Awesome response to "man carrying a gun" call

[IncendiaryGunner]

Gunner, if you read the first part there was a call he was responding to that call. If you were that cop and had to walk up to that man with a gun what would be your response be. The gun wasn't the problem the person was. All he had to do was to show ID then he would have been on his way. That cop didn't know who this guy was all he knew was that there was a call he may have just killed a cop or his wife or there may have been another call of a robbery two blocks away. Look at it from the cops side he has a wife and kids too and would like to get home to them after his shift. How much of your safety are you willing to risk. Now if he was asking to remove his right to carry that piece then I would be the first one to stand up for my 2nd Adm. rights but that wasn't the case.

If I look at it from the cop's perspective, he should not have had to respond to a call like that in the first place. There was absolutely no reason for the cop to have to walk up to that man....

There was no reasonable suspicion of any crime being committed, why should that call make it past the scrutiny of dispatch?

There was no call of a robbery two blocks away - that would have been an articulable, reasonable suspicion... that was not the case. Invoking hypothetical reasonable suspicions that did not exist does not justify an unlawful search where those suspicions are not present.

Also, the officer was the one sweeping the citizen with the muzzle... the only dangerous action was on the part of the law enforcement officer. The encounter should have never happened, and the citizen should not have been swept with his own muzzle... He should have not been detained, and the firearm should have remained in the holster where it belonged.

It is really not much different than people calling the police because an (insert minority) is walking down their street... without an articulable reasonable suspicion that a crime is being committed, or is about to be committed, no police response is necessary.

The citizen was not a problem... he was not causing any problems, or acting unlawful...

 

[10Forward]

I don't quite understand all the anti-law enforcement stuff floating around either...those officers have no idea what they are dealing with when they come upon someone carrying.
If you're doing things the legal way, and have nothing to hide, I don't see the harm in cooperating with the officer? You'll be on your way soon enough.

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

I don't quite understand all the anti-law enforcement stuff floating around either...those officers have no idea what they are dealing with when they come upon someone carrying.
If you're doing things the legal way, and have nothing to hide, I don't see the harm in cooperating with the officer? You'll be on your way soon enough.

Which part is anti-law enforcement?

Expecting the police to do their job within the confines of the law is not anti-law enforcement.... that is PRO-LAW ENFORCEMENT!

 

[-Rogue-]

THIS is an example of a well informed citizen. He knows his rights, handled himself in a respectful yet confident manner. My hats off to him.

Confident, yes. Respectful, absolutely not.

He fails the "mother" test. I know I would get smacked around by mine if I lipped off like that, regardless if I was right.

 

[10Forward]

Which part is anti-law enforcement?

Expecting the police to do their job within the confines of the law is not anti-law enforcement....

Nothing specific, I'm talking about just many of the posts in general...there is a lot of anti-LE sentiment out there, which I don't quite get.

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

Standing up for your rights is not equivalent to lipping off or being disrespectful.

Expecting law enforcement officers to follow the law in the course of their duties is not anti-law enforcement.

If you watch it again, the citizen was pretty matter of fact, and even said "thank you". Simply refusing to throw away your rights does not make you "disrespectful". To be fair, putting the detainment aside, the officer was not disrespectful either... but that really isn't the point...

Honestly, the only reason it turned into a back and forth at all, was because the officer had detained him, seized his weapon, insisted on questioning him, and demanded identification. Notice at the end how smoothly it went when his supervisor arrived, knowing the law....

 

[Sgtusmc]

Pro law enforcement / anti-methodology

We The People / not "us vs them"

 

[jballs]

lol. He sounded a little nervous but still did a good job.

 

[Light]

I don't quite understand all the anti-law enforcement stuff floating around either...those officers have no idea what they are dealing with when they come upon someone carrying.
If you're doing things the legal way, and have nothing to hide, I don't see the harm in cooperating with the officer? You'll be on your way soon enough.

Most people still haven't read the thread he originally created on Opencarry about this where the video was first posted. He claims to have been stopped two dozen times for open carrying legally within 5 years. I'm sure he has complied in the past, but during those times he must have felt like his rights were violated. In the video he made that was just an audio recording, the officer asks him if he has been convicted of any crimes, and he says "I have been arrested before, but the charges were dropped. Why are you still questioning me without an attorney?"

The person in the video simply was recording to make sure they had proof of their rights being violated if the officer wanted to throw some sort of charges against him, or if something happened that he would have to defend his actions in court. He was being "lippy" because he gets stopped so much, and the officer could have simply asked him if he was a felon, and when he said no went the other way unless he got a call of a crime being commited. The officer could not legally detain him. If he had started walking away (granted he would want his gun to do so) and the officer would have stopped him and brought him in for some reason, he would have won in court.

