CCW encounter with cops....

[El Karacho1647545492]

I don't see anything wrong with what he did. Was he kind of an asshole about it, sure, but almost every Open Carry forum section I've been on advised those who do partake in the activity carry a device to record police interaction for their own protection.

 

 

 

I'm going to have to disagree with you completely. I am born, I have rights . Whether or not you agree with how one exercises that right is also within your right to choose. The confrontation/education is needed as this particular officer while quite gracious and well-intentioned in attitude, was still very much in the wrong. It is black and white. The police talking to this man are paid just as much by his tax-dollars as the people making the complaints about his firearm. Both the citizens making the complaints and the officer seem to have a misunderstanding about what constitutes a crime in their state. The citizen is more easily forgiven, the police not so much. When it is your job to uphold the law, then you should have a good grasp of the law you're enforcing.

 

The idea that a police officer can walk up to you and start asking you your name, and what you're doing, or why you're out is just appalling. Only being eclipsed by the lackadaisical frame of mind some seem to take to instruments of the state, invading your life.

 

 

 

 

 

Very true, for instance in Pennsylvania it is mostly legal to open carry without a permit, but not in Philadelphia. I am assuming in this video the man is legal to carry without a permit based on the contents within.

 

I didn't say he was wrong to exercise his rights. I think its great that people exercise their rights in ways I disagree with; that's what makes this country great.

 

But a guy standing on a streetcorner yelling "I'M THE NAZI MOTHERFUCKING JESUS SECOND COMING WHO'S GOING TO BANISH ALL THE BLACKS AND JEWS AND NONBELIEVERS TO HELL" is the same in my mind as this guy going out and filming an encounter with police where he spouts off a bunch of laws. A street corner is not a courtroom.

 

IMO this officer would have been in the right to detain this guy for a short period because he seems unstable to me, and an unstable person who wants to shout court cases at a police officer (instead of shouting city ordinances, for instance) while carrying a gun IS a threat to my safety. In the end, I think the police absolutely did the right thing in this situation letting this guy go before it became an issue.

 

I think it boils down to this; the difference between someone legally and illegally carrying a firearm cannot be ascertained at any distance. It requires some human interaction. The officer in this scenario attempted to interact in a polite, humane manner with this guy. The guy refused all attempts to be polite and civil, and while this is his right, it would have caused him absolutely no harm to engage the officer.

 

There's a difference between "NO SIR YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO ASK ME FOR MY NAME PLEASE REFER TO CASE X Y OR Z" and "actually officer, I was just trying to make a video for my internet channel followers demonstrating a legal way you can carry a firearm openly and protect yourself while exercising your legal rights. Therefore, I will exercise my rights and not tell you my name or show you my ID, but thank you for being cooperative and helping me in my demonstration." The latter exercised the same rights as the former, but did it in a way that IMO increased public safety by putting a potentially alerted police officer at ease.

[copperhead]

I think it boils down to this; the difference between someone legally and illegally carrying a firearm cannot be ascertained at any distance.

 

So you believe in guilty until proven innocent?

 

I could have a kilo of coke in my fenderwell, does that mean every car driving down the highway during rush hour should be searched by a drug dog?

[M0nk3y]

"I will comply, but do not consent"

 

Easy. Get a tape recorder (or an app on your phone) and tape it.

[El Karacho1647545492]

So you believe in guilty until proven innocent?

 

I could have a kilo of coke in my fenderwell, does that mean every car driving down the highway during rush hour should be searched by a drug dog?

 

What you did with my quote is the problem with this entire debate. You've taken a single comment out of context, negating the expository statements. By doing so you were able to infer that I believe illegal search & seizures are A-OK. Read the rest of the comment. I clearly said that conversation is the way to diffuse a situation.

 

It's not a legally binding answer, but it is something that this entire country was based on; compromise for the COMMON good, not just the INDIVIDUAL good. I haven't suggested that you waive your right not to be searched, I haven't suggested that you waive your right to walk down the street with a gun on your hip, I simply suggested that you or anyone conducting themselves in this manner should, in the interest of the peace of mind of others, participate in a civil discourse with those who try to keep the peace. Think of others, not just yourself. That's not Constitutionally mandated, nor legally, but its the mandate of a good, productive member of society.

 

EDIT: Keeping an open mind is the foundation of this country, and the drawback of that foundation is that people are free to close their minds to other ways of thinking or participating in democracy.

[El Karacho1647545492]

I think this is the simplest way I can put it:

 

If there is a path of less resistance offered that doesn't require you to waive any rights, by not taking that path you are participating in pointless resistance. Pointless resistance is the realm of children, not grown men. In my mind, if you pointlessly resist when offered a simpler solution, you should be treated like a child.

 

While it is everyone's right to pointlessly resist, it is my and everyone else's right to treat others as we see fit within our rights, even if that means treating others like a child.

