Post by: acnewman55 on July 11, 2013, 04:04:20 PM
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=1f4_1373487378 (http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=1f4_1373487378)
I recommend you stop watching after the second cop tells the citizen he's free to go. Nothing much to the video after that event occurs.
Post by: Knocker of rocks on July 11, 2013, 04:13:47 PM
Post by: Woodchuck on July 11, 2013, 04:41:51 PM
Yes the cop was outside the lines and all that but you have to expect to get a negative response to that. :twocents:
Post by: ghosthunter on July 11, 2013, 04:49:43 PM
Geez if you are with in your rights just relax a little.
Let the LEO walk up. And state his reason for contact.
Than tell him you are out for a walk and carry on.
:bash:
Post by: JLS on July 11, 2013, 04:50:43 PM
Post by: DOUBLELUNG on July 11, 2013, 04:54:06 PM
Ya know unfortunately I don't think people like that are doing us any favors. If you go out looking to attract attention don't be upset when you do. There is no other purpose in taking a long gun strapped across your back, barrel down other than looking to get a reaction.
Yes the cop was outside the lines and all that but you have to expect to get a negative response to that. :twocents:
I agree. Just because you CAN go for a 2am jog on South Tacoma Way wearing nothing but hundred dollar bills over your privates, doesn't make it a good idea.
Post by: Knocker of rocks on July 11, 2013, 05:10:28 PM
I'd say Cop #1 owes Cop #2 a beer. #2 obviously realized this situation was going nowhere good and had the stones to tell his buddy otherwise. Good thing his buddy had the common sense to listen.
Cop two was about a dozen years older too
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on July 11, 2013, 05:14:39 PM
Post by: CedarPants on July 11, 2013, 05:16:18 PM
Ya know unfortunately I don't think people like that are doing us any favors.
Completely agree
Post by: dmv9 on July 11, 2013, 06:28:57 PM
Post by: Mudman on July 11, 2013, 06:59:21 PM
Post by: mossback91 on July 11, 2013, 07:07:04 PM
Ya know unfortunately I don't think people like that are doing us any favors.
Completely agree
:yeah:
Post by: Knocker of rocks on July 11, 2013, 07:28:16 PM
I think its just people looking for fame or just irritating police
Yes
While it is legal, it is certainly alarming to the general public to walk around town with a rifle, and I don't think any real good comes from it
Post by: christopheri on July 11, 2013, 08:21:37 PM
Post by: JLS on July 11, 2013, 08:44:20 PM
It is concerning how the younger cops seem to not know the law or how to respond to these situations.
I actually think the first cop was in line, but he allowed this moron to fluster him with his babbling and stubborness. He actually caught himself at first, when he initially told the moron he wasn't being detained, and then told him he was.
It seems cops get too hung up on ID at first, instead of just asking the guy what he was doing and where he was going. It's human nature and we all do it, kind of like telling your kids 10 times to quiet down.
Post by: CedarPants on July 11, 2013, 08:56:56 PM
It seems cops get too hung up on ID at first, instead of just asking the guy what he was doing and where he was going.
Very true statement.
At least he asked for his ID and not his gun though. Can you imagine where this thread would have gone had that been the case :chuckle:
Post by: JoeE on July 11, 2013, 09:00:04 PM
The people who feel it necessary to walk around with guns in view looking for confrontation or to startle people are immature fools.
Post by: JLS on July 11, 2013, 09:45:04 PM
Walking through a suburban area with a rifle on your back is suspicious.
JoeE hit on a really good point. Cops deal in the world of reasonable suspicion and probable cause. Things that are not normal behavior can contribute to reasonable suspicion. Carrying a rifle around in a suburban area really isn't normal. It's not a normal open carry defensive weapon. That's not to say it can't be, but on the surface it's obviously going to appear weird to the public, and thereby lead to you being questioned.
This dude has obviously watched too many open carry videos on the net and decided he needed a little skin in the game. He cracked me up when his first comment was "I don't have to show you ID". I would question his mental state too if he acted like that when I tried to talk to him.
Post by: BsB on July 11, 2013, 10:14:03 PM
Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2
Post by: RG on July 12, 2013, 06:39:47 AM
Walking through a suburban area with a rifle on your back is suspicious.
JoeE hit on a really good point. Cops deal in the world of reasonable suspicion and probable cause. Things that are not normal behavior can contribute to reasonable suspicion. Carrying a rifle around in a suburban area really isn't normal. It's not a normal open carry defensive weapon. That's not to say it can't be, but on the surface it's obviously going to appear weird to the public, and thereby lead to you being questioned.