"He who sacrifices some liberty for some security deserve neither."

 

[Sgtusmc]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4nQ_mFJV4I&feature=youtube_gdata_player
"10 rules for dealing with police" flexyourrights.org

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqMjMPlXzdA&feature=youtube_gdata_player
"BUSTED - Citizens guide to dealing with police encounters" flexyourrights.org

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik&feature=youtube_gdata_player
Part 1 - "Dont talk to cops" attorney side

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08fZQWjDVKE&feature=youtube_gdata_player
Part 2 - "Dont talk to cops" law enforcement side

Do yourself a favor and watch these videos.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Meh, and what's the point of this "show?" At the end of the day, what was accomplished? Does anyone think that if another MWG call came other the officers in the vid wouldn't do the exact same thing? There is absolutely no point in these types of "displays," unless the persons who are being illegally detained seek legal recourse. Is anybody aware of a single instance that has resulted in a legal complaint being issued?

If you want officers to change their tactics, then people are going to need to starting suing departments. Until then, these vids are nothing more than a glorified YouTube versions of candid camera.

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

Meh, and what's the point of this "show?" At the end of the day, what was accomplished? Does anyone think that if another MWG call came other the officers in the vid wouldn't do the exact same thing? There is absolutely no point in these types of "displays," unless the persons who are being illegally detained seek legal recourse. Is anybody aware of a single instance that has resulted in a legal complaint being issued?

If you want officers to change their tactics, then people are going to need to starting suing departments. Until then, these vids are nothing more than a glorified YouTube versions of candid camera.

Public awareness...

The majority of citizens don't understand their rights, and do not know how to conduct themselves during a police encounter. If you look at the comments on youtube, it becomes clear that a large subset of our population believes that the law was on the officer's side and he could have arrested him... education is vital to combat ignorance.

When videos like this garner half a million views on youtube, and go viral on facebook - awareness is raised. You don't have to sue a department in order to stand up for civil rights.

Also, if enough people see this video, and realize the police have no authority to detain someone for simply walking down the street openly carrying - then maybe less MWAG calls will exist in the future. I seriously feel bad for the officers that are put in a position where they feel they must waste their time responding to stupid calls like this.... They have better things to do... I don't believe that stupid calls are going to stop anytime soon, but if we pressed the issue hard enough, a significant impact could be made.

I might also point out, the supervisor in the video instantly realized they had no cause to detain him, and told him he was free to go immediately.... While the rookie may still respond to a similar call in the future, he may conduct himself differently if someone does not give consent and asks if they are free to go, realizing how the situation will play out.... other officers on the same force will see this video, and not wish to become a star on youtube.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Public awareness...

The majority of citizens don't understand their rights, and do not know how to conduct themselves in a police encounter. If you look at the comments on youtube, it becomes clear that a large subset of our population believes that their was reason for an arrest... education is vital to combat ignorance.

When videos like this garner half a million views on youtube, and go viral on facebook - awareness is raised.

You don't have to sue a department in order to stand up for your rights.

Also, if enough people see this video, and realize the police have no authority to detain someone for simply walking down the street openly carrying - then maybe less MWAG calls will exist. I seriously feel bad for the officers that are put in a position where they feel they must waste their time responding to stupid calls like this.... They have better things to do...

In my opinion, you have to be a very particular type of person to create one of these vids. I think these persons fall well outside how the "average" person would react. Sadly, I am completely confident that if I wanted to, I could search the vast majority of persons I encounter with nary a peep; and those person jnowing full well that the action would be illegal.
If one believes that most of the public is indeed "sheeple," then you will understand my point.

I honestly think that people should start suing.

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

In my opinion, you have to be a very particular type of person to create one of these vids. I think these persons fall well outside how the "average" person would react. Sadly, I am completely confident that if I wanted to, I could search the vast majority of persons I encounter with nary a peep; and those person jnowing full well that the action would be illegal.
If one believes that most of the public is indeed "sheeple," then you will understand my point.

I honestly think that people should start suing.

Yah, I agree that those that understand their rights are the minority, and the individuals that stand up for them are an even smaller demographic... and if more individuals actually did file suit that it may end, or reduce, this type of response.

That being said, many people learn more about their rights every day because of videos like this and the ones linked a few posts back. Just because the vast majority of people will remain blissfully ignorant, or knowingly waive their rights, does not mean that spreading knowledge is without just cause.

