Flawless MWAG call caught on tape

[Napalm217]

I personally feel that while what they were doing is perfectly legal, you have to ask if doing that kind of open carry is a good idea given how the general public responds now.

 

[Que]

Maybe so, but they were not doing anything illegal. For 2A people, there sure seem to be a lot of advocates here for stopping people from doing something that "you don't like," even though it is legal.

Does that remind you of anyone?

For me, the argument isn't entirely about the "activists." It was just an added bonus that the officer made them look juvenile and inept in their attempt to entrap him. If we could only SEE what took place, without hearing anything, this thread would probably be totally different.

To be a site full of law-abiding gun owners, it seems that police officers are very often presented as villains who are not on the right side of the 2A discussion. Okay, some may say it's not all of them, but only those who do not respect 2A rights; however, even when 2A rights are taken into consideration, along with the necessity to conduct ones job, the outcome is still the same. In this video, the officer used existing law to totally confuse the entire issue and i'm sure any of the lawyers on this site could argue either side very well; there is a lot of grey here, which allows 'getting to maybe' very easy.

There are a lot of people saying what the officer did was wrong, but I don't see the elements of the law required to prove guilt presented in a way that demonstrates a violation.

I'm still trying to understand how those who disagree with this video can also agree with Terry in the first place. I would think that Terry would also be rejected by those who say they are such advocates for 2A rights.

 

[kyotekilr]

Maybe so, but they were not doing anything illegal. For 2A people, there sure seem to be a lot of advocates here for stopping people from doing something that "you don't like," even though it is legal.

Does that remind you of anyone?

As long as it is not in front of my house, so to speak, I really don't care that these fools are exercising their 2A rights. To me, it just gives the anti-gunners more fuel for the fire. I'm pro-gun and if I and many others on this site think these guys are morons, what do you think the anti-gunners think? It has nothing to do with legal or not legal. It is just a bad idea. I'm sure that if you were in a debate you would talk about protecting yourself, family and even the guy standing next to you. You talk about the Constitution and that firearms and freedoms is part of what makes this country great. I doubt you would mention you just want to stand on the street corner with your rifle and prove the police can't do anything about it. And really that is all that they are proving.

Come on. These guys were obviously wanting to make a scene and nothing else.

 

[japartridge]

I personally feel that while what they were doing is perfectly legal, you have to ask if doing that kind of open carry is a good idea given how the general public responds now.

Ummm, this is exactly why more of us should open carry more! People only fear what they don't know/isn't "normal". more people open carry, the more "normal" it becomes. Personally I OC more and more these days, mostly because I just don't want to have to think about what cover garment to wear, what pants and belt will work with my IWB rig, etc...

On top of that, regardless what some members seem to think, it is a legal activity. I'm not very PC in general, couple that with the fact that I really don't give a damn what people think of me and you have my philosophy on Open Carrying. If I worried about what people might be upset by, I'd probably never leave my home. I'm 6'7" and 350#; I intimidate and scare people by walking in a room; this also negates the whole "tactical advantage" argument of CC fanatics... I will guarantee that if I'm in a situation where a BG is going to be taking out potential threats, I'm already marked just due to my size! The fact that I carry a sidearm probably wouldn't even enter the equation!


Of course if you read my sig, you will see that I am a member of the JFC school of thought, don't care if you OC, CC, or shove it up your arse, just carry!


[/rant]

 

[japartridge]

Maybe so, but they were not doing anything illegal. For 2A people, there sure seem to be a lot of advocates here for stopping people from doing something that "you don't like," even though it is legal.

Does that remind you of anyone?

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
BINGO

 

[japartridge]

As long as it is not in front of my house, so to speak, I really don't care that these fools are exercising their 2A rights. To me, it just gives the anti-gunners more fuel for the fire. I'm pro-gun and if I and many others on this site think these guys are morons, what do you think the anti-gunners think? It has nothing to do with legal or not legal. It is just a bad idea. I'm sure that if you were in a debate you would talk about protecting yourself, family and even the guy standing next to you. You talk about the Constitution and that firearms and freedoms is part of what makes this country great. I doubt you would mention you just want to stand on the street corner with your rifle and prove the police can't do anything about it. And really that is all that they are proving.

