Awesome response to "man carrying a gun" call

[Signal23]

I agree, why are so many people on this site so anti police. I open carry once in awhile and have no problem with a police officer asking me questions. Since 9/11 we have been told to call and report anything we believe is suspicious. I think the guy in the video was a jerk. If you open carry you also need to respect the fears of some of the public. Sure it is our right but, if you are legal, why not just show your LTCH and other ID to the officer. He is doing his job and you will be a better example of a armed citizen. When you act like that guy you make all gun owners look like a$& holes. How are we going to educate the public if we come across as hot heads.

Agree!

 

[griffin]

Why did he allow him to take his gun?

You can't stop them, all you can do is refuse consent.

 

[griffin]

It doesn't matter, a cop sill needs to go. It may be perfectly legal for me to play my drums at 2 pm, but if a neighbor calls the police have to show up.

No they don't. I've posted this here before, but some departments are training their 911 operators and officers not to wet their pants over a MWAG call. This is from a police training bulletin from three years ago here in MI. Open carry doesn't get a notice by police any more. In fact, a few years ago the local public libraries were calling the PDs about gun carriers and the PD refused to even show up. They just told them it was legal.

+++++

WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT "OPEN CARRY" OF FIREARMS
...
So how are we going to handle this type of call?

RETHINK ‘MAN WITH A GUN’ CALL

Historically the ‘Man With a Gun Call’ may have prompted a full court press that urgent police action was required. Not necessarily so anymore.

911 Center / Dispatch Considerations

If a complaint comes through dispatch, staff needs to ask for more information than what has been asked in the past. At one end of the spectrum is the phrase “man with a gun”. With the prevalence of Concealed Pistol Licenses and Open Carry laws, people may be seen in public with handguns. At the other end of the spectrum might be a call that there is an active shooter. The person merely possessing an open carry gun should prompt a very different police response than the call of an active shooter, for example.

KEY: THE FOCUS IS WHAT IS THE PERSON WITH THE GUN DOING WITH THE GUN?

-Ask what the specific behavior the subject engaged in led to the complaint.
-Ask what the subject is specifically doing at the location.
-Ask if other people are with the subject.
-Ask if others are visibly armed.
-Ask if other people are behaving normally.
-Ask if the caller is on private property and are they the owner/agent.
-Ask the caller if the only reason for the call is that the subject is armed.

 

[reesez]

LiveLeak.com - Police officers are now being trained how to deal with open carry activists

I like the way the officer handled that.

 

[ATM]

Agree!

Seriously? I thought that post had been dismissed as well.

Allow me...

I agree, why are so many people on this site so anti police.

I've only seen a few around here I'd call anti-police, but there are many who are pro-liberty and find any abuses of authority repugnant, to include most of the police officers here on INGO.

I open carry once in awhile and have no problem with a police officer asking me questions.

Ask away, my only problem would be if they fancied some notion that I was required to provide answers or that they could detain and disarm
me without my consent.

Since 9/11 we have been told to call and report anything we believe is suspicious.

There are countless possible activities which could seem suspicious enough to warrant reporting by an irrational person but would certainly not provide the required RAS for an officer to detain. Simply having been called in does not remove or satisfy the legal burden of reasonable suspicion.

I think the guy in the video was a jerk.

So do I, he just seized the citizen's handgun without permission or cause.

If you open carry you also need to respect the fears of some of the public.

Respect their fears? No, if they're that irrationally afraid of any inanimate object they shouldn't go out in public where they might see one. I can't be responsible for shielding them from their own lunacy.

Sure it is our right but, if you are legal, why not just show your LTCH and other ID to the officer.

Because I hold all of our rights in high regard and will not waive them casually just for convenience sake or social approval.

He is doing his job and you will be a better example of a armed citizen.

He was overstepping the boundaries of his authority and thus, failing at his actual job. If I'm willing to waive most of my rights just to avoid possible confrontation or scorn, I wouldn't consider myself much of an example of a citizen at all. Perhaps you meant an armed subject? (...quite the rarity, as history has proven.)

When you act like that guy you make all gun owners look like a$& holes.

There are plenty of gun owning a$&holes, but this guy was simply educated and unsubmissive. Do you consider those to be the same thing?