[iwashmycar]

I didn't say he was wrong to exercise his rights. I think its great that people exercise their rights in ways I disagree with; that's what makes this country great.

 

But a guy standing on a streetcorner yelling "I'M THE NAZI MOTHERFUCKING JESUS SECOND COMING WHO'S GOING TO BANISH ALL THE BLACKS AND JEWS AND NONBELIEVERS TO HELL" is the same in my mind as this guy going out and filming an encounter with police where he spouts off a bunch of laws. A street corner is not a courtroom.

 

IMO this officer would have been in the right to detain this guy for a short period because he seems unstable to me, and an unstable person who wants to shout court cases at a police officer (instead of shouting city ordinances, for instance) while carrying a gun IS a threat to my safety. In the end, I think the police absolutely did the right thing in this situation letting this guy go before it became an issue.

 

I think it boils down to this; the difference between someone legally and illegally carrying a firearm cannot be ascertained at any distance. It requires some human interaction. The officer in this scenario attempted to interact in a polite, humane manner with this guy. The guy refused all attempts to be polite and civil, and while this is his right, it would have caused him absolutely no harm to engage the officer.

 

There's a difference between "NO SIR YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO ASK ME FOR MY NAME PLEASE REFER TO CASE X Y OR Z" and "actually officer, I was just trying to make a video for my internet channel followers demonstrating a legal way you can carry a firearm openly and protect yourself while exercising your legal rights. Therefore, I will exercise my rights and not tell you my name or show you my ID, but thank you for being cooperative and helping me in my demonstration." The latter exercised the same rights as the former, but did it in a way that IMO increased public safety by putting a potentially alerted police officer at ease.

 

 

this.

 

The guy in the video is a douche. From an outsiders perspective he could be bat-shit crazy. Glad he knows his law and precedents, but I don't see that as any excuse to insight 911 calls....

[TTQ B4U]

So you believe in guilty until proven innocent?

 

No what he's saying is while the guy was within his rights, a fellow citizen or more called about this suspicious person who is acting in such a manner that others have asked an LEO check into it as per their duty to serve and protect.

 

I don't get from the way the officer acted that he was in any way treating the guy out of line. He was of course asking him questions the guy isn't required to answer, but if he didn't do that then how might he go about responding to the call? Do you rely on the person who called to know every law to inform the cop that they know the guy is or isn't breaking one? You can't. So yes, there are cases when someone totally innocent is going to get a cop called on them. No big deal, just work through it with respect and common sense.

 

I think the guy in the video responded way outside the norm and while technically was within his rights, he is easily considered a little "out there" and perhaps in some ways a danger to those around him. Do we really need some gun carrying law spouting obviously attention deprived guy walking around society like this without being at least looked into?

 

I could have a kilo of coke in my fender well, does that mean every car driving down the highway during rush hour should be searched by a drug dog?

No but if you act suspicious and draw attention to yourself in such a way that someone calls the cops on you for something that in turns would warrant being stopped and investigated with some basic questions, then yes. Ever drive through a DUI Checkpoint? Some basic questions and boom, on your way.

[sol740]

So the issue is "people in society mistake carrying a gun as suspicious activity". Thus cops are called and questions unanswered. Of course admittedly, I am assuming that that was the only "suspicious behavior" being exhibited by the man in the video. However the police officer's statements imply as much.

 

Don't get me started on DUI checkpoints. Pure fucking evil.

[Radio Flyer1647545514]

The point is that he should be able to walk down the street and not have anyone stop him. He shouldn't have needed to spat out all of the ORC and court cases that he did.

 

Maybe next time the cop encounters someone who is OC he'll just drive by and let them go.

 

I won't open carry because I know I'll be stopped if I were to. It's just a hassle and I'll stick with concealed. I don't think this should be my mindset about the situation. I should be able to walk out of my house open carrying and not have to worry about being stopped.

 

Constantly hassling people that do open carry is the police/ whoever else winning. I'm sure most people wouldn't open carry just because of the hassle that is guaranteed to come from it.

[Guest Hal]

The point is that he should be able to walk down the street and not have anyone stop him. He shouldn't have needed to spat out all of the ORC and court cases that he did.

 

Maybe next time the cop encounters someone who is OC he'll just drive by and let them go.

 

I won't open carry because I know I'll be stopped if I were to. It's just a hassle and I'll stick with concealed. I don't think this should be my mindset about the situation. I should be able to walk out of my house open carrying and not have to worry about being stopped.

 

Constantly hassling people that do open carry is the police/ whoever else winning. I'm sure most people wouldn't open carry just because of the hassle that is guaranteed to come from it.

 

Instead of forcing our rights on people, maybe we should get Ohio law changed to specifically allow for open carry. Remove the ambiguity from these types of situations, that would be the right way forward.

