behaviour one desires.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Disorderly Conduct, wow. Now there is a totally arbitrary and nebulous concept that could be applied to any freaking behaviour one desires.
It is pretty much a catch all, you're right about that. In the case of the guy carry the can of gas and a lit torch though, it gives the cop a lawful reason to stop the guy and thus deter him from committing whatever bad intent he had.
-
Posted by Filth
Its common sense. I mean if the guy was walking down the road with a can of gas and a lit torch, committing no crime, wouldnt you want to check him out? Both are legal to carry...but in the wrong hands dangerous. A guy walking down the road, especially how they appeared to be doing it, would make me stop and ask some questions.
How can you compare your above senario, gas and torch to this?
The guy was just walking, open carry, that's all. Now if he had the weapon drawn and was ducking from corner to corner that would be a different story.
Arizona has Open Carry. I've seen many people with side arms in public. I haven't seen a Fast Food Francise were a gunman enters and opens fire on the crowd like in Hmmmmm.... lets see... Texas maybe?
Open Carry gives a bad guy alot to think about before going Postal.
Mac
-
Originally posted by Shuffler
.
Complying with the Officer is a good idea... unless your a trouble maker.
So if an officer is making an unlawful arrest you are a trouble maker for resisting?
-
Originally posted by AWMac
Arizona has Open Carry. I've seen many people with side arms in public. I haven't seen a Fast Food Francise were a gunman enters and opens fire on the crowd like in Hmmmmm.... lets see... Texas maybe?
Open Carry gives a bad guy alot to think about before going Postal.
Mac
Yup, I open carry here now and then but usually go concealed.
I've never heard of a robery where the criminal walked in with open carry. In the surveillance videos you almost always see the guy pull a gun from concealment. It goes to follow then that people that open carry are very unlikely to have evil deeds on their mind.
-
I Tott ally (Pun intended) agree with you Steve.
Open Carry is a dam good deterence to Crime.
If a guy hellbent on doing evil with a concealed weapon walks into a bank and notices several customers packin sidearms... I think he'd have second thoughts on robbing the Bank.
Mac
-
Both, the gentleman carrying the gun and the police officer are within their rights.
New Hampshire Statutes TITLE XII: PUBLIC SAFETY AND WELFARE
159:4 Carrying Without License. – No person shall carry a loaded pistol or revolver in any vehicle or concealed upon his person, except in his dwelling, house or place of business, without a valid license therefor as hereinafter provided. A loaded pistol or revolver shall include any pistol or revolver with a magazine, cylinder, chamber or clip in which there are loaded cartridges. Whoever violates the provisions of this section shall, for the first such offense, be guilty of a misdemeanor. For the second and for each subsequent violation of the provisions of this section, such person shall be New Hampshire Statutesguilty of a class B felony, provided such second or subsequent violation has occurred within 7 years of the previous conviction.
New Hampshire Statutes TITLE LIX: PROCEEDINGS IN CRIMINAL CASES
594:2 Questioning and Detaining Suspects. – A peace officer may stop any person abroad whom he has reason to suspect is committing, has committed or is about to commit a crime, and may demand of him his name, address, business abroad and where he is going.
The police officer may ask for other forms of I.D. but the citizen may refuse to give it.
And just to remind everybody...
New Hampshire Statutes TITLE LIX: PROCEEDINGS IN CRIMINAL CASES
594:5 Resisting Arrest. – If a person has reasonable ground to believe that he is being arrested and that the arrest is being made by a peace officer, it is his duty to submit to arrest and refrain from using force or any weapon in resisting it, regardless of whether there is a legal basis for the arrest.
On the other hand the idiot running his mouth and getting in the other police officers face should have been beaten Rodney King style if for nothing else but for my amusement.
-
Originally posted by AWMac
Arizona has Open Carry. I've seen many people with side arms in public. I haven't seen a Fast Food Francise were a gunman enters and opens fire on the crowd like in Hmmmmm.... lets see... Texas maybe?
Open Carry gives a bad guy alot to think about before going Postal.
Mac
Yeah, walk in Taco Bell and start shooting. No one here carries a weapon.
-
Originally posted by kotrenin
Both, the gentleman carrying the gun and the police officer are within their rights.
New Hampshire Statutes TITLE XII: PUBLIC SAFETY AND WELFARE
159:4 Carrying Without License. – No person shall carry a loaded pistol or revolver in any vehicle or concealed upon his person, except in his dwelling, house or place of business, without a valid license therefor as hereinafter provided. A loaded pistol or revolver shall include any pistol or revolver with a magazine, cylinder, chamber or clip in which there are loaded cartridges. Whoever violates the provisions of this section shall, for the first such offense, be guilty of a misdemeanor. For the second and for each subsequent violation of the provisions of this section, such person shall be New Hampshire Statutesguilty of a class B felony, provided such second or subsequent violation has occurred within 7 years of the previous conviction.
New Hampshire Statutes TITLE LIX: PROCEEDINGS IN CRIMINAL CASES
594:2 Questioning and Detaining Suspects. – A peace officer may stop any person abroad whom he has reason to suspect is committing, has committed or is about to commit a crime, and may demand of him his name, address, business abroad and where he is going.
The police officer may ask for other forms of I.D. but the citizen may refuse to give it.
And just to remind everybody...
New Hampshire Statutes TITLE LIX: PROCEEDINGS IN CRIMINAL CASES
594:5 Resisting Arrest. – If a person has reasonable ground to believe that he is being arrested and that the arrest is being made by a peace officer, it is his duty to submit to arrest and refrain from using force or any weapon in resisting it, regardless of whether there is a legal basis for the arrest.
On the other hand the idiot running his mouth and getting in the other police officers face should have been beaten Rodney King style if for nothing else but for my amusement.
Yet another Noble Scholar emerges from the dark...
Perhaps you'd like to review the video again and come to an understanding the difference between "Concealed and Open Carry" Einstein.
He wasn't arrested he was being questioned and had his freedom denied. What crime was he suspected of? Walking down the sidewalk? He was asked for his Drivers Lic... for walking? Reread your Laws.
Where do you come up with Resisting arrest? He acted well within the Law by providing his name and origin of residence.
As for his friend being an Idiot...Sure he was, but is being a public handsomehunk a crime worthy of being beatin on the street like Rodney King? Or were you just thinking that Gestopo Jack Boot tactics will save all of the Community from ourselves?
The "Safety Officer" was unaware of the "Open Carry" Law.