This dude has obviously watched too many open carry videos on the net and decided he needed a little skin in the game. He cracked me up when his first comment was "I don't have to show you ID". I would question his mental state too if he acted like that when I tried to talk to him.
:yeah: "Attention getting behavior".
Post by: sirfunkeybut on July 12, 2013, 08:58:46 AM
Post by: Doc Sauce on July 12, 2013, 05:25:26 PM
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=589_1345502474 (http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=589_1345502474)
I watched the first video and then found this one. I loved it!!
Post by: acnewman55 on July 16, 2013, 04:13:16 PM
How about good cop... good cop!!
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=589_1345502474 (http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=589_1345502474)
I watched the first video and then found this one. I loved it!!
:yeah: that's a good cop. we'll take more of those please.
Post by: csaaphill on July 21, 2013, 08:03:42 PM
If he's not violating the law don't make a case out of a legal open carry.
People are waking up to thier rights and excerising that right leave them alone!
Post by: JoeE on July 21, 2013, 09:35:35 PM
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.
Post by: JLS on July 21, 2013, 09:56:44 PM
How about good cop... good cop!!
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=589_1345502474 (http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=589_1345502474)
I watched the first video and then found this one. I loved it!!
I've seen this one before, and this officer does an outstanding job of articulating his reasonable suspicion, and giving very clear commands.
Food for thought, how do you think contact would have gone if the fellow being detained thought that he knew enough case law that he refused to allow the officer to check his weapon because of an "illegal search or seizure"?
This kid was kind of an idiot at first, talking about how it was a violation of Terry v. Ohio (it's not), and making a big deal of the contact being recorded. Hopefully he learned something from it also.
Post by: Doc Sauce on July 22, 2013, 10:22:38 AM
How about good cop... good cop!!
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=589_1345502474 (http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=589_1345502474)
I watched the first video and then found this one. I loved it!!
I've seen this one before, and this officer does an outstanding job of articulating his reasonable suspicion, and giving very clear commands.
Food for thought, how do you think contact would have gone if the fellow being detained thought that he knew enough case law that he refused to allow the officer to check his weapon because of an "illegal search or seizure"?
This kid was kind of an idiot at first, talking about how it was a violation of Terry v. Ohio (it's not), and making a big deal of the contact being recorded. Hopefully he learned something from it also.
What would have happened if the interchange had gone wrong... well... Worst case scenario both cop, both citizens, and a driver on the road all get killed. I think the severity of the situation would really have depended on how the armed fella acted.
If he kept backing up in circles, saying he did not consent, but making no move to grab his weapon, he could have gotten rushed and tackled. Arrested for resisting a lawful search. End result, just a couple bruises and scraped up knees and elbows. A small black eye on his criminal record.
If he starts backing up, arguing about illegal searches, and getting hostile, then reaching for his gun, this dude could have easily been killed.
Were I in this sittuation, there is a good chance I would have acted like this guy. Afraid I am going to go to jail and not wanting to submit to anything... in the end I would have looked foolish and the cop would have verified the safety of that street with me walking down it.
Cop did an outstanding job in this one.
Post by: pianoman9701 on July 22, 2013, 11:01:45 AM
Post by: JLS on July 22, 2013, 11:04:15 AM
You wouldn't catch me walking downtown with a rifle. Having said that, cops will get away with what they can. Just because they ask you to do something doesn't mean you necessarily have to do it.
So in this instance are you saying the cop didn't have reasonable suspicion to detain the man and check his rifle for full auto capability?
Post by: pianoman9701 on July 22, 2013, 11:16:01 AM
You wouldn't catch me walking downtown with a rifle. Having said that, cops will get away with what they can. Just because they ask you to do something doesn't mean you necessarily have to do it.
So in this instance are you saying the cop didn't have reasonable suspicion to detain the man and check his rifle for full auto capability?
Go after someone else, JLS. I bet you're a bully on the street, too. I'm not interested.
Post by: JLS on July 22, 2013, 11:35:39 AM
You wouldn't catch me walking downtown with a rifle. Having said that, cops will get away with what they can. Just because they ask you to do something doesn't mean you necessarily have to do it.
So in this instance are you saying the cop didn't have reasonable suspicion to detain the man and check his rifle for full auto capability?
Go after someone else, JLS. I bet you're a bully on the street, too. I'm not interested.
I asked you a question to clarify? How is that being a bully? Kind of sensitive aren't we, panties bunched?
Post by: pianoman9701 on July 22, 2013, 11:39:40 AM
You wouldn't catch me walking downtown with a rifle. Having said that, cops will get away with what they can. Just because they ask you to do something doesn't mean you necessarily have to do it.