 

[sonofd]

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.

I respectfully disagree. People should not give up their rights because they don't want to viewed as jerks. Not to be too dramatic, but I think it's when people start willingly giving up their rights, that authority figures start getting in the habit of violating them.

 

[jbombelli]

Nothing specific, I'm talking about just many of the posts in general...there is a lot of anti-LE sentiment out there, which I don't quite get.

You don't understand it because you've never been negatively affected by complying.

I have.

Some others around here have.


And insisting on sticking up for your rights is NOT anti-police.

 

[KW730]

The cop was just doing his job. Just because you have the right to be an a--hole don't mean you have to be one. If he was legal what difference does it make to show your ID. He wasn't asking for him to register his gun.

I think you should re-watch the video and review the thread. No need to make the same statements that have already been refuted tens of times.

 

[octalman]

It has been correctly stated that many people are conditioned to fear guns. Far too many people act on that fear and assume that a non-LEO with a holstered pistol must be breaking some law. There are certainly those that think having a gun should be illegal so they call 911 just to harass the gun owner. The police should investigate the circumstances that prompted a 911 call. If you have a 20 inch Bowie Knife strapped to your belt in the mall you are going to attract attention. If someone calls 911 police should investigate and will likely take charge of the knife until the situation is investigated. Why should someone carrying a gun be treated differently?

Are you Constitutional Scholars saying the police have no business doing anything until someone is shot or stabbed? No reason for police to walk a beat or patrol the streets because they have no business appearing until after a crime is committed?

It is just plain stupid to demonstrate self-appointed Constitutional Scholarship by creating a situation you want to result in a 911 call and encounter with police. That is supposed to be a good way to make the public more comfortable with guns and provide the police free legal education? That works about as well as rubbing a dogs nose in crap to train it to crap somewhere else. Neither the citizen calling 911 or the police are going to get anything valuable out of having their nose rubbed in your crap.

Videos of someone "sticking it to the man" are nothing more than self-indulgent exercises in look at me-look at me-I am important. They do nothing helpful.

 

[ATM]

...Are you Constitutional Scholars saying the police have no business doing anything until someone is shot or stabbed?

We're saying that without RAS of some infraction or violation, no, they can't just do anything they feel like. There are limitations to their authority and to the procedures of lawful investigations.

...Neither the citizen calling 911 or the police are going to get anything valuable out of having their nose rubbed in your crap.

They're the ones crapping and sticking their nose in another person's lawful activities. Capturing it on video simply assures there won't be any question about how it happened should there be any attempts at creativity in the report.

...Videos of someone "sticking it to the man" are nothing more than self-indulgent exercises in look at me-look at me-I am important. They do nothing helpful.

Standing up for one's rights is self-indulgent? Nothing helpful?

Just who do you think is responsible for safeguarding our liberties and those of our posterity?

 

[Sgtusmc]

The purpose of a guy trying to make a video like this go viral is to set a precedent. It's a guerrilla tactic in an atmosphere of comply and shut your mouth. Schools these days are teaching multi-culturalism and appeasement before they're teaching how America was founded and the principles that every citizens rights are based upon. People are getting fat and lazy and their principles have waned and it's getting passed on to the next generation.

People in general need a wake up call. Nobody has any rights unless they are exercised and asserted if need be. Federal and local authorities have taken advantage of this condition(ing) because it makes their jobs easier. Law enforcement has become a corporatized institution with its own checks and balances and men and women who just wanted to be a police officer get tied up in the mire. Pawns.

I understand the frustration of Law enforcement officers on this forum. The only way pawns can win the game is to not play by the same rules; To make the pawns do an about face and question the 'kings' rules of engagement that are inherently leading to their untimely demise. Put simply, complain to the higher echelon to change law enforcement methodology.

Obviously its not a simple solution for the problem at hand. Peoples generalized fear of everything, cops generalized fear of everybody. Its all being pushed from above. Well citizens are tired of being at the bottom of the heap when on the very top of our shared Constitution, it is WE. That is inclusive and not divisive. There is no room for 'us or them' mindsets.

A few words from Thomas Jefferson...


"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion.
The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is
wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts
they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions,
it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ...
And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not
warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of
resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as
to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost
in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from
time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
It is its natural manure."


Are you a patriot or a tyrant
Are you part of the problem or part of the solution
Do you escalate a situation or defuse a situation

I'm not perfect, I was a pawn once.

7b-8c