The additional officers, once they realized Joe Citizen was well within the Law attempted to divert the incident to two unrelative things. One being the Car Wash posters on the Telephone pole which had NOTHING to do with this incident.
And that not more than three people can join together and block a sidewalk. This Joe Citizen did NOT ask these people to join upon the sidewalk... They were just merely concerned Citizens. As for blocking the sidewalk, please observed the Police and Safety Officers... Who is blocking the sidewalk? No crime has been commited.
Oh and the one officer got pee'd off for having a Video Camera in the presence of a non crime? WTF? Big Brother? Obviously this IS another crime in the making.
Gheesh where do these Intelects come from?
Mac
-
What the hell is a "safety officer" anyways and why is he dressed like a state trooper?
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
What the hell is a "safety officer" anyways and why is he dressed like a state trooper?
A Meter Maid with a Chip on his shoulder.
He couldn't be a REAL Police Office so he wears a Cowboy Hat and has a Stick Pony.
Mac
-
First of all I agreed that the man with the gun is right, to carry his weapon in plain view, and to release verbally to the officer only his name and address. It is the first line I wrote. I understand that the law only mentions concealed pistols only and not pistols carried openly. That is why I cut and pasted the law right into my post so everyone could review it. I do not have a problem with this man!!
I did not say the man was arrested I only noted the law for resisting arrest because of this post Originally posted by SteveBailey
So if an officer is making an unlawful arrest you are a trouble maker for resisting?
I am not saying this man is a trouble maker I just listed the law for review.
As for the man with the mouth, I work in a business where I have to deal with people like this every work day. And they can be scary because they are unpredictable. This man is far more scary than the man with the open carry pistol. When you have to worry everyday about whether you will make it home at the end of your shift to see your wife and kids you become very worried and on edge. This man was not even involved in the initial incident but he tried to make himself a part of it.
Next time read all the words not just the ones you like.
-
Originally posted by kotrenin
First of all I agreed that the man with the gun is right, to carry his weapon in plain view, and to release verbally to the officer only his name and address. It is the first line I wrote. I understand that the law only mentions concealed pistols only and not pistols carried openly. That is why I cut and pasted the law right into my post so everyone could review it. I do not have a problem with this man!!
I did not say the man was arrested I only noted the law for resisting arrest because of this post
I am not saying this man is a trouble maker I just listed the law for review.
As for the man with the mouth, I work in a business where I have to deal with people like this every work day. And they can be scary because they are unpredictable. This man is far more scary than the man with the open carry pistol. When you have to worry everyday about whether you will make it home at the end of your shift to see your wife and kids you become very worried and on edge. This man was not even involved in the initial incident but he tried to make himself a part of it.
Next time read all the words not just the ones you like.
You did a "Cut and Paste" on something that had nothing to do with the incident. Next time please "Cut and Paste" the Laws that apply to the incident and NOT just the ones you like.
BTW if you worry every day about the scary people then maybe you should "Open Carry".
Think about it and don't Whine.
Mac
-
What do you mean it had nothing to do with it? It was the law from New Hampshire, where this man is at, stating this mans right to carry that pistol openly in plain view of the public and his right to give out only strict personal information to the police.
And my worries are not about law abiding citizens that carry weapons openly, it is about unpredictable people that may attack me while my back is turned trying to help out someone in trouble. I'm a medic with a fire department in a large city, and when I'm elbow deep in someone's exposed guts I can not defend myself. We don't usually have police or other firemen with us on every run. And we do get attacked, people have no respect for us. We wear a uniform and people automatically think we are the police so they become violent with us.
-
Originally posted by kotrenin
What do you mean it had nothing to do with it? It was the law from New Hampshire, where this man is at, stating this mans right to carry that pistol openly in plain view of the public and his right to give out only strict personal information to the police.
And my worries are not about law abiding citizens that carry weapons openly, it is about unpredictable people that may attack me while my back is turned trying to help out someone in trouble. I'm a medic with a fire department in a large city, and when I'm elbow deep in someone's exposed guts I can not defend myself. We don't usually have police or other firemen with us on every run. And we do get attacked, people have no respect for us. We wear a uniform and people automatically think we are the police so they become violent with us.
Jeezus Francis stop back peddling.
You cut and pasted a "Concealed Carry" Law when obviously this was an "Open Carry" incident.
You cut and pasted a "Resisting Arrest" Law which the incident was not about.
You cut and pasted a "Questioning and Detaining Suspects" Law which this incident did not fall under.
Then you politely ended that his friend should have been beaten "Rodney King" style.
Then you claim you are fear of yer life on a Day to Day basis due to "quote" the "Scary People" out there "Unquote".
C'mon Cupcake stop the back peddling and stick to yer guns... opps not a good saying for you. If you can't handle the heat get out of the kitchen is a better one.
If daily life spooks you that much and the stress is too much to bear then sell Avon or Amway.
Please reread your "Cut and Paste" Laws.... It has nothing to do with this mans right to "Open Carry" a firearm. If you can't see that then Google the same Laws for a Braille copy and touch your monitor.
Mac
-
Other people on this thread posted questions about these laws. I just listed the laws so they could be read. If you had read the law chapters you would notice that their is no law named "open carry" or "concealed carry" only "Carry without License" which is the section I referenced, "159:4 Carrying Without License" http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/XII/159/159-4.htm .
Again the other sections I mentioned were because throughout this thread people have mentioned them without referencing them. http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/nhtoc.htm
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
What the hell is a "safety officer" anyways and why is he dressed like a state trooper?
He is a state trooper. The patch says State Police, Safety Officer. In Texas the troopers are the Dept. Of Public Saftey.
-
Originally posted by kotrenin
Other people on this thread posted questions about these laws. I just listed the laws so they could be read. If you had read the law chapters you would notice that their is no law named "open carry" or "concealed carry" only "Carry without License" which is the section I referenced, "159:4 Carrying Without License" http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/XII/159/159-4.htm .
Again the other sections I mentioned were because throughout this thread people have mentioned them without referencing them. http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/nhtoc.htm
"You are now returned to your regular scheduled program...."
(http://www.wallpaperbase.com/wallpapers/cartoons/spongebob/sponge_bob_2.jpg)
Thank you for Posting.
Mac
-
Dave handled the the situation very professionally..Great video shot of his buddy explaining how he was not free to walk down the sidewalk.