Come on. These guys were obviously wanting to make a scene and nothing else.

I agree wholeheartedly that these guys were fools. However I also feel that the officer did, in fact, cross a line.

I know that this is a very heated issue on both sides of the fence, but where will it end? If I'm standing on the corner holding my phone, and someone reported that they think the phone is stolen, am I to bend over and surrender my property because some idiot thinks it's stolen?

This situation to me is one of the illustrations of just how much this country has become a nanny state. The two yahoos did nothing wrong, but because some soccer mom felt threatened the guys had their rights violated... doesn't matter that their rights were only violated for a short period of time, they were still violated. You cannot argue that it is OK, because it was only for a minute or two. That would be like me saying that it's OK for me to not allow you to pray for a couple minutes while I verified you weren't on a watch list. You cannot have rights, and have them violated at the same time and still say your rights are intact.

just my

 

[kyotekilr]

Ummm, this is exactly why more of us should open carry more! People only fear what they don't know/isn't "normal". more people open carry, the more "normal" it becomes. Personally I OC more and more these days, mostly because I just don't want to have to think about what cover garment to wear, what pants and belt will work with my IWB rig, etc...

On top of that, regardless what some members seem to think, it is a legal activity. I'm not very PC in general, couple that with the fact that I really don't give a damn what people think of me and you have my philosophy on Open Carrying. If I worried about what people might be upset by, I'd probably never leave my home. I'm 6'7" and 350#; I intimidate and scare people by walking in a room; this also negates the whole "tactical advantage" argument of CC fanatics... I will guarantee that if I'm in a situation where a BG is going to be taking out potential threats, I'm already marked just due to my size! The fact that I carry a sidearm probably wouldn't even enter the equation!


Of course if you read my sig, you will see that I am a member of the JFC school of thought, don't care if you OC, CC, or shove it up your arse, just carry!


[/rant]

No one (or at least I'm not) is arguing if it is legal. If not I'm sure they would have been arrested. You post a video of you OCing and caring on about your daily life i.e. grocery shopping, getting gas, walking you dog or what ever it is you do I will give you a thumbs up. However, purposely evoking a confrontation just to prove you can doesn't make any sense to me. There is no need to get defensive about the situation just because it is a 2A issue. I think if this guy was standing in front of your house you would have a problem with it. Just like if a guy was pacing up and down the sidewalk talking to himself in front of you house you would have a problem with it.

 

[Que]

I agree wholeheartedly that these guys were fools. However I also feel that the officer did, in fact, cross a line.

So, what line did he cross?

 

[kyotekilr]

Your right. The fact that these guys are just standing there with a rifle and a video camera would have clued me in that the gun is not an automatic and that they are just looking for attention and there was no need check the function of his gun. I'm not arguing the legality of it, I just think there is more productive ways to exercise your rights

 

[japartridge]

So, what line did he cross?

I feel that it was an illegal seizure of property, yes it was only for a moment, but it was still a seizure.

 

[japartridge]

Your right. The fact that these guys are just standing there with a rifle and a video camera would have clued me in that the gun is not an automatic and that they are just looking for attention and there was no need or right to just the function of his gun. I'm not arguing the legality of it, I just think there is more productive ways to exercise your rights

I agree that there are better ways, but common sense seems to be in short supply in this country now-a-days.

 

[japartridge]

No one (or at least I'm not) is arguing if it is legal. If not I'm sure they would have been arrested. You post a video of you OCing and caring on about your daily life i.e. grocery shopping, getting gas, walking you dog or what ever it is you do I will give you a thumbs up. However, purposely evoking a confrontation just to prove you can doesn't make any sense to me. There is no need to get defensive about the situation just because it is a 2A issue. I think if this guy was standing in front of your house you would have a problem with it. Just like if a guy was pacing up and down the sidewalk talking to himself in front of you house you would have a problem with it.

I never said what these two morons did was a good idea, they were obviously trying to cash in. As to the guy standing on the sidewalk in front of my house with a long gun... I'd watch him, but really as long as he wasn't doing anything wrong, I would probably just maintain my SA and go about my day.

