Good Cop Bad Cop - Open Carry Confrontation in Michigan

[Doc Sauce]

If only a class 3 is allowed to carry a full auto firearm, then it is illegal for a non class 3 holder to have one.  If that is the case, then i tis reasonable for the cop to ask to see the weapon in order to determine whether or not the law is being broken.  He doesn't know if it is or if it isn't, but it is reasonable to suspect that that firearm could be fulll auto...   I thought he said that in his explanation to the guy with the rifle....

If a drivers license is required to drive a car, is it legal for the police to pull over a car just to see if you have a DL?

Driving a car does not create reasonable suspicion...if my 9 year old was driving the car that would be reasonable suspicion to check for a DL.

That is what I think too... He was  not stopped just for carrying a gun.  Cops dont' stop people just for driving a car... he was stopped because the gun he carried made them reasonably suspicious that he was breaking the law, a lot like seeing DB's 9 year old behind the wheel.  Reasonably suspicious looking young fella driving. 

[JoeE]

If only a class 3 is allowed to carry a full auto firearm, then it is illegal for a non class 3 holder to have one.  If that is the case, then i tis reasonable for the cop to ask to see the weapon in order to determine whether or not the law is being broken.  He doesn't know if it is or if it isn't, but it is reasonable to suspect that that firearm could be fulll auto...   I thought he said that in his explanation to the guy with the rifle....

If a drivers license is required to drive a car, is it legal for the police to pull over a car just to see if you have a DL?

Driving a car does not create reasonable suspicion...if my 9 year old was driving the car that would be reasonable suspicion to check for a DL.

That is what I think too... He was  not stopped just for carrying a gun.  Cops dont' stop people just for driving a car... he was stopped because the gun he carried made them reasonably suspicious that he was breaking the law, a lot like seeing DB's 9 year old behind the wheel.  Reasonably suspicious looking young fella driving.

It doesn't matter if the gun could have been class 3 or not. It could have been a lever action 30-30 and he still could have been stopped based on reasonable suspicion. Once again, walking through town with a rifle on your back is suspicious to a reasonable person so it's the duty of the officer to simply ask him "what are you doing". If he says "I'm excercising my 2nd amendment rights and making a video to post on Youtube because I really crave attention" then so be it.

It's a simple concept. Carrying a gun is legal and nobody is going to stop you. But if you are doing something with it that's unusual, like parading around like a fool just to get attention then somebody is going to give you attention. In the world I live in I want to know that my kids are safe in public places and potentially crazy people who may want to do a mass shooting in a public place are at least contacted by the police while they are walking down the street with a weapon on their back. Thankfully most people are reasonable and want the same thing so the police will continue to stop these morons and hopefully it will at least deter a criminal from being so brazen in the future.

[RG]

 

[csaaphill]

Should anybody have stopped and talked to guy who walked into the movie theater in Colorado with a gun and shot the place up? Should anybody have stopped and asked the guy what he was doing before he walked into Sandy Hook Elementary school?

Csaaphill, nobody takes you seriously. About 95% percent of your posts are just you showing the forum how much of a nut case you are. Here you just revived a week old thread looking for an argument.

So are we saying then if someone wears a hoodie they automatically look suspicious?
No not protecting martin either just saying.
So where do we draw the line on what's suspicious or not? Anyone can say somethings suspicious but to me if he's open carrying and its his right let him be.
and JOE e damn you have this mark furhman attitude too did you abuse little puppies as a kid?

[csaaphill]

Leave our open carry alone stop making issue with our rights stop saying something is suspicious when i'ts not.Not a valid vimeo URLcopy link and past in browser to watch if link doesn't post.
I side with liberty every time and after watching that movie is exactly why. 

[JoeE]

Should anybody have stopped and talked to guy who walked into the movie theater in Colorado with a gun and shot the place up? Should anybody have stopped and asked the guy what he was doing before he walked into Sandy Hook Elementary school?

Csaaphill, nobody takes you seriously. About 95% percent of your posts are just you showing the forum how much of a nut case you are. Here you just revived a week old thread looking for an argument.

So are we saying then if someone wears a hoodie they automatically look suspicious?
No not protecting martin either just saying.
So where do we draw the line on what's suspicious or not? Anyone can say somethings suspicious but to me if he's open carrying and its his right let him be.
and JOE e damn you have this mark furhman attitude too did you abuse little puppies as a kid?

Yeah, because I don't want lunatics shooting up schools I have a Mark Furhman attitude. Good one. Now put your tinfoil hat back on. And comparing wearing a hooded sweatshirt to wearing a rifle across is back is pretty similar isn't it? Abuse puppies as a little kid? No, but after reading some your tirades the past several months I cringe to think about what you probably went through as a little kid.