I think the "accosting" cops caught on to the fact that with live cell broadcast,their jobs"cover thy as$" were on the line & were waiting for their area superintendant to arrive to take over responsibility...And he was fishing for a disturbance of the peace charge...I guess cops think the second ammendment only applies to them.
His rights..had he not had his phone on,would have most likely been abused had he not been so smart..
Any Canadians here that know of your rights when you are walking down the sidewalk?..Can't open carry i know..but what info must u provide when prompted?
Feel like wearing an open-carry cellphone in holster.
-
Maybe a shoulder holstered Twinkie?
"Back!!! Back!!! I'm a Citizen on the Edge and I know how to use this thing!!!"
:D
Mac
-
Originally posted by kotrenin
I'm a medic with a fire department in a large city,
Which city? We gotta talk...take it to PM if ya wanna :)
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Trolling for trouble? He had parked his car and was walking into the bar...
no, no trouble here. just some liquored up tardlet with a loaded weapon and an itch to prove his rights :aok
Not taking a swing at you chairboy... here in Texas nothing mixes better than ammo and alcohol :D I don't think we can carry arms into businesses that sell liquor though
-
Originally posted by SirLoin
Any Canadians here that know of your rights when you are walking down the sidewalk?
You never have to talk to a cop in Canada to give them your name, address, or what have you...never.
A cop can detain you for a short time if they have some objective facts that give them reasonable grounds to expect that you have committed an actual crime.
-
Originally posted by SteveBailey
I hope I run into you in this situation some day(without the tard friend of course). Your department will pay my way through the rest of my life.
Does what you say, when you say? Please, please try that on me, then arrest me. Good luck on whatever new career you choose afterward.
Heard that, oh, a thousand times.. everyone was going to have me fired. Heres a small lesson in legal mojo: 148PC below is nice and ambiguous, and very easy to justify. It was up to me, not you, to decide what "delay", "obstruct" or "resist" was.
Most cases are not filed, which was never a big deal to me, for one reason; the police can also easily un arrest you per 849(b)(2)PC . I can throw cuffs on you for my safety under a charge of 148PC, after booking decide to and let you go home per 849(b)(2)PC pending any charges filed by the DA... meaning a letter with a court date.
The DA will read my report, see that I released you 849(b)(2)PC, and not file any charges recognizing that my actions were intended as a temporary measure... the end. If you filed a complaint, which was common, my POA lawyer was one of the dudes who represented the LAPD officers Vs Rodney King, and would do a fine job representing my interests at no cost to me.
Its a way to get around arresting someone and still put them in jail for a few hours. It adheres to the "spirit of the law" which was intended to allow cops to detain people who didn't follow instructions for safety reasons, but not make a case out of it.
Welcome to the world of dirty tricks, 100% legal I might add.. and one that I used to deal with certain people who wanted to see who could win the urinate for distance contest.
FYI.. another dirty trick is to 849(b)(2)PC an injured suspect right before they get into an ambulance, that makes them, not the city, liable for the $700 ride and $12 aspirin.
148. (a) (1) Every person who willfully resists, delays, or
obstructs any public officer, peace officer, or an emergency medical
technician, as defined in Division 2.5 (commencing with Section 1797)
of the Health and Safety Code, in the discharge or attempt to
discharge any duty of his or her office or employment...
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html
-
Originally posted by x0847Marine
and one that I used to deal with certain people who wanted to see who could win the urinate for distance contest.
FYI.. another dirty trick is to 849(b)(2)PC an injured suspect right before they get into an ambulance, that makes them, not the city, liable for the $700 ride and $12 aspirin.
148. (a) (1) Every person who willfully resists, delays, or
obstructs any public officer, peace officer, or an emergency medical
technician, as defined in Division 2.5 (commencing with Section 1797)
of the Health and Safety Code, in the discharge or attempt to
discharge any duty of his or her office or employment...
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html
Two things here.
A person who gets in a pi$$ing match w/ a cop for the sake of it is asking for trouble, agreed. As I've stated, I'm not one of those people, I am as friendly and polite to the officers as they are to me. Only once in my life have I run into a rude cop and she got back just what she gave me. Otherwise, I've yet to run into a cop that wasn't professional and courteous. If I've been lucky, I'll take it.
California laws will never apply to me. I'd drown if California was the last piece of dry land on the planet.
Remember, we are talking about a cop who stopped a person who was committing no crime or disturbance, and the cop was not responding to any kind of call. Were you to start issuing me orders under these circumstances, we'd have a problem.
As you've admitted, 148PC, like many DC laws are ambiguous. It would never apply to me though because I certainly wouldn't interfere w/ your ability to discharge your duty beyond what we have already discussed.
:)
-
xmarine.. are you sure that the laws are the same now as they were twenty years ago when you were forced to leave?
lazs
-
cities have been sued and had to pay hundreds of thousands and cops have lost their jobs because they followed the "law" instead of common sense.
cops are hired by the people to protect the people, they are not given arrest powers to boost their own ego.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
xmarine.. are you sure that the laws are the same now as they were twenty years ago when you were forced to leave?
lazs
Uh, nobody forced me to leave, I retired from injuries. But 148, aka 'COC' for contempt of cop, is the same old staple and "catch all" that allows the police to throw cuffs on people for officer safety reasons, 849(b)(1) then allows the police to let them go without making a case out of it. Which is why I personally wouldn't hesitate to hook someone up, esp if that person refused to put down something that could be thrown / used as a weapon.
It made things safer for me, my partners and whoever else, which is the whole point. Making BS misd 148 arrests was a waste of time and generally frowned upon, ELA is the land of the righteous felony with guns, gangs and dope on every corner, but some sidewalk lawyers just didn't want to listen to simple instructions and wore cuffs if I felt my safety was in question.
Like dude in the video, I say put down the phone for my safety, he declines, I put cuffs on him... if everything checks out ok dokey, I might choose to book & release, or just let him go. Perhaps you have heard of an "attitude arrest"? being booked / released is an amazing attitude adjustment tool, and some people actually learn from it... next time a cop says put something down for officer safety, they comply.
He'd be welcome to file all the complaints / lawsuits he wanted... but the reality is he's cuffed for his safety as well... he's protected from any officer interpreting his actions as hostile... a nice safe situation where nobody gets hurt, well except for maybe a bruised ego. I'd rather bruise 10 egos a day than get an avoidable shooting or force incident. The police have no idea who this guy is, he could be joe cool citizen, or senior dirt bag.. either way he's almost no danger while cuffed... and because the responsibility & decision was all mine, thats how I did things with no apologies, a 100% success rate and zero (0) successful complaints against.