 

[iChokePeople]

I never said what these two morons did was a good idea, they were obviously trying to cash in. As to the guy standing on the sidewalk in front of my house with a long gun... I'd watch him, but really as long as he wasn't doing anything wrong, I would probably just maintain my SA and go about my day.

Fair enough. But in the commonly-cited Terry and related cases, the courts have clearly recognized a LEO's need to be able to freeze the scene and investigate a situation that would seem, to a reasonable person, to justify it, and then make the decision to arrest or to let them go because they're doing nothing wrong. It's all conjecture, as it doesn't seem to be finding its way to a court room, but *I* think a court would agree that it was reasonable for the officer to approach these young men and find out what was going on. Assuming that the court found it reasonable to approach and investigate, and I personally believe it would, the OTHER part of Terry would seem to clearly give him the latitude to seize the weapon, given that Terry specifically recognizes the need to even perform a frisk to find out IF there are weapons... Would seem obvious that it would allow seizure of one that was in plain view and clearly accessible.

If it HAD been an automatic weapon and the officer had arrested him and the prosecutor had decided to prosecute, then we'd get a good look at it. Maybe next time.

Like Que, I'm interested in a better explanation of what line the officer crossed. If you're just arguing that a court would rule that the officer did not have reasonable suspicion that would justify a "Terry stop", or taking a moment to freeze the scene, check it out, and determine whether everything's ok, I respectfully disagree and hope we get to see the court system look into it.

 

[downzero]

I respectfully disagree and hope we get to see the court system look into it.

Saying that you "respectfully disagree" doesn't create evidence or satisfy the legal standard. It doesn't matter how reasonable your assessment thinks it is. The fact is that as long as we still have constitutional rights, the burden is on the state, no matter how "reasonable" it might seem, to produce something more than a hunch that some wrongdoing is going on before interfering with a person's liberty, even for a limited duration.

As I have attempted to detail in my numerous posts, it is apparent from the conduct of all involved in this video, however graceful, that such an allegation was not only based on a hunch, but a false hunch. And that is precisely what the constitution forbids--seizures of persons for which no evidence of criminal wrongdoing exists.

There are plenty of places in the world where suspicionless stops are perfectly acceptable, just as there are places where people are not allowed to own or carry firearms and so the mere possession of one is evidence of crime. The United States is not among them.

 

[revance]

What if the caller said a man was walking around with a machine gun? When he arrives and sees an MP5, isn't it reasonable to suspect it might be full auto? 99% of people think anything tacticool is full auto (hence confusion about the AWB). I doubt the arguments against his RAS would stand up in court. Yes, he could have just asked and left, but it was obvious the kids would have been very disappointed with that.

I think overall the cop did well.

 

[iChokePeople]

Saying that you "respectfully disagree" doesn't create evidence or satisfy the legal standard. It doesn't matter how reasonable your assessment thinks it is. The fact is that as long as we still have constitutional rights, the burden is on the state, no matter how "reasonable" it might seem, to produce something more than a hunch that some wrongdoing is going on before interfering with a person's liberty, even for a limited duration.

As I have attempted to detail in my numerous posts, it is apparent from the conduct of all involved in this video, however graceful, that such an allegation was not only based on a hunch, but a false hunch. And that is precisely what the constitution forbids--seizures of persons for which no evidence of criminal wrongdoing exists.

There are plenty of places in the world where suspicionless stops are perfectly acceptable, just as there are places where people are not allowed to own or carry firearms and so the mere possession of one is evidence of crime. The United States is not among them.

Get them to file a suit, then, and we'll see if you're right. The standard for a Terry stop is really not that high, and whether the officer was ultimately right or wrong about "reasonable" only plays if the citizen puts some skin in the game. Go do it, put some skin in the game.

We'll all continue to speculate until a court squarely addresses it, or until us dumb hilljacks can start to comprehend what you've "attempted to detail in [your] numerous posts", but I think Solitaire's summary is spot-on:

No it wasn't. The officer based the stop on reasonable articulable suspicion that the weapon in question may have been full auto, based on his experience and training. The detention and temporary seizure and inspection of the weapon was a minimal intrusion, and I don't think there is a court in the nation that would not side with the legitimate government interest in public safety vs. the minimal scope of the intrusion. Heck, the officer didn't even ask for ID.

