Know Your Rights

[DSully1995]

Speaking of laws designed long ago... Obama basically overturned a 1000 year old precedent in western civilization (Habeas Corpus, right to jury)

Terrible, but how many republicans wouldnt sign this aswell I ask you

 

[Downinthebend]

Terrible, but how many republicans wouldnt sign this aswell I ask you

You're right, and its only more depressing.

 

[Irish YJ]

My thoughts vary.

1. Ok, this guy is a tool
2. The officer was very polite, very patient, and unlike any other officer I've know since the late 70s (I'm not 43). I'm counting a few family members, a few friends, several of my family's friends, and my own personal observations.
3. While a tool, I enjoy the fact that this tool knows his rights. I, along with most others I think, would have been submissive to the point of giving up some of the rights that I didn't realize I had.
4. Unlike other opinions, I did not find him disrespectful. Full of ego, eager to make his point, but not disrespectful.
5. Had this officer not kept his head, many would be singing a different tune right now.
6. Again, although a tool, I think there is value in what happened. Likely not the value that the tool was looking for, but value nonetheless. For one, it's good that law enforcement be kept on thier toes in a good way. It's good that they understand some people do know their rights, and it's good they know to be on alert that tools like this exist.
7. This would not get any attention if age old rights were not now in jeopardy.
8. I wonder how this would have went if the law student was actually an educated, but less articulate, non-white, with baggy jeans, bandana, etc..


Regarding #2. While I agree there are many officers out there that are wonderful human beings, there are many out there that are not. I have several family members in law enforcement, and in city government. While i love them all, a good portion are corrupt as the day is long, and have both entitlement and superiority complexes. And... a few have been caught and procecuted. While some were exonerated or let off easy by a corrupt DA who has since been booted and I think is still under investigation. No joke. My point is, don't blindly equate position with honestly and respect. Sorry to get side tracked, just see a lot of blind love and respect out there.

 

[irishff1014]

My thoughts vary.

1. Ok, this guy is a tool
2. The officer was very polite, very patient, and unlike any other officer I've know since the late 70s (I'm not 43). I'm counting a few family members, a few friends, several of my family's friends, and my own personal observations.
3. While a tool, I enjoy the fact that this tool knows his rights. I, along with most others I think, would have been submissive to the point of giving up some of the rights that I didn't realize I had.
4. Unlike other opinions, I did not find him disrespectful. Full of ego, eager to make his point, but not disrespectful.
5. Had this officer not kept his head, many would be singing a different tune right now.
6. Again, although a tool, I think there is value in what happened. Likely not the value that the tool was looking for, but value nonetheless. For one, it's good that law enforcement be kept on thier toes in a good way. It's good that they understand some people do know their rights, and it's good they know to be on alert that tools like this exist.
7. This would not get any attention if age old rights were not now in jeopardy.
8. I wonder how this would have went if the law student was actually an educated, but less articulate, non-white, with baggy jeans, bandana, etc..


Regarding #2. While I agree there are many officers out there that are wonderful human beings, there are many out there that are not. I have several family members in law enforcement, and in city government. While i love them all, a good portion are corrupt as the day is long, and have both entitlement and superiority complexes. And... a few have been caught and procecuted. While some were exonerated or let off easy by a corrupt DA who has since been booted and I think is still under investigation. No joke. My point is, don't blindly equate position with honestly and respect. Sorry to get side tracked, just see a lot of blind love and respect out there.

That's every job in america. And probably one of the highest percentages is politicians.

 

[Ben E.]

Wow cop hate on a ND message board... And we are supposed to be intelligent. I guess not...

 

[RallySonsOfND]

Wow cop hate on a ND message board... And we are supposed to be intelligent. I guess not...

Dude, get out of here with that crap.

 

[BobD]

The kid making this video should be shot for being a douche bag.

 

[no.1IrishFan]

I wasn't aware the kid was a law student when I first saw it. Knowing that now, he's a punk. I've had a similar encounter with with an officer and he wasn't nearly as professional as the officer in the video. Hope that officer is just as polite to people who aren't recording him on their iPhone.

 

[kmoose]

Lastly to those who say the cops would have been "crucified" if they hadn't done anything this part is for you. If the cops get a call about someone with a gun then yes they should check it out. They should drive, walk, ride on over there. When they find the person that the complaints are about they can judge if they are complaints of illegal activity or not. If the man isn't doing anything illegal, doesn't want to talk, and isn't required by law then you leave him be. Anyone who complains about what you did you can tell them you couldn't do anything to someone not committing a crime. In the US you are innocent until proven guilty not the other way around. That's what makes us great. We don't have to explain ever single legal action to someone if we don't want to.

The presumption of innocence does not preclude an investigation. If the person doesn't want to talk then just let them be, huh? Sir, is that shoulder fired missile yours? "Fack off, copper" "Oh yes, Sir, I'm sorry to have bothered you, please carry on smartly."

I'm sorry for your poor experiences with cops. Maybe you are getting what you are expecting?

 

[anarin]

Funny video but the kid was a douche bag.

 

[IndyIrishFan1]

**** the police.

There are some real d-bag cops, but every once and a while you'll come across some great ones too:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/otOmIMiQXQI" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/vyS7Qr58wkU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[ND NYC]

what states allow people to "open carry"?

 

[FLDomer]

what states allow people to "open carry"?

Open Carry | OpenCarry.org

 

[Ben E.]

Dude, get out of here with that crap.

I guess your cool with " **** the police"...says a lot about you. Congrats thug! Lol.

 

[JadeBrecks]

The presumption of innocence does not preclude an investigation. If the person doesn't want to talk then just let them be, huh? Sir, is that shoulder fired missile yours? "Fack off, copper" "Oh yes, Sir, I'm sorry to have bothered you, please carry on smartly."

I'm sorry for your poor experiences with cops. Maybe you are getting what you are expecting?

That is a stupid comparison. You can't legally walk down the street under any circumstance with a shoulder fired rocket. You can however walk down the street open carrying legally. I'm not saying let people alone who are doing completely illegal things. I'm saying if it can be done legally don't assume they are doing it illegally.

 

[Buster Bluth]

That's every job in america. And probably one of the highest percentages is politicians.

Which is why I don't believe we should be giving out artificial respect for simply being in a particular career, including those in the military.

I don't think the guy was being disrespectful at all. I know disrespectful, that wasn't it. Exercising your rights is not disrespectful and he never belittled the cop.

 

[Jason Pham]

I guess your cool with " **** the police"...says a lot about you. Congrats thug! Lol.

While you may be right that there have been a few posters in this thread that have dropped platitudes that do not rise to the level of intelligent discourse, someone who makes sweeping generalizations about the intelligence of other posters without himself offering any thoughtful exchange and someone who assumes that a poster who takes issue with that generalization is "cool with" the other extreme or, worse even, a "thug" is the not likely to be person that should be deriding others for their intelligence and what their posts say about them.

I'm sure you're an otherwise reasonable person; please consider the above when you post.

 

[kmoose]

That is a stupid comparison. You can't legally walk down the street under any circumstance with a shoulder fired rocket. You can however walk down the street open carrying legally. I'm not saying let people alone who are doing completely illegal things. I'm saying if it can be done legally don't assume they are doing it illegally.

No one assumed he was doing it illegally.... The idea behind making contact with the person is to determine if they are just an average person, exercising their rights........ or if they are an emotionally unstable person who might pose a very real threat to the people around him/her. THAT'S why I think it was ok for the cop to stop the kid and check him out.

 

[Irish Houstonian]

No one assumed he was doing it illegally.... The idea behind making contact with the person is to determine if they are just an average person, exercising their rights........ or if they are an emotionally unstable person who might pose a very real threat to the people around him/her. THAT'S why I think it was ok for the cop to stop the kid and check him out.

We can argue over whether we personally find it "ok", but it was still illegal.

 

[Emcee77]

We can argue over whether we personally find it "ok", but it was still illegal.

We can't say that for certain, can we? I may have missed something but I don't think we know whether the kid was simply walking down the street with a holstered weapon or whether he was waving it around, making a show of having a gun, carrying it in his hand as if to fire it at any moment, etc. It seems clear that he intended to be stopped by police (he had a spiel rehearsed, he had a camera ready) so I don't think we can rule out any such obstreperous behavior. If he was making a show of having a gun or behaving bizarrely in some sense, I'd say the cops absolutely do have reasonable suspicion to stop him and check him out. He could be some crazy person about to go on a shooting spree. If, on the other hand, he was just walking down the street with a gun in his holster, they do not have reasonable suspicion to stop him ... but I suspect that was not the case. Just a hunch; the kid seemed pretty obnoxious in the video and I wouldn't be surprised to learn that he was trying to attract attention ... But then again, the supervisor did give him his gun back and let him go; perhaps he knows the rules better than the patrolman, knew the nature of the complaint, and knew that no one did see any bizarre behavior.

Anyway, my point is that we have to know how he was behaving to know whether the stop was illegal, and I have trouble taking this kid at his word that he was not behaving in such a way as to arouse reasonable suspicion, especially in an age of wacked out mass shootings.

 

[kmoose]

We can argue over whether we personally find it "ok", but it was still illegal.

What law, specifically, did it violate?

 

[Emcee77]

What law, specifically, did it violate?

If the cop had no reasonable suspicion to stop him, it violated his 4th Amendment rights under Terry v. Ohio, like the kid said.

The thing is, reasonable suspicion is not a high threshold. It's lower than the "probable cause" needed to get a warrant. If the complainant witnessed something that would lead the officer to believe the kid was a threat to public safety (like waving a gun around carelessly or behaving bizarrely while carrying a weapon), there's reasonable suspicion and a Terry stop is justified. I suspect that the police did receive such a tip; the officer just didn't know that he needed to articulate that. He thought all he needed to know is that someone saw a guy with a gun.

 

[Irish Houstonian]

We can't say that for certain, can we?...

No, other way around -- if the state can't say for certain what he's violating, or what he's suspected of, then the stop is illegal.

The burden is on the state.

One two three four fizzif.

 

[Emcee77]

No, other way around -- if the state can't say for certain what he's violating, or what he's suspected of, then the stop is illegal.

The burden is on the state.

One two three four fizzif.

No argument there; I was just asking whether someone provided facts that weren't in the video in a post that I missed.

 

[Irish Houstonian]

...If the complainant witnessed something that would lead the officer to believe the kid was a threat to public safety (like waving a gun around carelessly or behaving bizarrely while carrying a weapon), there's reasonable suspicion and a Terry stop is justified....

I'd be suprised if that cop was able to remember that it's illegal for felons to carry weapons, but somehow forgot it's illegal to waive a gun around. Especially seeing as how, by your hypothesis, he was just dispatched for that very illegality mere minutes before.

 

[IrishLax]

Going in another direction...

Why is open carry legal anywhere? You'd think they'd make it illegal under the same rationale as to why you can't yell "fire!" in a movie theater despite 1st amendment rights. It instills panic and causes unnecessary stress for the public.

 

[FLDomer]

Going in another direction...

Why is open carry legal anywhere? You'd think they'd make it illegal under the same rationale as to why you can't yell "fire!" in a movie theater despite 1st amendment rights. It instills panic and causes unnecessary stress for the public.

My guess is that if some one is going to commit a crime, they might think twice if the cat next to em is packing...

 

[Emcee77]

I'd be suprised if that cop was able to remember that it's illegal for felons to carry weapons, but somehow forgot it's illegal to waive a gun around. Especially seeing as how, by your hypothesis, he was just dispatched for that very illegality mere minutes before.

Lol I'm sure you're right. I didn't think he'd forgotten that it's illegal to wave a gun around; I am theorizing that maybe he thought that he had the right to stop anyone carrying a gun, no matter how peacefully, and check that the gun was properly registered, so he didn't ask the tipster for any details about the kid's behavior. He heard that the kid was carrying a gun and said, "thanks for the info." Just a theory.

Going in another direction...

Why is open carry legal anywhere? You'd think they'd make it illegal under the same rationale as to why you can't yell "fire!" in a movie theater despite 1st amendment rights. It instills panic and causes unnecessary stress for the public.

Lax, EXCELLENT point. Judge Williams of the 7th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals agrees with you.

Recently, in December 2012, Illinois's law prohibiting concealed carry was struck down by the 7th Circuit, the federal appeals court in Chicago, for violating the 2nd Amendment. The decision included broad discussion that encompassed more than just concealed carry; it also implicated open carry. The court reasoned that the Supreme Court had declared that, since time immemorial, there was and is an individual right to keep weapons in the home for self-defense and held that, if self-defense is the rationale for permitting citizens to possess weapons, there must be a right to carry weapons for self-defense outside the home, as you are more likely to need weapons for self-defense outside the home (where are you more likely to get jumped, on a rough Chicago South Side sidewalk or in your condo on the 20th floor of a doorman building in the River North? Surely the former).

The law's proponents had argued in the briefing that the Supreme Court's logic may have applied to keeping guns in the home, but did not apply to carrying guns in public because, at the time the 2nd Amendment was passed, it was not commonly understood that there was a right to carry weapons in public. These people cited an English law dating back to 1328 and still on the books in the late 18th century (relevant because we are trying to figure out how the 2nd Amendment was understood at the time it was passed) stating that no one could “go nor ride armed by night nor by day, in Fairs, markets, nor in the presence of the Justices or other Ministers, nor in no part elsewhere.” Pre-founding commentators interpreted this law to prevent carrying weapons in order to avoid terrifying the population. The court rejected this explanation, claiming that the law could not have forbid the carrying of all weapons; it must merely have forbid carrying particularly dangerous or unusual ones, or carrying weapons as part of a mob.

Judge Williams, in dissent, wasn’t so sure. She said that it was clear based on the contemporary commentary that carrying weapons in public was illegal in early-modern England because the sight of people carrying weapons in public created terror or at least nervousness, and that carrying weapons in public was therefore a crime "against the public peace". So basically, under the very logic that the Supreme Court used to strike down laws that prevent the ownership of guns in modern cities and that the 7th Circuit stated, by extension, would make constitutionally suspect any law that prohibited guns from being carried in public, there is a good argument that it SHOULD be illegal to carry guns in public. Judge Williams went on to reason that, because the historical evidence was inconclusive, the federal judiciary was out of line in striking down Illinois’s law, duly enacted by a democratically elected legislature, as doing so interfered with the time-honored practice of allowing individual states to serve as “laboratories” for new policy ideas.

Interesting case, right? I was just writing something on this for work (I work in a criminal courthouse in Chicago.) Lax, you are as smart as 1/3 of the 7th Circuit panel that struck down the Illinois law … but not as smart as the other 2/3. Haha.

 

[BobD]

I have a question for those of you with children and that support the poster of that video. How many of you would like that guy walking down your street with a gun? Would you call the cops?

 

[FLDomer]

I have a question for those of you with children and that support the poster of that video. How many of you would like that guy walking down your street with a gun? Would you call the cops?

My parents live in Michigan and when visiting recently I saw a guy who was open carrying in my home town and my kids were with me and honestly it didn't really phase me or my children but they are brought up in a home where they are not unfamiliar with firearms.