This isn't a game, people can and do get shot over stupid stuff / poor officer safety, I was one of those better safe than sorry guys who took no crap and bruised plenty of egos when it came to me going EOW on time.
-
Just based on the facts above by the Whining Crying Libs and those in New Hampster...
Here in Oklahoma we have "Open Carry". The Law never questions that. Hell some are Farmers working crops, Shootin Coyotes... Some are working the fields tending Cattle, guess ya'll call them Cowboys.. Garth lives here so I guess that's good.
Many watch the Red and prevent Texans and Mexicans from swimmin across. Our version of HomeLand Security. We started clearing out the HomeLand Depot....Nuthin swims across the Red.
Never has an incident like above happened here in Oklahoma.
We live like decent folk by decent means. Neighbors helpin each other.
Oklahoma is OK!!!
:aok
Mac
-
Intersting vid, thank you for posting.
I'm a little on the fence in this one... how could you not be required to present I.D. to a uniformed, credentialed officer at any time? And to not have to present certification of right to carry? Second Ammendment rights aside...that is stupid. Guy walks down the street with a holstered weapon, on the way into a bar, and you're going to argue that the cops have no right to even stop him?
Also, the clown in the video, waving his hands in the second responding officer's face... how he avoided cell time is beyond me. They were well within the rights of on scene safety to order him to leave or to restrain him. Running around like the little conspiracy theorist.."my friend is being accosted...he can't go here ha can't... blah blah blah." The cops were obviously in very low response mode... as someone else pointed out, they even had their backs to him. Accosted is physically restraining him...which they never did. (it was funny that one cop started laughing when he was yelling about his friend being accosted)
All in all it was interesting, but obviously planned and staged for the response they got. Nothing happened to the individual, and he treated it well, as did the officers. I would hope our police are smart enough to take a second look at someone walking down the street with a deadly weapon. I guess all a criminal has to do in NH is holster it until he gets to where he's planning to commit the crime.
-
Moray, while I agree that the 'friend' was an idiot, there are a couple of misconceptions in your post that should be addressed.
1. There is no requirement to have a permit for carrying a pistol in the open in that state. So the requirement that you show one makes no sense.
2. The officer asked for his name, and he gave it. There is no requirement that you carry ID or present it, that's just the way the country works. The obvious counterpoint to that would be countries like the Soviet Union and Historical Germany where you were required to present your papers on demand.
3. How could it be staged? He parked his car and was walking to the bar when the officer stopped him. You appear to be assuming facts not in evidence.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Moray, while I agree that the 'friend' was an idiot, there are a couple of misconceptions in your post that should be addressed.
1. There is no requirement to have a permit for carrying a pistol in the open in that state. So the requirement that you show one makes no sense.
2. The officer asked for his name, and he gave it. There is no requirement that you carry ID or present it, that's just the way the country works. The obvious counterpoint to that would be countries like the Soviet Union and Historical Germany where you were required to present your papers on demand.
3. How could it be staged? He parked his car and was walking to the bar when the officer stopped him. You appear to be assuming facts not in evidence.
1. I was unaware of that...I figured that having to require a concealed permit would somehow also apply to carrying a holstered loaded firearm in public. As stated in a previous law post, that does not apply to walking down the street displaying. I am unclear on the distinction here.
2. As for this... and it is a bit on the shade of gray. You are correct, unless you have been witnessed to a crime, you only have to give name and destination, as well as origination. The officer is within his right, though, to ask for and receive ID if he believes the possibility of intent to commit a crime. (Walking into a bar with a gun... yeah that could be construed to be intent)
3. Not staged? LOL. He's wearing a political T-shirt, he wants his message out. There is a camera on hand, that just so happens to be there at the exact time it starts. His buddy acts like a circus clown to get attention. Cmon. I get his message, and I don't disagree with it. But it is completely staged and it was so to get the exact reponse it got.
-
Originally posted by MORAY37
The officer is within his right, though, to ask for and receive ID if he believes the possibility of intent to commit a crime. (Walking into a bar with a gun... yeah that could be construed to be intent)
How? This makes no sense at all. He has a constitutional right to carry a gun, and as long as he's not going into a school or federal building, the current laws say he's ok.
Do you assume that a gun is inherently a tool of evil? If so, I've gotta disagree here.
Originally posted by MORAY37
3. Not staged? LOL. He's wearing a political T-shirt, he wants his message out. There is a camera on hand, that just so happens to be there at the exact time it starts. His buddy acts like a circus clown to get attention. Cmon. I get his message, and I don't disagree with it. But it is completely staged and it was so to get the exact reponse it got.
A note, he was wearing that shirt because he was going to meet with his free-stater friends at the bar. It's a liberty movement, and they were having a get-together. How would he arrange for A: an officer to be there, and B: for the officer to stop him for something that's not illegal, and C: the rest of the silliness like the other officer trying to hold these guys responsible for the Car Wash sign on the light pole?
C'mon, you're flailing here.
-
Originally posted by x0847Marine
Wow that was some poor officer safety... the state troop had his gun hand in pocket, then he uses his gun hand to write / use radio, no arms distance, no gun side protection, all while letting an armed individual stand there holding a phone that could have easily been used as a weapon.
Meanwhile the portly dude has both hands in his pockets and is allowing the annoying guy to flail his arms and walk around with out one "watch your back" to his partner. He's in an obvious crossfire with no attempt to control the situation, zero command presence... at one point several cops had their backs to the armed dude... not very sharp.
Personally, either the armed dude sits, puts hands where I can see them and does everything I say when I say, or he goes to jail for delaying / obstructing (Ca PC148). The instant he didn't put the cell phone down, he goes to jail... the police don't have to argue with people into compliance re: officer safety.
Same with Mr annoying, he stays far enough away so as not to interfere, or he goes to jail too... situation over.
(Ca PC148) and laws like it often get ABUSED IMHO by some in Kalifornian Law Enforcement.
And this is a GREAT EXAMPLE of why I departed the State in which I was born.
With TOO many Kalifornia law enforcement personal IMHO takin the above attitude.
YES be safe out there BUT don't walk all over my rights while you do it.
In most parts of Kalifornia open carry is still legal, or was when I left, BUT in several areas be warned and don't even try it!
You'll get FAR different treatment then in the video!
IMHO The P.eople R.epublic of C.alifornia and the P.eople R.epublic of C.hina are starting to have more in common then just initials.