[csaaphill]

ya bad cop first one good cop second one.
didn't catch him losening his gun strap but bet he was wanting a shoot out.
ya only reason to get a cell for me would be to catch cops abusing rights other than that naw!
wasn't for people like this kid people would just let our rights errode period!

[JoeE]

ya bad cop first one good cop second one.
didn't catch him losening his gun strap but bet he was wanting a shoot out.
ya only reason to get a cell for me would be to catch cops abusing rights other than that naw!
wasn't for people like this kid people would just let our rights errode period!

Yup, parading around like a moron giving lawful gun owners a bad name helps keep our rights. 

[DBHAWTHORNE]

ya bad cop first one good cop second one.
didn't catch him losening his gun strap but bet he was wanting a shoot out.
ya only reason to get a cell for me would be to catch cops abusing rights other than that naw!
wasn't for people like this kid people would just let our rights errode period!

Yup, parading around like a moron giving lawful gun owners a bad name helps keep our rights. 

While I definitely agree there is reasonable suspicion to stop one of these guys and see what they are up to (primarily because it's not an everyday occurrence to see someone walking around town with a long rifle)....How is exercising your rights giving lawful gun owners a bad name?

[JoeE]

Because there's a good way and a bad way to go about it. If a majority of the population think that parading around like an idiot trying to get attention is not a good thing to do, then it probably isn't.

[DBHAWTHORNE]

Because there's a good way and a bad way to go about it. If a majority of the population think that parading around like an idiot trying to get attention is not a good thing to do, then it probably isn't.

So exercising your rights is now considered idiotic just because the "majority" may not like it?? Your thought process explains a lot about about how we got to where we are today. 

[Bean Counter]

I think the camcorder is a dead giveaway that the person is probably looking to make a political statement rather than become the next Jared Lee Loughner. Nevertheless, I agree with joe that LEOs should probably make contact (a consensual encounter, not necessarily guns drawn) with these individuals just to show their due diligence.


I will stop short of calling it idiotic. I am glad other people are exercising this right because I choose not to. An unexcercised right is lost. 

[JoeE]

Because there's a good way and a bad way to go about it. If a majority of the population think that parading around like an idiot trying to get attention is not a good thing to do, then it probably isn't.

So exercising your rights is now considered idiotic just because the "majority" may not like it?? Your thought process explains a lot about about how we got to where we are today. 

The Westboro Baptist Church exercised their 1st amendment rights and protests at military funerals. Surely you're okay with that then too since there is nothing wrong with exercising your rights however you choose to. Is that what you're saying?

[DBHAWTHORNE]

I think the camcorder is a dead giveaway that the person is probably looking to make a political statement rather than become the next Jared Lee Loughner. Nevertheless, I agree with joe that LEOs should probably make contact (a consensual encounter, not necessarily guns drawn) with these individuals just to show their due diligence.


I will stop short of calling it idiotic. I am glad other people are exercising this right because I choose not to. An unexcercised right is lost. 

They probably carry cameras when they open carry because there are some cops that would be more likely to abuse their power if they weren't being filmed (and as we can see..even with the cameras the cops are usually on the wrong track...so imagine if they didn't have the cams on them... not too mention most of them seem very nervous about the fact that they are being filmed in the encounters and there are times I get the feeling things wouldn't be so pretty if they weren't being filmed.) I have the utmost respect for our LEOs...but at the same time our society has become a place where these guys basically have to carry cameras for their own safety....which is pretty sad that it's necessary to do that when they are simply exercising their rights..... I don't have a desire to open carry a long rifle downtown (as I find it unnecessary and cumbersome) but if I did I can guarantee you I would be filming any police encounters....and not because I was trying to make a political statement...but because I  would be concerned for how they would react if I wasn't recording(and I have never once had a truly bad experience with an LEO...aside from a few of them being pricks who have poor social skills).

I do not disagree with you are Joe either regarding the fact that the LEO should make contact in most of these instances.

Calling these guys idiotic for exercising their rights is my only real point of disagreement with Joe.

[Bean Counter]

While I definitely agree there is reasonable suspicion to stop one of these guys and see what they are up to (primarily because it's not an everyday occurrence to see someone walking around town with a long rifle)....How is exercising your rights giving lawful gun owners a bad name?

Actually unless there is a specific statute prohibiting the carrying of firearms in this manner then there is not reasonable suspicion. RS is based on specific, articulable facts that a crime may have been committed. The officer may engage in a "consensual encounter." Most people on the streets are idiots and will keep answering questions so long as an officer is asking them. That doesn't necessarily mean they were detained and not free to leave.

However, a Terry Frisk need not have probable cause for arrest, only that the indivual is armed and dangerous. The armed part goes without saying but in order to temporarily take the gun away the LEO would have to articulate the dangerous part.

There are also public safety exceptions to the 4th amendment warrant requirements known as exegent circumstances.