So in this instance are you saying the cop didn't have reasonable suspicion to detain the man and check his rifle for full auto capability?
Go after someone else, JLS. I bet you're a bully on the street, too. I'm not interested.
I asked you a question to clarify? How is that being a bully? Kind of sensitive aren't we, panties bunched?
Nope, I just know you and our past sparring and I'm not interested. Besides, last time, you said you'd seen all you needed to see to know everything about me. So, why even ask?
Post by: JLS on July 22, 2013, 11:48:47 AM
You wouldn't catch me walking downtown with a rifle. Having said that, cops will get away with what they can. Just because they ask you to do something doesn't mean you necessarily have to do it.
So in this instance are you saying the cop didn't have reasonable suspicion to detain the man and check his rifle for full auto capability?
Go after someone else, JLS. I bet you're a bully on the street, too. I'm not interested.
I asked you a question to clarify? How is that being a bully? Kind of sensitive aren't we, panties bunched?
Nope, I just know you and our past sparring and I'm not interested. Besides, last time, you said you'd seen all you needed to see to know everything about me. So, why even ask?
Curious as to what you were getting at, and naive enough to think that a simple question could warrant a simple answer.
If I wanted to spar with you I would have gone after your statement that cops will get away with what they can. I don't go to work each day assuming that every person is out to break the law, but if that floats your boat then so be it.
But, then again I'm just a bully on the streets AND the 'net :rolleyes:
Post by: RG on July 22, 2013, 04:27:49 PM
How about good cop... good cop!!
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=589_1345502474 (http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=589_1345502474)
I watched the first video and then found this one. I loved it!!
I've seen this one before, and this officer does an outstanding job of articulating his reasonable suspicion, and giving very clear commands.
Food for thought, how do you think contact would have gone if the fellow being detained thought that he knew enough case law that he refused to allow the officer to check his weapon because of an "illegal search or seizure"?
This kid was kind of an idiot at first, talking about how it was a violation of Terry v. Ohio (it's not), and making a big deal of the contact being recorded. Hopefully he learned something from it also.
What would have happened if the interchange had gone wrong... well... Worst case scenario both cop, both citizens, and a driver on the road all get killed. I think the severity of the situation would really have depended on how the armed fella acted.
If he kept backing up in circles, saying he did not consent, but making no move to grab his weapon, he could have gotten rushed and tackled. Arrested for resisting a lawful search. End result, just a couple bruises and scraped up knees and elbows. A small black eye on his criminal record.
If he starts backing up, arguing about illegal searches, and getting hostile, then reaching for his gun, this dude could have easily been killed.
Were I in this sittuation, there is a good chance I would have acted like this guy. Afraid I am going to go to jail and not wanting to submit to anything... in the end I would have looked foolish and the cop would have verified the safety of that street with me walking down it.
Cop did an outstanding job in this one.
Here's what puzzles me every time I see one of these videos....Why even open carry a gun around anyway, especially a rifle or shotgun that's guaranteed to cause a stir? It seems to me the whole point is to try to attract as much attention as possible. Sure it's legal but so is carrying a great big "Jesus Saves" sign around your neck and wearing your pants backward. Both produce the same result, everybody notices you. Carry it concealed then you don't cause a ripple in the pond everywhere you go and, in the event you come upon a crime in progress, the bad guy doesn't see your gun and shoot you before you figure out what is going on. Just my opinion obviously, like I said, it's legal.
Post by: Mudman on July 22, 2013, 07:30:17 PM
Can anyone say God Complex? I thought Doctors were the only ones, not LEO.You wouldn't catch me walking downtown with a rifle. Having said that, cops will get away with what they can. Just because they ask you to do something doesn't mean you necessarily have to do it.
So in this instance are you saying the cop didn't have reasonable suspicion to detain the man and check his rifle for full auto capability?
Go after someone else, JLS. I bet you're a bully on the street, too. I'm not interested.
I asked you a question to clarify? How is that being a bully? Kind of sensitive aren't we, panties bunched?
Nope, I just know you and our past sparring and I'm not interested. Besides, last time, you said you'd seen all you needed to see to know everything about me. So, why even ask?
Curious as to what you were getting at, and naive enough to think that a simple question could warrant a simple answer.
If I wanted to spar with you I would have gone after your statement that cops will get away with what they can. I don't go to work each day assuming that every person is out to break the law, but if that floats your boat then so be it.