YOU WILL OBEY, OR YOU WILL GO TO JAIL, OR POSSIBLE BE SHOT TO DEATH, EVEN if the actions by Law Enforcement against you are unconstitutional.
Yes you can go to court over it LATER. Or your family could if you don't survive.
There is a proverb that comes to my mind so often when I see many peoples response to open carry of firearms..................
goes something like this.........
Only the guilty flee when NONE pursue.........
Easy XMarine, this is not a personal attack Sir. I also see where it is you probably work and I understand your attitude and how you came by it.
Sadly way too much of Kalifornia is becoming like the L.A. region of the State.
You go into some very dangerous situations I'm sure.
Oh and BTW I was watching the portly officer that was standing behind the man on the phone. Sure looked to me like he KEPT his right hand at the ready? At least until he and the other Officers came to the conclusion that there actually was NO threat.
IT was GOOD to see Civilians and Law Enforcement being mutually respectful of each other. I do wonder how that might have gone down without the cameras and phone though................
Also I'm fairly sure that the State in which this occurred either has no law like (Ca PC148) or employs it in a much different manner.
I know here in Nevada open carry is still respected through out MOST of the state.
And IIRC in the Arizona Town of Yuma if you carry openly it BETTER be LOADED or it will be confiscated!!!!! That is or was the LAW there in 1970-74.
-
Originally posted by Shuffler
Many folks here do not even read directions to play a game.... you think they would school themselves in law to be able to tell the difference between lawful and illegal. NO! Many would think, hey this aint right, and then follow your directions.
Complying with the Officer is a good idea... unless your a trouble maker.
(something probably overheard Auschwitz)
All of you must be deloused get in the showers now, you will comply..... unless your a trouble maker. We have ways of.....................
-
As much as I hate nazi/holocaust comparisons, that's a really good point. Blind obedience of improper authority offers temporary succor at best, but almost certainly leads to long term suffering.
Citizens who value their rights exercise them, even at the occasional cost of being labeled a 'troublemaker'.
-
I wonder if the outcome would have been the same if it wasn't being videotaped. Maybe yes, and maybe no. I also wonder why the original officers seemed unaware that no law was being broken. They should have known that.
But, I can understand the curiosity about someone carrying a holstered pistol. Let's face it, you don't see it very often and probably even less in one of the safest states in the US. What if he had been carrying other weapons unlawfully concealed and was a nutcase like the Virginia Tech killer? The officer was justified in my opinion to at least talk to him and get a closer look. After talking to the guy, he should have recognized the situation for what it was.
As for the drama queen friend, being annoying and childlike is not a crime. If it were, most talk show pundits, politicians and even some O'Club posters would be criminals.
I have great respect for the many dedicated police who do their underpaid jobs with maturity and competence. I have little respect for police who strap a chip on their shoulder along with the gun. The ones who provoke confrontations, lecture people or think everyone is a bad guy.
I think the original officer should have been the one to say that the event was over and everyone is free to go about their business and exercise their rights. That would have been a good ending. ;)
-
a citizen should have the right to put cuffs on a cop if the citizen feels threatened by the cop, to protect the cop of course.:lol
-
Originally posted by x0847Marine
Personally, either the armed dude sits, puts hands where I can see them and does everything I say when I say, or he goes to jail for delaying / obstructing (Ca PC148). The instant he didn't put the cell phone down, he goes to jail... the police don't have to argue with people into compliance re: officer safety.
The "police" can't hassle anyone they feel like either. I think it went well, considering. The police are used to abject obedience, just like Marine. Confronting a knowledgeable citizen, they did the right thing and hung back.
Whoever said his friend was annoying had that right...talk about a jerk.
Anyway, I think this guy does this for effect. Was entertaining.
-
Originally posted by MORAY37
Intersting vid, thank you for posting.
I'm a little on the fence in this one... how could you not be required to present I.D. to a uniformed, credentialed officer at any time? And to not have to present certification of right to carry? Second Ammendment rights aside...that is stupid. Guy walks down the street with a holstered weapon, on the way into a bar, and you're going to argue that the cops have no right to even stop him?
Also, the clown in the video, waving his hands in the second responding officer's face... how he avoided cell time is beyond me. They were well within the rights of on scene safety to order him to leave or to restrain him. Running around like the little conspiracy theorist.."my friend is being accosted...he can't go here ha can't... blah blah blah." The cops were obviously in very low response mode... as someone else pointed out, they even had their backs to him. Accosted is physically restraining him...which they never did. (it was funny that one cop started laughing when he was yelling about his friend being accosted)
The accosted comes from the idea that if the guy who was openly carrying wanted to leave, he couldn't. Arresting someone doesn't just mean putting cuffs on them, but preventing them from leaving. With two cops bracketing him, and a third on the way, he had every right to believe that he was being accosted. Couple on to that the fact that they were stopping him for doing nothing wrong.
There was an interesting case here about some weird things happening during traffic stops concerning whether or not someone is free to leave. Look up the thread. Basically, if you are the passenger in a vehicle that gets stopped, can you just up and leave? Most people would not for fear of their own safety due to a reaction from an officer.
-
my thinking is that there are too many people who simply have a moray type fear of firearms that is not reasonable.
If as rolex says... it is "reasonable" to want to question someone who is lawfully carrying a firearm out in the open then.. something is wrong with the system and more people need to carry openly and lawfully in that state so that people become accustomed to it and the laws of that state..
the guy was doing everyone a favor. What good is the right to carry openly if the rest of you clowns think that to do so should cause you to be accosted by police even if you are simply walking on a sidewalk and in no (other) way acting in any manner that would be suspicious or indicate lawlessness?
and wrag.. xmarine does not go into danger every day.. hasn't for 20 years or so. spent less time in than out.
lazs
-
Originally posted by x0847Marine
Like dude in the video, I say put down the phone for my safety, he declines, I put cuffs on him... if everything checks out ok dokey, I might choose to book & release, or just let him go. Perhaps you have heard of an "attitude arrest"? being booked / released is an amazing attitude adjustment tool, and some people actually learn from it... next time a cop says put something down for officer safety, they comply.
How is a cell phone dangerous to a cop?Even in a clenched fist?..i dont think so...A video camera..Yes.I'd put that down but leave it running.
The only thing the cop is afraid of is the cell camera and the fact it might be transmitting.
Attitude arrest?..I'll have to look that on up in the crimminal code.