[iwashmycar]

While we cannot say for sure, it sounds like he was walking around with the damned thing in his hand. No way of knowing, but I dont think they'd be getting calls if it were open carried in a holster.

[Tractor]

While we cannot say for sure, it sounds like he was walking around with the damned thing in his hand. No way of knowing, but I dont think they'd be getting calls if it were open carried in a holster.

 

Visit an open carry forum and you'll find that most of the time when open carrying calls of "man with gun" happen and the police do harass the guy with the holstered gun. the northern half of the state is really bad and you'll likely get improper charges filed.

[Richard Cranium]

Instead of forcing our rights on people, maybe we should get Ohio law changed to specifically allow for open carry. Remove the ambiguity from these types of situations, that would be the right way forward.

 

That might help in this situation, but correct me if I'm wrong. As far as I know anything that is not expressly listed in law as illegal is automatically legal. Laws are written to be about what we cannot do and to describe those actions. If we start keeping a list of all the actions that are legal the library of congress will quadruple in size over night. Then what happens when I get questioned for an action that is not on the illegal list, but is also not on the legal list yet?

 

I think I like the concept that if it's not against the law it's automatically legal.

[iwashmycar]

Visit an open carry forum and you'll find that most of the time when open carrying calls of "man with gun" happen and the police do harass the guy with the holstered gun. the northern half of the state is really bad and you'll likely get improper charges filed.

 

Well that's just stupid. :fuuuu:

[Rustlestiltskin]

That video really burns my buttons. wish some ghetto dude came outta nowhere and 1 hit the open carry guy.

[sol740]

Well that's just stupid. :fuuuu:

 

Correct, and beyond that I believe in most states holding the weapon in your hand could be considered brandishing, which would generally fall into an arrestable offense.

[Guest Hal]

That might help in this situation, but correct me if I'm wrong. As far as I know anything that is not expressly listed in law as illegal is automatically legal. Laws are written to be about what we cannot do and to describe those actions. If we start keeping a list of all the actions that are legal the library of congress will quadruple in size over night. Then what happens when I get questioned for an action that is not on the illegal list, but is also not on the legal list yet?

 

I think I like the concept that if it's not against the law it's automatically legal.

In theory, yes. There are ways to get around that whole "this isn't illegal so it is legal" concept. The best one is simple harassment which will, in time, make the "legal" activity something which is rarely practiced. Often times, especially with controversial subjects like guns, there needs to be a law which provides for the exercise of a right. It's sad, but true.

[RC K9]

Hal is wrong, M0nk3y is right.../thread.

[Guest Hal]

Hal is wrong, M0nk3y is right.../thread.

 

http://collider.com/wp-content/uploads/Dumb-and-Dumber-jim-carrey-1.jpg

[Adam]

Only thing I am surprised about is you gun rights advocates attitudes on being complacent

[TTQ B4U]

Only thing I am surprised about is you gun rights advocates attitudes on being complacent

 

It's not so much about being complacent as it is just being a responsible adult vs someone with an attitude a phone and a point to prove looking for some YouTube exposure. There are way better ways to make a point and convey an opinion on open carry than doing what this guy did.

[twistedfocus1647545489]

It's not so much about being complacent as it is just being a responsible adult vs someone with an attitude a phone and a point to prove looking for some YouTube exposure. There are way better ways to make a point and convey an opinion on open carry than doing what this guy did.

 

This. The dude is just starting shit so that he can yell "I got rights!" at some cops and film it. Obvious douche is douchey.

 

Also, even if open carry were 100% legal and socially accepted I'd still be carrying concealed. I'd rather have the element of surprise on my side. Being able to carry a gun isn't a badge of honor I need to display to everyone.

 

"Speak softly but carry a big stick"

- Teddy Ruxpin, 1901

http://southcoasthomes.ocregister.com/files/2011/01/teddy-ruxpin.jpg

[citation needed]

Edited July 4, 2012 by twistedfocus

[Darkside]

Also, even if open carry were 100% legal and socially accepted I'd still be carrying concealed. I'd rather have the element of surprise on my side. Being able to carry a gun isn't a badge of honor I need to display to everyone.

 

"Speak softly but carry a big stick"

- Teddy Ruxpin, 1901

http://southcoasthomes.ocregister.com/files/2011/01/teddy-ruxpin.jpg

[citation needed]

 

This! A few days ago I was in line getting a sub with some fat slob open carrying and wearing his Ohio Open Carry t-shirt. I had no doubt that I could have unarmed him before he could swallow his sub induced drool.

[TTQ B4U]

This! A few days ago I was in line getting a sub with some fat slob open carrying and wearing his Ohio Open Carry t-shirt. I had no doubt that I could have unarmed him before he could swallow his sub induced drool.

 

I'm surprised the establishment didn't have a sign about firearms or nothing was said.