But, then again I'm just a bully on the streets AND the 'net :rolleyes:
Post by: BsB on July 25, 2013, 10:21:42 AM
How about good cop... good cop!!So just because it could be a fully auto rifle, that's gives the cops reasonable suspicion to inspect the firearm? The officer even stated himself they are legal to own if you have the class 3 stamp. From what I understand the ATF is the only agency able to request that/need to show to? That would make it an illegal stop since it is legal to own such firearms and open carrying a firearm is not reason to be detained? Or have I miss interpreted what I've read? So what if it was a fully auto and he had a class 3 stamp, not illegal to walk down the street with it.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=589_1345502474 (http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=589_1345502474)
I watched the first video and then found this one. I loved it!!
Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2
Post by: JoeE on July 25, 2013, 01:13:56 PM
How about good cop... good cop!!So just because it could be a fully auto rifle, that's gives the cops reasonable suspicion to inspect the firearm? The officer even stated himself they are legal to own if you have the class 3 stamp. From what I understand the ATF is the only agency able to request that/need to show to? That would make it an illegal stop since it is legal to own such firearms and open carrying a firearm is not reason to be detained? Or have I miss interpreted what I've read? So what if it was a fully auto and he had a class 3 stamp, not illegal to walk down the street with it.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=589_1345502474 (http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=589_1345502474)
I watched the first video and then found this one. I loved it!!
Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2
It doesn't matter if its a musket or a double barreled shotgun. The police can stop and ask him what he's doing walking around with a firearm. Hanging around outside of a bank with a ski mask on isn't illegal either, but it's not normal. Same as walking around suburbia with a long rifle on your back.
Post by: BsB on July 25, 2013, 02:28:48 PM
OK, but oc'ing a firearm is perfectly legal. He's not committing a crime, so there is no legal reason for him to be stopped. He wasn't suspected of committing a crime, only that the cop felt it could be a fully auto firearm which is still not illegal. Stopping a person simply because they are carrying a firearm is not justifiable cause to detain someone. It may not be normal, but it sure as hell ain't illegal. People don't know what normal is anymore. 120 years ago it was normal for people to ride horses and carry guns. What's different now? I guess firearms weren't black and scary back then.
It doesn't matter if its a musket or a double barreled shotgun. The police can stop and ask him what he's doing walking around with a firearm. Hanging around outside of a bank with a ski mask on isn't illegal either, but it's not normal. Same as walking around suburbia with a long rifle on your back.
What happened to being able to walk down the street free of unlawful search and seizure? That officer had no right to disarm that guy just to see if it was semi or full auto. Let's treat everyone OC'ing as a criminal since they must be up to no good/suspicious looking. I'm not in the know on class 3 items so I was just looking for clarification.
Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2
Post by: pianoman9701 on July 25, 2013, 02:35:30 PM
Post by: JoeE on July 25, 2013, 03:26:17 PM
What's different between the two? The guy walking down the dirt road is probably out hunting and the guy with the rifle in downtown Seattle is either trying to make one of these idiotic videos or maybe he's getting ready to walk into the Jewish Federation and start shooting (we all remember that, right?).
I bet if you had kids and some wack job was standing in front of their school with an AR 15 on his back you'd probably want the police to find out what his intent is right?
Post by: Special T on July 25, 2013, 03:37:47 PM
A Right NOT used is LOST! Many in AZ worry about OC because of the new concealed carry laws. CC IS much better for MANY reasons that OC. That said I have had a few cold ones in NV with a couple of cowbows packing 6 shooters.... NO ONE thought 2x about it...
If people are not introduced to an idea, they are NOT likely to figure it out on their own. :twocents:
Post by: Doc Sauce on July 25, 2013, 04:05:49 PM
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on July 25, 2013, 04:52:46 PM
How about good cop... good cop!!
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=589_1345502474 (http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=589_1345502474)
I watched the first video and then found this one. I loved it!!
These other LEOs need to take lessons from this cop... Great Job!
Post by: Knocker of rocks on July 25, 2013, 05:01:43 PM
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?
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on July 25, 2013, 05:14:03 PM
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.
Post by: Doc Sauce on July 25, 2013, 10:48:05 PM
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.
Post by: JoeE on July 26, 2013, 01:03:27 AM
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.
Post by: RG on July 26, 2013, 06:40:32 AM
Post by: csaaphill on July 27, 2013, 07:03:01 PM
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?So are we saying then if someone wears a hoodie they automatically look suspicious?
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.
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? >:(
Post by: csaaphill on July 27, 2013, 07:24:45 PM
I side with liberty every time and after watching that movie is exactly why. >:(
Post by: JoeE on July 27, 2013, 07:34:08 PM
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?So are we saying then if someone wears a hoodie they automatically look suspicious?
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.
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.
Post by: csaaphill on July 27, 2013, 07:37:06 PM
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!