-
x0847Marine, you are a bully and a thug. Those citizens that you accost paid your ****ing salary and your job was to protect and serve them, not give them attitude adjustments. People like you are exactly the kind of people that in worse situations end up in the gestapo.
You have some serious ego issues, and unfortunately alot of people that should be spending time in therapy end up becoming cops in order to power trip.
-
wow, i agree with Thrawn about something!
:O:D
-
I'm kinda wondering if this was staged, With the cops' in on it. The whole thing's kinda weird.
-
I find it more funny in that Marine would be more worried about the guy using the cell phone as a weapon than the gun he has on his hip.
:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
x0847Marine, you are a bully and a thug. Those citizens that you accost paid your ****ing salary and your job was to protect and serve them, not give them attitude adjustments. People like you are exactly the kind of people that in worse situations end up in the gestapo.
You have some serious ego issues, and unfortunately alot of people that should be spending time in therapy end up becoming cops in order to power trip.
Yup, Xmarine was obviously one of those small-dicked cops who got off on bullying people as opposed to protecting and serving. The citizenry of Kalifornia are a bit safer now that he is off the streets.
-
Originally posted by Tango
I find it more funny in that Marine would be more worried about the guy using the cell phone as a weapon than the gun he has on his hip.
:rolleyes:
we need a cuffed smile thingie w a black eye
-
Y'all should be nice to Marine, working in mall security after over 12 years on parking duty is quite a change, and some folks don't adapt well to their new responsibilities.
-
one more aspect, a common sense thing... in Broward County, FL, 2 cops have been shot dead in the past week or two. I think an open carry test may well depend on where and when it happens. People forget that cops are people too, with families that they would like to return to after a days work. They are not lawyers, just people like you and me.
-
Ya..but how many crimminals carry a holstered gun?
-
lol, i don't know sirloin .... you seem to. You tell me :)
-
Wow interesting thread. Good video and responses.
I'm a little on both sides aswell. First off I'll say that the police officer made a honest mistake. No big deal. He is a person just like the rest of us. I'm sure he knows the laws that he has to deal with day in and day out but he isn't a computer robot. The amount of laws and loop holes and freedoms is alot to have to access in that hardrive we call the brain while emotions interfear.
As for the cell as a weapon, common guys this is 2007, that could be a trigger for a bomb that was sitting in his car 20 feet away or strapped to himself. Not that I'm saying he had to put it down, just that it could possibly be more dangerous than what you guys have speculated.
Now as far as the rights go I am completely in agreement in protecting them. The government has been trying to take our rights to bare arms for nothing more than protecting the citizens. Yet it will leave us lawful citizens defenseless against the unlawful people that get them illegally anyway.
Another thing I want to touch on is the whole papers deal and the site that was posted by an earlier response in the thread. I'm not a real religous person but I believe in what the Bible has to say about the signs and tribulation. One of those being that who ever is left behind will have to have the mark of the Beast in order to buy grocceries or to do anything under the ruling of the anti-christ. So what does the whole papers deal sound like it's leading towards? How long before we will be barcoded for identity in this world where your name and life can be stolen? America won't be free forever, but I'm in no rush to speed up my time on death row.
all
DarkCrow
-
holster gun not cool, only cops have holster gun.
yo jus stick da gun in yo pants fool. word.
-
If the guy had a big bushy black moustache and had a 'rag' on his head we would be hearing what a good job the cop was doing.
-
Originally posted by MiloMorai
If the guy had a big bushy black moustache and had a 'rag' on his head we would be hearing what a good job the cop was doing.
Nah, we'd have to listen to bleeding heart surrender monkeys* crying about racial discrimination.
*Please, please move into our country and take us over, we will give you all of our available resources until we too, are just a third world mess.
We are almost to the point that only a revolution can save us.
-
Originally posted by DarkCrow
As for the cell as a weapon, common guys this is 2007, that could be a trigger for a bomb that was sitting in his car 20 feet away or strapped to himself. Not that I'm saying he had to put it down, just that it could possibly be more dangerous than what you guys have speculated.
Sorry, didn't know he was in Baghdad. I guess it could have been used as a weapon. :rolleyes:
-
He lost me on that too...and the Bible reference?
3 posts= nice sign+ tribulation
-
Originally posted by Gunthr
one more aspect, a common sense thing... in Broward County, FL, 2 cops have been shot dead in the past week or two. I think an open carry test may well depend on where and when it happens. People forget that cops are people too, with families that they would like to return to after a days work. They are not lawyers, just people like you and me.
and as result of those two senseless shootings citizens are being mis-treated and rights are being trampled upon.
my daughter was test driving a new toyota out of maroone toyota in davie friday afternoon. she was followed out of the dealership by a BSO unit soon there were ten units. when the officers felt sufficiently safe and with plenty of numbers they stopped the vehicle, pulled my 5'6" 120lb. 24yr old daughter out of the car pushed her face into the dirt on griffin road while handcuffed, did the same to the employee riding with her. all the while 15 armed policemen going apechit with weapons drawn and fingers on the triggers were hollering nonsense at them. they claimed it was a "stolen tag" on the car. after an hour of their weak and womanly snivelling they released the kids. a report has been filed with internal affairs, monday I will be visiting my state representative and my congressman then my attorney.
I generally like police personnel but there are police officers who are down right cowards and have no business being in law enforcement. when you accept the position you do so with the implicit understanding that you may not make home for supper one night. those officers need reprimanding in the very least and I'm the wrong to have his family picked on. we went through something similar with a PSD deputy in miami-dade two years back with my older daughter and eventually I was instrumental in getting that guy's badge.
law enforcement needs to be held accountable for each and every mis-step otherwise we become a police state.
-
Storch: It's funny, that traffic stop sounds like it was handled just about perfect by Marine's standards.
-
Storch, I'm sorry to hear about what happened with your daughter. I might be able to help you. PM me.
-
Right now I ****ing <3 you storch.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
my thinking is that there are too many people who simply have a moray type fear of firearms that is not reasonable.