In addition, your summary of the scenario in Terry here is inaccurate:

There are not clear answers, but there is case law, and there are the facts of Terry itself. Terry was casing an establishment and about to commit a robbery when the officer stopped him. It wasn't just that the officer suspected that he was armed, it was that he was armed and that the officer articulated specific facts that suggested that the two perps in that case were about to commit a felony--a robbery. Those were the relevant facts--not the officer's safety. At the time, carrying a firearm concealed in Ohio was a crime by itself, but that wasn't enough to make the stop.

 

[iChokePeople]

I didn't say that the police aren't supposed to determine whether to make the stop, that's obviously the case.

The determination of the stop's constitutionality is a separate consideration that happens after the fact.

Judge: Why did you stop him?
Cop: Training and experience told me this was a fully automatic firearm.
Judge: But it wasn't fully automatic?
Cop: No
Judge: so your training and experience was inadequate?
Cop: No, Judge, every time I've seen a firearm of that shape it was...
Judge: But it could have been a toy, right?
Cop: Perhaps, Judge, but my training and experience....

In other words, training and experience doesn't have any independent or constitutionally-relevant meaning. All it means is that the cop had a hunch that something illegal was going on, without any specific evidence. And that is precisely what the constitution forbids: seizures of persons based on hunches rather than on specific evidence.

"Training and experience" isn't evidence. It's just reiterating that you're not braindead.

For the record, the part I emphasized above is specifically what the Supreme Court UPHELD in Terry, a veteran officer acting on really nothing more than a hunch and arguably suspicious behavior (though you could certainly argue that the decision really didn't address the issue of what constitutes reasonable suspicion at all and really focused on the issue of the resultant "frisk"/search...)

Furthermore, they upheld the officer's right to pat the suspects down for concealed weapons, again, on a HUNCH that someone that the officer had a HUNCH might have been casing a store (or might have just really liked something in the window...) might intend to use a weapon if, in fact, that person was intending to rob the place. Nothing but a hunch for the stop, nothing but a hunch for the patdown/frisk, and it was upheld. And from the sounds of it, Officer McFadden wasn't as polite and gentle as our video star.

 

[GBuck]

I feel that it was an illegal seizure of property, yes it was only for a moment, but it was still a seizure.

Indeed, it was a seizure. Now, explain how it was illegal. I'll wait...

 

[japartridge]

Indeed, it was a seizure. Now, explain how it was illegal. I'll wait...

OK, there was nothing illegal happening.
The subject did not give consent.
There was no suspicion of wrong doing.

even if you only take 2 of those 3, it is still an illegal seizure.

 

[arthrimus]

Here's the problem. The citizens of this country have, by and large, ceased to understand the concept of vigilance. The burden of protection of personal property or life falls first on the potential victim. If individuals took responsibility for their own rights, and took the measures necessary to protect them, then the only function of the police would be to bring justice after a crime has been committed.

The apathy of the public at large has lead to a reliance on law enforcement alone to give peace of mind in frightening situations. Law enforcement, as an extension of government has simply done what government always does when apathy sets in on a certain aspect of daily life. It intrudes on that formerly individual responsibility, performs the role less effectively, and infringes on the rights of law abiding citizens in the process. Over time this gradual intrusion slowly becomes the norm, and so called Constitutionalists give in to the fear factor, allowing their rights to slip through their fingertips without even knowing it. Worse yet, those who see through the lies, and interpret the Constitution as it was written are called radicals, or alarmists.

To the examples of men standing in front of your house while your wife and kids are home alone, is it not YOUR HOME, is it not YOUR WIVE'S LIFE, if so then it must also be YOUR RESPONSIBILITY to arm your wife, to train with your wife regularly, to ensure that you are both equipped to protect your own rights. If nothing happens with the men in front of your house then all is well. If they begin to trespass on your property then you are within your right, and moreover you are obligated, to do something about it. The police needn't be involved in anything but the investigation after the crime is attempted.

The point at which we demand that the government preemptively take action against a perceived, and unsubstantiated threat is the point at which we surrender all freedoms. The purpose of law enforcement is to bring about justice. How can you bring to justice someone who has not yet committed a crime.