How are we going to educate the public if we come across as hot heads.

The victim in this video was far from a hot head and he did quite a bit to further educate the public by posting this.
Was he free to leave after he corrected the officer a few times and refused to comply with several requests?

Yes, clearly he was. Whodathunkit?

 

[45fan]

Sir I couldn't disagree with you more. If an action is legal there is no reason to stop and question. Police do not prevent crimes, they are not proactive, but a reactive force. Of course they are a crime deterrent....but the moment, we as citizens, think it is ok for them to detain us for any reason, we are at a point where Liberty is in jeopardy. As Benjamin Franklin once said.... "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

The proactive vs reactive point is an excellent one. Many times the police are called, asked to do something about an obvious problem about to happen, and they respond with "my hands are tied".
Why then is it appropriate to hassle someone who is obviously not breaking the law, and infringe on their rights, only because an unnamed accuser is uncomfortable with them having a gun?

Before reading the quoted post, I would have sided on the "whats the big deal with letting the officer know you are legal. But then, after reading this, and seeing the arguments, I can honestly say my opinion has been changed...

 

[hoosierdoc]

Yet when police use bait cars, impersonate prostitutes, etc. their only pretense is gathering evidence of unlawful activity, right?

What do you think of the guy who uses a water bottle to make it look like he's peeing and have police grab him only to see it's a water bottle? He posts those on YouTube too. Both concepts are to lure the police into hopefully inappropriate responses so they can be posted online.

I wonder If this video creator has asked to speak at his local police department meetings? Probably a better target audience than YouTube, if his point is really to educate officers.

Don't get me wrong, I'm wholeheartedly against wrongful search and seizure for lawful activity. But my gut reaction in seeing this video was more self-promotion than police education.

 

[rooster]

Maybe he was just documenting the incident for his own protection. Many on here have said that they carry a tape recorder for that purpose.

Just because he taped it doesnt mean he was trying to bait the police.

 

[ATM]

What do you think of the guy who uses a water bottle to make it look like he's peeing and have police grab him only to see it's a water bottle? He posts those on YouTube too. Both concepts are to lure the police into hopefully inappropriate responses so they can be posted online.

Really?

Not sure how you came to even compare these two. Peeing guy, luring them in by purposefully feigning an act which would be against the law, is quite different than the guy in this video being discussed.

Peeing guy wants to trick them into being wrong, whereas unsubmissive legal carrier guy didn't seem to be trying to trick anyone, certainly not by pretending to do anything illegal.

In fact, there doesn't appear to be anything unsubmissive legal carrier guy did to provoke a response at all. The video begins with the officer's contact and it is claimed that the response is due to nothing more than him being armed, which is not illegal.

...if his point is really to educate officers.

Another common assumption regarding his primary purpose. What if having a recorder, knowing your rights and refusing to waive them are not primarily for educational purposes, but rather defending and protecting those rights? Wouldn't that be justification enough?

And who do you believe should need to to justify their actions in that video?

Maybe he was just documenting the incident for his own protection. Many on here have said that they carry a tape recorder for that purpose.

Just because he taped it doesnt mean he was trying to bait the police.

Exactly.

 

[hoosierdoc]

I haven't found a place where he identifies himself, yet he identifies the officer. I don't like it. Just sayin....

I've found many of his posts on opencarry and he does seem to work hard to defend the rights of citizens and fight against government for infringing them. But again... he could have left out the name of the officer since he left his own name out. If the concept was to educate, then no names needed to be used since it still illustrates the point he was trying to make. His video made an example which wasn't necessary.

 

[88GT]

The fact that they got a camera in hand. They are just waiting for cops to show up so they can school them. Just OC like a normal person and go about your business like a normal person. Almost all these vids, the guy is doing nothing, just wandering around waiting for the cops to show up.

Is that true of all of the INGOers who strongly advocated for a recording device to document the exchange of words when/if they are approached/detained by a LEO?

Hmmm I actually thought it was pretty stupid myself. I am all in favor of people legally carrying at all times. But IMO with that comes the responsibility and common sense of cooperating when questioned about it. I don't know the laws where that happened and don't care too but to stand there acting like some civil rights lawyer is childish to say the least. Show that you are legal and be down the road. This guy no doubt wanted some attention. And that is what he got.

Spoken like a true King's Man.

I'm very curious about your response if the individual being detained for a legal act WERE a civil rights lawyer. But the fact that you think none of us mere serfs have a right to act in our own defense while out and about is telling enough.

I have said it many times before, all thiese nija wannabes running around showing off thier guns will some day bite us all in the butt. When it becomes more of a problem then you may very well see laws restricting/banning the open display of a firearm. We all know how the libs work. Keeping your iron out of view. Don't be a turd. Many....most people don't want to see your flipping gun. It does not make you look all big and bad. It makes you look goffy IMO.

That's rich. Legal behavior will be turned against us. Meanwhile, consistently encroaching on the rights of the citizens is allowed to continue without abatement. What was Rambone's sig line?

I don't like the pretense because the only point is for this guy to make a video. He could have educated the officer without the use of YouTube.

What's wrong with it? Do you oppose hidden cameras in undercover investigations by journalists? What about the ones that went undercover in the Planned Parenthood clinics? Or the group (Veritas, I think) that documents potential voting fraud?

When the forces of authority exceed it, I don't care how it's documented and shared with the rest of the world. The more the better. It won't stop until the people stop it. How do you think that will come to pass? I only wish I had the intestinal fortitude to stand up like that citizen does. Unfortunately, I don't. The immediate risk is too great. And I am ashamed of that.

 

[hoosierdoc]

Good point 88GT. I guess if the officer was a jerk I'd have a different view of things. I love the project Veritas stuff.

 

[Scout]

What is the issue with saying "Here is my LTCH, have a nice day"? That encounter would have been over in 15 seconds if he had done just that. IMHO there was no need to quote cases and continually ask what crime he was committing.
True he wasn't breaking the law, but he made himself look like a tool by acting the way he did.

 

[miguel]

I don't like the pretense because the only point is for this guy to make a video. He could have educated the officer without the use of YouTube.

He might have educated the officer, but he might not have educated some of us.

 

[ATM]

What is the issue with saying "Here is my LTCH, have a nice day"? That encounter would have been over in 15 seconds if he had done just that. IMHO there was no need to quote cases and continually ask what crime he was committing.
True he wasn't breaking the law, but he made himself look like a tool by acting the way he did.

You seem like one of the many willing to happily waive their rights simply for the sake of their own convenience.

Of course, that's your choice, but do you really have to judge others simply for holding those rights in a higher regard?

 

[patience0830]

This was the point I was trying to make. Why give the antis more reason to take our guns away? Yes we have the right but we can't change the publics opinion if we go looking for trouble. A better way may be have an open carry event and invite the media, police and even the public to attend. Then have speakers and a presentation to educate rather than intimidate. Again let me say this because so many of you seem to only read what you want to read, " we have a right to open carry" let's just try to educate in a way that helps our cause in a more productive way.

Just EXACTLY HOW is excercising your rights and being patient and unflusterred in the face of a violation of your rights giving the antis ammo? You wanna 'splain that to me Lucy?

You have a right to be sheep too. I promise not to whine if you excersise it.

 

[reesez]

He might have educated the officer, but he might not have educated some of us.

Most likely.

 

[patience0830]

What is the issue with saying "Here is my LTCH, have a nice day"? That encounter would have been over in 15 seconds if he had done just that. IMHO there was no need to quote cases and continually ask what crime he was committing.
True he wasn't breaking the law, but he made himself look like a tool by acting the way he did.

When you grow the "nards" to stand face to face with a cop and explain to the cop why he's wrong when he's just swept you with the muzzle of your own gun and have the self control to remain calm and have memorized the appropriate case law to support your position, I'll take time out to admire you too.

Can you say "smart determined man standing up for our rights?"

 

[Caleb]

Don't much care for these "nards" baiting cops. Good for the cop for dealing with him without being drawn into the trap.

Not everybody who open carries are out to bait the police

 

[ATM]

Here's the same guy it seems 2 years earlier in 2010 being detained and hassled similarly.

It's just audio, but as you can hear, he's just as polite yet firm in not waiving his rights. Inconvenient, sure, but worth it to some.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ifv5qfuXmKQ