If as rolex says... it is "reasonable" to want to question someone who is lawfully carrying a firearm out in the open then.. something is wrong with the system and more people need to carry openly and lawfully in that state so that people become accustomed to it and the laws of that state..
the guy was doing everyone a favor. What good is the right to carry openly if the rest of you clowns think that to do so should cause you to be accosted by police even if you are simply walking on a sidewalk and in no (other) way acting in any manner that would be suspicious or indicate lawlessness?
and wrag.. xmarine does not go into danger every day.. hasn't for 20 years or so. spent less time in than out.
lazs
Laz, don't make statements when you don't know someone. I have no fear of firearms, I own three myself. I have a concealed weapons permit. I don't fear myself with a gun, but I don't have the need to display it for the world, either.... I have no need in being Mister Macho on the street. Besides that, I have a police trained (thats' what my mother does) german shepard that is alot more deadly than a gun, and I can call her back when I pull her trigger.
No, my point is that, there is something wrong with you if you feel the need to display or brandish a firearm in public. You think it makes people less likely to mess with you... I think it makes the wrong type MORE likely to mess with you. It's funny you think someone couldn't take that weapon off you in a heartbeat.
-
Originally posted by MORAY37
You think it makes people less likely to mess with you... I think it makes the wrong type MORE likely to mess with you.
Yup, or mess with the sheep around me.
-
Originally posted by storch
and as result of those two senseless shootings citizens are being mis-treated and rights are being trampled upon.
my daughter was test driving a new toyota out of maroone toyota in davie friday afternoon. she was followed out of the dealership by a BSO unit soon there were ten units. when the officers felt sufficiently safe and with plenty of numbers they stopped the vehicle, pulled my 5'6" 120lb. 24yr old daughter out of the car pushed her face into the dirt on griffin road while handcuffed, did the same to the employee riding with her. all the while 15 armed policemen going apechit with weapons drawn and fingers on the triggers were hollering nonsense at them. they claimed it was a "stolen tag" on the car. after an hour of their weak and womanly snivelling they released the kids. a report has been filed with internal affairs, monday I will be visiting my state representative and my congressman then my attorney.
I generally like police personnel but there are police officers who are down right cowards and have no business being in law enforcement. when you accept the position you do so with the implicit understanding that you may not make home for supper one night. those officers need reprimanding in the very least and I'm the wrong to have his family picked on. we went through something similar with a PSD deputy in miami-dade two years back with my older daughter and eventually I was instrumental in getting that guy's badge.
law enforcement needs to be held accountable for each and every mis-step otherwise we become a police state.
Break it off in them.
Sorry your daughter went through that crap.
-
Originally posted by MORAY37
You think it makes people less likely to mess with you... I think it makes the wrong type MORE likely to mess with you.
I seem to remember a saying that criminals are more afraid of a citizen with a gun than a cop. Being that they are more likly to shot them than the cop will when attempting to commit a crime.
Of course Marine would be the exception.
-
Thank you Gunthr. my daughter's boyfriend was in the car as well so there were three young people in the car not two. that may be cause to bring out numbers. the kid is a college football player and is strong lad.
-
moray... I actually agree with you on this for the most part.
I have never advocated open carry. I think that concealed carry is the way to go. even in the old west they recognized this fact. Many towns in the west had laws against open carry... concealed carry was never illegal tho.
For good reasons in my opinion but... good or bad... the law is what it is. In many states it is a law that you can carry openly but almost impossible to get a concealed carry permit.
If that were the case then it would not so much be a matter of how tough you wanted to look but a matter of no other options other than to be unarmed or taking a chance of breaking a bad law.
I know that a gun openly carried is not a common sight in most cases so it does cause a stir but... while him and xmarine were worried about the guy and his holstered gun and (LOL) bomb detenator shaped like a cell phone...
30 guys walked or drove by with every conceivable weapon concealed on their person or car from mac 10's to ma dueces and plastic explosives and no one felt frieghtened at all...
Why not just stop everyone and search em?
lazs
-
I guess my point is that open carry is not that great an idea. I don't want thugs to know who is carrying an who is not... who is a threat to their schemes and who is helpless... still... it is better than nothing.
I think that states should have the right to decide if you carry openly or not but not if you carry or not.
I think they realized the problems open carry in cities caused way back when and had the right solution.. the nannies have simply screwed it all up with good intentions over the years...
like everything they touch.
lazs
-
Originally posted by MORAY37
Laz, don't make statements when you don't know someone. I have no fear of firearms, I own three myself. I have a concealed weapons permit. I don't fear myself with a gun, but I don't have the need to display it for the world, either.... I have no need in being Mister Macho on the street. Besides that, I have a police trained (thats' what my mother does) german shepard that is alot more deadly than a gun, and I can call her back when I pull her trigger.
No, my point is that, there is something wrong with you if you feel the need to display or brandish a firearm in public. You think it makes people less likely to mess with you... I think it makes the wrong type MORE likely to mess with you. It's funny you think someone couldn't take that weapon off you in a heartbeat.
It actually has little to do with macho, and a great deal to do with rights.
If you have the right to do a thing, don't matter what it is, and someone comes along and does their very best to make what you are doing difficult or impossible then where did your right go?
Do you have the right or not?
Because now it has become a.... you can have your right but only with someones permission?????
They are saying to us, to you....... Sure you have the right BUT only when and IF we say you have the right.... so how is it any longer a right?
If the above happens and you don't fight for that right then you best consider it gone.................
Admittedly carrying a holstered weapon can create tension.
HOWEVER why can Law Enforcement carry openly and Mr. or Mrs. or Miss, or whatever, average American NOT carry openly?
Are we being told we are untrustworthy?
Are we being told we are guilty of perhaps thinking of committing a crime?
There is also the training argument, that one needs law enforcement training before one can carry. Sadly I've seen some in Law Enforcement that should never have been hired. That are a danger to themselves and the community they supposedly serve.
I could go on................ I will if it seems needed.
-
Originally posted by wrag
It actually has little to do with macho, and a great deal to do with rights.
If you have the right to do a thing, don't matter what it is, and someone comes along and does their very best to make what you are doing difficult or impossible then where did your right go?
Do you have the right or not?
Because now it has become a.... you can have your right but only with someones permission?????
They are saying to us, to you....... Sure you have the right BUT only when and IF we say you have the right.... so how is it any longer a right?
If the above happens and you don't fight for that right then you best consider it gone.................
Admittedly carrying a holstered weapon can create tension.
HOWEVER why can Law Enforcement carry openly and Mr. or Mrs. or Miss, or whatever, average American NOT carry openly?
Are we being told we are untrustworthy?
Are we being told we are guilty of perhaps thinking of committing a crime?
There is also the training argument, that one needs law enforcement training before one can carry. Sadly I've seen some in Law Enforcement that should never have been hired. That are a danger to themselves and the community they supposedly serve.
I could go on................ I will if it seems needed.
A right is a right, and I will not take any rights away from anyone. Saying that, I have the right to carry a baseball bat down the street. Yet I would feel the officer would be justified in stopping me as I walked into a bar with it. The item is clearly out of place for the environment and could be about to be used with ill intent.
Generally, I don't believe most people are fit to carry or brandish firearms. That does include alot of law enforcement. It most certainly is your right, just as is your right to vote. I still keep in mind, that half the people I see driving on the roads, shouldn't be there as well.... and extrapolating that, imagining them with guns... well let's just say THAT is what gives me the willies.
-
I carry a gun with me everywhere I drive and its legal.
Even had an incident when I was in downtown Shreveport late one night leaving the comedy club. Had a couple of guys standing on the street corner while I was stopped at the red light. One of them asks me for a couple of dollars so he can ride the bus home [of course this is 11 at night :rolleyes: ]. I tell him I don't have any cash on me. He then starts spouting a bunch of garbage about how I'm prejudice against blacks and turns to his buddy saying "Gimme your piece". I simply reached down and grabbed my .45 and placed it on the dash of my car with my hand still on it.
Needless to say he got REALLY friendly and told me he was just kidding. I don't know if his buddy really had a gun and if he was serious about using it but my legal right to have mine may have neutralized a bad situation.
-
Originally posted by Tango
I carry a gun with me everywhere I drive and its legal.
Even had an incident when I was in downtown Shreveport late one night leaving the comedy club. Had a couple of guys standing on the street corner while I was stopped at the red light. One of them asks me for a couple of dollars so he can ride the bus home [of course this is 11 at night :rolleyes: ]. I tell him I don't have any cash on me. He then starts spouting a bunch of garbage about how I'm prejudice against blacks and turns to his buddy saying "Gimme your piece". I simply reached down and grabbed my .45 and placed it on the dash of my car with my hand still on it.
Needless to say he got REALLY friendly and told me he was just kidding. I don't know if his buddy really had a gun and if he was serious about using it but my legal right to have mine may have neutralized a bad situation.
Tango, what you did best in this whole scenario was to properly judge intent. You kept the whole thing from getting out of hand because that sweetheartbag thought he might bluff you into giving him money, and whereas you could back up any promise you made to put him in the morgue, he could not commit a crime. Bravo <>
-
Originally posted by MORAY37
A right is a right, and I will not take any rights away from anyone. Saying that, I have the right to carry a baseball bat down the street. Yet I would feel the officer would be justified in stopping me as I walked into a bar with it. The item is clearly out of place for the environment and could be about to be used with ill intent.
Generally, I don't believe most people are fit to carry or brandish firearms. That does include alot of law enforcement. It most certainly is your right, just as is your right to vote. I still keep in mind, that half the people I see driving on the roads, shouldn't be there as well.... and extrapolating that, imagining them with guns... well let's just say THAT is what gives me the willies.
I believe I understand you.
I find I differ with you though.
Yes there will always be some that abuse something. History is proof if nothing else is.
I however disagree with your opinion that MOST people are NOT fit to carry a firearm. IMHO MOST are law abiding. Only a few, but there is always a few, would abuse it.
I've known MANY that given the basics concepts, and responsibilities, of being armed could and would successfully carry a weapon, be it open or concealed.
I recall an example, at of all places a renaissance fair, where someone ABUSED that right.
Seems an individual had a jewelery stand and was selling jewelery. No big deal. HOWEVER.........
ya ya there is always a however.........
something that was unknown to many of the purchasers was every piece of jewelery had engraved upon it, always in places most don't look very closely at, magical symbols.
These particular magical symbols greatly resembled some symbols I saw in a book on calling daemons.
Apparently I was not the only individual aware of this. Someone attending the fair came up and asked out right if the symbols were of a satanic nature. This individual rather young.
A friend of the jewelry seller was standing right next to the table wearing ring mail, a helm, and the additional accouterment's that went with his persona/character?
This included a long sword.
The friend of the jewelry seller told the young questioner, in a very threatening tone of voice, to go away and GRABBED the hilt of that long sword in a VERY threatening manner.
The young person departed rapidly.
That IMHO is or was Assault with a deadly weapon.
That, to me anyway, was one of the FEW times when I would agree that SOME people shouldn't be armed.
I must say the entire episode made me wonder just how far people that carve magical symbols into the hidden places on jewelry will go..................
hmmmm.................. buyer beware? Does full discloser laws affect jewelry?
-
IF the questioner had been carrying a gun and simply shown that he was carrying, I doubt the wacko with the sword would have said anything else.
The thing to remember is that even 125 years ago EVERYONE was carrying a gun. There weren't mass shootings and gunfights. There were probably far fewer killings with guns percentage wise back then compared to today.
If everyone carryed a gun there would be fewer violent crimes because the crimanls wouldn't know if the person he was going to hold up was carrying or not.
-
Originally posted by storch
Thank you Gunthr. my daughter's boyfriend was in the car as well so there were three young people in the car not two. that may be cause to bring out numbers. the kid is a college football player and is strong lad.
The police over-reacted. There is a way to control a scene without jamming her face in the dirt. I feel for the cops - they just lost friends and co-workers......they are hot to capture the punks........
That said, the rest of us shouldn't be giving up our rights. Cooperate to the fullest, yes...but don't yield your rights.
Franklin said, "anyone who would give up some freedom for some security, deserves neither."
Anything storch can do over this incident will educate the policemen involved. I see nothing bad.
-
moray.. I find myself thinking that if you are a friend of gun owners then we don't need enemies.
Your statement that most people should not be armed but that you should be is arrogant in the extreme. I find that with such a low opinion of your fellow citizens... I find that I want to say that it is you that should not be armed.
I would watch a guy in a bar with a baseball bat... but the bar is full of weapons.. bottles and que sticks and chairs and knives and clubs of all sorts.
Some people are weapon even when naked.
I just don't think that open carry is a good idea.. not as good a deterent as concealed carry and it can cause problems with showing off. It was that way in the past and I see no reason why it is different now..
Problem is... we have pretty much lost our constitutional rights for the most part on the second... every man who is not insane should be allowed to carry concealed... brandishing would be illegal... but.. that is not the case... it is difficult or impossible for most citizens today even to carry legally and concealed.
The option is to be unarmed or illegal... you yourself think that this is not an option since you feel the need to carry... likely, to protect you from the peasants..
lazs