Post by: JoeE on July 27, 2013, 07:52:24 PM
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. :tinfoil:
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on July 27, 2013, 08:26:42 PM
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. :tinfoil:
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?
Post by: JoeE on July 27, 2013, 10:20:49 PM
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on July 28, 2013, 12:36:21 AM
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. :bash:
Post by: Bean Counter on July 28, 2013, 12:43:29 AM
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. :twocents:
Post by: JoeE on July 28, 2013, 12:48:11 AM
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. :bash:
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?
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on July 28, 2013, 12:55:58 AM
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. :twocents:
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.
Post by: Bean Counter on July 28, 2013, 01:02:33 AM
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.
Post by: JoeE on July 28, 2013, 01:07:05 AM
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on July 28, 2013, 01:10:18 AM
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. :bash:
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?
Yes... The Westboro Baptist Church protestors are entitled to their First Amendment protection of their speech as any other citizens are. As long as they are within their legal bounds then let them do what they do. Just because I don't like it along with the "majority" serves as no reason to entertain weakening the First Amendment. The protestors are definitely offensive but they generally pose no threat to America or the public. Local officials and state legislators are finding Constitutionally acceptable ways to keep the protestors well back from the funerals to reduce the impact on grieving families. My fellow brother in arms died defending the Constitution...it would certainly not honor them to use their funerals as a reason to weaken the Constitution simply because the "majority" didn't like what was happening.
Westboro's extreme ideals make them idiotic in my mind.... however, I do not see them exercising their right in and of itself as being idiotic.....that seems to be the difference between how you and I think....we are not far apart in point of view but there certainly seems to be a difference.
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on July 28, 2013, 01:10:43 AM
Ok so maybe idiotic is a harsh word. But I think they are fighting the battle the wrong way.
I can agree with that.
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on July 28, 2013, 01:12:59 AM
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.
Thanks for the background...that makes sense.
Post by: csaaphill on July 31, 2013, 12:56:22 AM
Post by: Goshawk on August 01, 2013, 01:58:13 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on August 01, 2013, 02:07:45 PM
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. :bash:
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?
Absolutely. I absolutely deplore their message, but I cherish their rights...because they're my rights, too.
Post by: csaaphill on August 01, 2013, 05:45:00 PM
:yike: These fruit loops do more damage to gun owners than most of the left wing politicians could ever hope to do. He went out looking for a confrontation and got it. Good for you. Your on Youboob now.not really it shows us that we need to stand up for ourselves and not be sheeple. Only those with low tolerance for truth will be offended by this. THose that know the truth will say hey cool someones actually standing up.
Fact is lots of people are waking up, and it's because these people bring this out. Wasnt for someone showing on here that We had open carry in Wasington, and ORegon I would have never known it was a right.
Theres a large audience for these kind of videos. For me it's info not just someone out being an ass, but someone actually doing something rather than sit back and let the next guy do something. :hello:
Post by: JoeE on August 01, 2013, 06:52:14 PM
:yike: These fruit loops do more damage to gun owners than most of the left wing politicians could ever hope to do. He went out looking for a confrontation and got it. Good for you. Your on Youboob now.not really it shows us that we need to stand up for ourselves and not be sheeple. Only those with low tolerance for truth will be offended by this. THose that know the truth will say hey cool someones actually standing up.
Fact is lots of people are waking up, and it's because these people bring this out. Wasnt for someone showing on here that We had open carry in Wasington, and ORegon I would have never known it was a right.
Theres a large audience for these kind of videos. For me it's info not just someone out being an ass, but someone actually doing something rather than sit back and let the next guy do something. :hello:
You didn't know you could open carry until you saw one of these videos? All the nonsense you post and links you find on the internet I find it hard to believe that you are not capable of doing simple research on something you feel so strongly about.
Post by: pianoman9701 on August 07, 2013, 06:27:15 AM
Post by: JoeE on August 07, 2013, 05:48:16 PM
Post by: csaaphill on August 07, 2013, 08:52:52 PM
I'm not sure but I think you're trying to insult me. But like everything else you write it sounds like a mentally challenged person authored it and I can't understand it. Go read some more conspiracy theory websites and calm down.I was clarifing my meaning guess using 32 sized font is bad :chuckle:
No wasn't insulting no one you said that I'd said or meant that if it wasn't for these videos I'd of never known about open carry.
WHich I never said that. I pointed out that you didn't read my comment, however.
What I meant was if it wasn't for someone on this site who posted a story on Washington state being open carry I would not have known.
No where in my comment that has been removed did it ever imply that these videos were the reason how I knew about open carry. I made two very clear and conscise statements one was about the videos and the other was a statement about how I came to know about open carry.
:bash: