Know Your Rights

[NDohio]

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.

I can agree with this to a point.

However, if he purposely put himself in a position to be approached by the police, to tape the police officer's response, hope to "catch" him being wrong, and then broadcast for all the world to see; then yes, he was being disrespectful. If the police did the same thing it would be entrapment.

Also, what did that particular police officer do to warrant the "**** the police" comment? he also handled himself pretty well and was not disrespectful to the law student.

 

[JadeBrecks]

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?

I have two children. Someone walking down the street with a properly holstered weapon would not prompt me to call the cops. In Indiana waving a gun around is illegal as i am sure it is everywhere (semi-debunking if the guy was in the video) would cause me concern because the user wasn't practicing safe use of the firearm.


As far as why open carry is legal is simple. The laws were written before people became wusses. Not until recently with the protectionist mindset were guns a "bad thing". People grew up with them their whole life. Everyone knew how to use it and how not to use it and weren't frightened by them.

 

[JadeBrecks]

That's what people said when seat belts became regulated. As it turns out, seatbelts save thousands of lives every year. I'm not against guns. In fact, I'm about to buy an AR as a souvenir and for professional development. However, I do think that it should be recognized that they are, in fact, incredibly dangerous tools and that they should be regulated and that in some cases, especially in cities and crowded places, regulation should include absolute bans.

They are no more dangerous than a knife, bow, or bomb. Its the person behind them that is dangerous or not. If someone want to cause people harm they will legal or not.

As far as banning people based on where they are that is highly flawed. I can or can't have a specific gun based on where I am? Because I live in the county I have more rights than someone in a city? Also you think that will stop people from bringing them in to the city and doing the same thing?

Lastly you can be for bans and regulations on guns you don't care about. That is what they want. Divide and concur. Its the only way they have a chance.

 

[Irishcop]

I find this post interesting. Why do you think drug use deserves a violent (police) response? If you think it is wrong, great, I think it is wrong and dangerous too. I certainly don't have any desire to use any of the currently illegal drugs. I also have no desire to become an alcholoic, to smoke at all, etc.

However, I don't think pointing a gun at people who disagree with me is a morally or sociably correct action, just like I wouldn't want guns pointed at people who don't believe in my religion, my sports teams, my lifestyle, ETC. Why do you think that cops should be spending time caring what consenting adults put in their body?

Can you really look at someone who poses no harm to anyone but themself and say "I think you should have your house broken into by armed men and be imprisoned, shot, and/or have your property taken because I don't agree with your lifestyle that isn't threatening me "

OutintheBend. I am currently a police officer in a very upscale area, but I spent nine years as a police officer in the very bad areas in the City of Atlanta. While in Atlanta I worked in uniformed patrol and plain clothes. In the area I worked drugs were a huge problem. With the drugs came gangs and weapons. I wouldn't call what we did as a violent response, but it was very tactical with a very heightened level of awareness.

Unless we were serving warrant and about to bag your door we just didn't jump out with guns drawn.

The area I work now is very different. We have alot of very wealthy kids who spend mommy and daddys money on drugs. Still not jumpimg out on people with guns drawn but in my line of work the second you let your gaurd down or become complacent you or someone else gets hurt.

To yout question about consenting adults putting things in their bodies, I dont have a choice. It's my job. I didn't write the laws, I have never been asked to write a law. My personal beliefs about drug laws aside, it's what I do.

Not sure if this helps or if this was even what you wanted to know.

I do love the War on Drugs discussion. A lot of money being spent ****** results!

 

[autry_denson]

They are no more dangerous than a knife, bow, or bomb.

see this is where you drift away from the terrain of 'passionate defender of gun rights who makes some good points even if a little extreme' and move into the terrain of 'irrational zealot who's either delusional or intentionally trying to provoke instead of debate'.

is a gun more dangerous than a bomb? no, probably not. but guns are more dangerous than knives. you immediately lose any and all credibility when you suggest they are not.

i'm on the fence on gun policy simply b/c the evidence available suggests that very minor tweaks in policy don't have much of an effect. very large changes in policy are highly likely to reduce gun violence, but those types of major changes in gun laws are not on the table.

 

[PraetorianND]

I have two children. Someone walking down the street with a properly holstered weapon would not prompt me to call the cops. In Indiana waving a gun around is illegal as i am sure it is everywhere (semi-debunking if the guy was in the video) would cause me concern because the user wasn't practicing safe use of the firearm.


As far as why open carry is legal is simple. The laws were written before people became wusses. Not until recently with the protectionist mindset were guns a "bad thing". People grew up with them their whole life. Everyone knew how to use it and how not to use it and weren't frightened by them.

So based on a constitutional argument waiving a gun around should be legal. However, because you think it's unsafe you think the unconstitutional law is justified?

 

[Buster Bluth]

In the area I worked drugs were a huge problem. With the drugs prohibition came gangs and weapons.

FTFY

 

[BobD]

I call bull on the two posters who said they wouldn't care about some guy walking down their street with a visible gun.

 

[BobD]

If someone has a gun, I think any officer of the law should be able to stop them and just see what they're up to.

 

[Irishcop]

FTFY

While I do not share in the "F*** the police" way of thinking. I do think things need to change in reference to how drugs are dealt with.

Meth, Cocaine, Heroin these drugs are a problem and will destroy people.

Marijuana? Meh.

Thats just me and how I feel.

I dont see any problem with a dime or nick bag for personal use at home on the couch. I have yet to deal with a violent person on marijuana. But this is off topic.

 

[Irishcop]

If someone has a gun, I think any officer of the law should be able to stop them and just see what they're up to.

I agree. What if we as police do nothing about someone carring a gun because it's not against the law to carry a gun. Then that said person shoots up a office, school or mall. The police will be crucified.

If people are calling 911 we at least have to make contact with said person to find out if everything is on the up and up.

 

[Buster Bluth]

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

Irony...

 

[PraetorianND]

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/R_u83Vzj7HA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/c5mkd6r9Kww" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Ya, **** the police!

 

[Rhode Irish]

Finally got around to watching this. I was excited, because I really don't care for cops much and like seeing them get their comeuppance now and again. But WOW, what an insufferable douchebag that kid is. If I was a bystander witnessing that I'd have been tempted to wait for the cops to leave so I could take his gun from him and beat him with it. Cops deserve their comeuppance now and again because they are frequently harassing bullies who are difficult to deal with, but this cop didn't appear to be any of those things. I actually give him credit for tolerating that foolishness to the extent he did without losing his cool.

You have really achieved an astounding feat if you make me sympathize with a cop, and the douchiness of that kid was certainly astounding. If you want to stand up to police overreach, there are certainly plenty of legit opportunities to do so. This doesn't appear in any way to be that.

 

[kmoose]

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

I'm not a lawyer, but a quick search of Terry v. Ohio reveals to me that the case dealt with a stop and frisk, and that the frisk was the behavior in question. The bottom line is that the legality of the cop stopping a citizen openly carrying, in order to investigate a report of a suspicious person, is questionable at best. I can't say it is obviously legal, any more than anyone else can say that it is certainly illegal. In such situations, I think common sense should reign.

 

[RallySon]

Finally got around to watching this. I was excited, because I really don't care for cops much and like seeing them get their comeuppance now and again. But WOW, what an insufferable douchebag that kid is. If I was a bystander witnessing that I'd have been tempted to wait for the cops to leave so I could take his gun from him and beat him with it. Cops deserve their comeuppance now and again because they are frequently harassing bullies who are difficult to deal with, but this cop didn't appear to be any of those things. I actually give him credit for tolerating that foolishness to the extent he did without losing his cool.

You have really achieved an astounding feat if you make me sympathize with a cop, and the douchiness of that kid was certainly astounding. If you want to stand up to police overreach, there are certainly plenty of legit opportunities to do so. This doesn't appear in any way to be that.

I can totally understand people being bothered by the guy's attitude towards the police officer. I have watched an absurd amount of these videos on Youtube and all open carriers are similar to this guy. Being a daily conceal carrier, it is an interesting to see how people react to stuff like this. I'm not anti-police or anything but they really don't deserve any extra respect or anything of the sort. The kid was no more rude or standoffish than your typical officer.

Open carrying is just downright silly. I would say 99% of people that open carry do it for the political statement/demonstration it makes. The rest actually believe it to be a deterrent. Personally, I would rather not let a criminal know that I'm armed beforehand so that I don't become the first target.

When you say you actually give the police officer credit for tolerating that foolishness, do you understand how silly that sounds? Great, he handled the situation properly, but that is how a public servant is supposed to act. It's just too bad that isn't the norm. Bottom line, the kid was right, he wasn't committing a crime and he wasn't under the suspicion of committing one so they have no right to detain him, and he is not required to comply by giving his ID etc.

 

[kmoose]

Bottom line, the kid was right, he wasn't committing a crime and he wasn't under the suspicion of committing one so they have no right to detain him, and he is not required to comply by giving his ID etc.

No. The bottom line is that the police's right to detain him is in question. It's not a definite on either side. Terry v. Ohio upheld the police's right to stop, and even frisk a citizen, in certain situations. One of which is if there is a potential danger to the officer or the people around the area, then the police CAN stop and frisk for weapons, such as guns, knives, etc. So it's not so cut and dried.

 

[RallySon]

No. The bottom line is that the police's right to detain him is in question. It's not a definite on either side. Terry v. Ohio upheld the police's right to stop, and even frisk a citizen, in certain situations. One of which is if there is a potential danger to the officer or the people around the area, then the police CAN stop and frisk for weapons, such as guns, knives, etc. So it's not so cut and dried.

District courts all over have made it pretty clear that a phone call reporting someone carrying a gun is not grounds for detaining or searching the individual.

United States v. Dudley, 854 F.Supp. 570, 580 (S.D.Ind.1994), the court held that a radio call alerting police to
the presence of two people in a vehicle with firearms did not provide reasonable suspicion of a
crime justifying the stop, because possession of firearms is not, generally speaking, a crime. The
court discussed in more detail the issues of firearms licensing and whether possession of the
firearm itself was a crime:

[Officer] Martin's impetus to investigate the Dudleys was a radio call alerting him
to the presence of two people at the truckstop in possession of some guns. Of
course the possession of firearms is not, generally speaking, a crime unless you
happen to be a convicted felon, the firearms are otherwise illegal, or you are not
licensed to possess the gun. Martin, presumably not clairvoyant, could not have
known, and did not know, the Dudleys and their guns met all three of these
criteria. In fact he testified he had absolutely no knowledge, or suspicion, that the
Dudleys were engaged in any criminal activity until he discovered the first sawed-
off shotgun. A telephone report of citizens possessing guns or merely engaging in
"suspicious" activity, standing alone, cannot amount to reasonable suspicion of
crime.

The court further noted that "if the stop itself is unlawful, neither Terry nor Michigan v.
Long authorizes the police to search the suspects or the suspect's vehicle for weapons, even if the
officers reasonably fear for their safety."

Just one of many, this should suffice, anymore wall of text and my brain explodes this late at night.

 

[kmoose]

District courts all over have made it pretty clear that a phone call reporting someone carrying a gun is not grounds for detaining or searching the individual.

United States v. Dudley, 854 F.Supp. 570, 580 (S.D.Ind.1994), the court held that a radio call alerting police to
the presence of two people in a vehicle with firearms did not provide reasonable suspicion of a
crime justifying the stop, because possession of firearms is not, generally speaking, a crime. The
court discussed in more detail the issues of firearms licensing and whether possession of the
firearm itself was a crime:

[Officer] Martin's impetus to investigate the Dudleys was a radio call alerting him
to the presence of two people at the truckstop in possession of some guns. Of
course the possession of firearms is not, generally speaking, a crime unless you
happen to be a convicted felon, the firearms are otherwise illegal, or you are not
licensed to possess the gun. Martin, presumably not clairvoyant, could not have
known, and did not know, the Dudleys and their guns met all three of these
criteria. In fact he testified he had absolutely no knowledge, or suspicion, that the
Dudleys were engaged in any criminal activity until he discovered the first sawed-
off shotgun. A telephone report of citizens possessing guns or merely engaging in
"suspicious" activity, standing alone, cannot amount to reasonable suspicion of
crime.

The court further noted that "if the stop itself is unlawful, neither Terry nor Michigan v.
Long authorizes the police to search the suspects or the suspect's vehicle for weapons, even if the
officers reasonably fear for their safety."

Just one of many, this should suffice, anymore wall of text and my brain explodes this late at night.

If the law is SO clear, then where are the videos and stories about this officer's arrest, dismissal, or even reprimand, for so blatantly breaking the law?

 

[FLDomer]

I call bull on the two posters who said they wouldn't care about some guy walking down their street with a visible gun.

So you didn't get the answer you wanted and now you call bull? I guess that makes sense, since you know me so well and knew how I grew up and how I raise my children...makes total sense.

 

[Irish#1]

My thoughts on this. I do not believe baiting cops is ever a good thing especially with a firearm. There is a difference between this conversation happening during a stop or during a set up. Both people remained calm during this interaction. The cop was far more polite than any cop I have run into. He however disregarded everything the kid was saying. I personally can't tell you if everything the kid said was right or not but assuming it was I would have to say IN the video the kid was more respectful. Everything he says and when he says it is in reference to what the cop is going to do. Now if the kid baited the cop this exact interaction shouldn't have taken place. Being a law abiding citizen who carries I can tell you this encounter happens and the cops overstep their boundaries. It is funny however that people are outraged when a person slams a cop like this but nobody cares when the cops overstep their boundaries and take peoples firearms unlawfully.

The opposite is true as well. Most everytime the officer asks a question the kid responds with what law am I breaking? (paraphrase).

Do we know if he was carrying the gun in a holster with a strap or just in his hand? If it was just in his hand, then I think the citizens had every right to be concerned and notify the police. The police then were well withinh their rights to stop him and question him.

I still share the same sentiments as some others on here. This kid never should have done this just to prove a point. Remember freedom of speech doesn't mean you can yell FIRE in a public place just for the sake of doing so.

 

[GoldenIsThyFame]

Honest question, what is needed for the cop to suspect the kid is a felon?

 

[Rhode Irish]

I can totally understand people being bothered by the guy's attitude towards the police officer. I have watched an absurd amount of these videos on Youtube and all open carriers are similar to this guy. Being a daily conceal carrier, it is an interesting to see how people react to stuff like this. I'm not anti-police or anything but they really don't deserve any extra respect or anything of the sort. The kid was no more rude or standoffish than your typical officer.

Open carrying is just downright silly. I would say 99% of people that open carry do it for the political statement/demonstration it makes. The rest actually believe it to be a deterrent. Personally, I would rather not let a criminal know that I'm armed beforehand so that I don't become the first target.

When you say you actually give the police officer credit for tolerating that foolishness, do you understand how silly that sounds? Great, he handled the situation properly, but that is how a public servant is supposed to act. It's just too bad that isn't the norm. Bottom line, the kid was right, he wasn't committing a crime and he wasn't under the suspicion of committing one so they have no right to detain him, and he is not required to comply by giving his ID etc.

The point is that the kid baited this situation, so the whole interaction was artificial. This wasn't some spontaneous and random act of persecution. The kid clearly set out to create this encounter, as evidenced by the readiness of his video camera and his canned and awkward case and local ordinance citations. The thing I don't understand is that the kid seemed convinced he couldn't possibly be suspicious, but I would certainly be suspicious of a person walking down a city street showing people his gun the same way I'd be suspicious of someone walking down a street with a ski mask on. Ski masks aren't illegal, either, but that doesn't mean having one doesn't make you suspicious.

 

[IrishinTN]

There was a second amendment rally at a park in my home town Saturday. Hundreds of people in attendance, many with visible guns. My children and a load of others were playing in the park next to the rally (I didn't even realize it was happening until I got there).

There were no police, plenty of guns and no one got hurt. No one waved them around, either, or shot them in the air or anything insane. They all carried them on their belts in holsters. No problem.

 

[jerboski]

Honest question, what is needed for the cop to suspect the kid is a felon?

Prior knowledge such as being contacted numerous times before or having been arrested many times before that the officer remembers his name and felony status. The only other way would be to run his name which clearly the kid wasnt going to cooperate with that, not implying he was a felon though.

 

[FLDomer]

There was a second amendment rally at a park in my home town Saturday. Hundreds of people in attendance, many with visible guns. My children and a load of others were playing in the park next to the rally (I didn't even realize it was happening until I got there).

There were no police, plenty of guns and no one got hurt. No one waved them around, either, or shot them in the air or anything insane. They all carried them on their belts in holsters. No problem.

Bull!!

 

[GoldenIsThyFame]

Prior knowledge such as being contacted numerous times before or having been arrested many times before that the officer remembers his name and felony status. The only other way would be to run his name which clearly the kid wasnt going to cooperate with that, not implying he was a felon though.

Thanks. To me if a guy is walking up and down the street with a gun and people are calling the police on him, the cop should be able to run the I.D just to verify the guy can carry the gun. The kid was clearly just being an asshat and had recited the whole thing.

The point is that the kid baited this situation, so the whole interaction was artificial. This wasn't some spontaneous and random act of persecution. The kid clearly set out to create this encounter, as evidenced by the readiness of his video camera and his canned and awkward case and local ordinance citations. The thing I don't understand is that the kid seemed convinced he couldn't possibly be suspicious, but I would certainly be suspicious of a person walking down a city street showing people his gun the same way I'd be suspicious of someone walking down a street with a ski mask on. Ski masks aren't illegal, either, but that doesn't mean having one doesn't make you suspicious.

Excellent point

 

[GoldenIsThyFame]

Also, what the hell is the point of open carry anyways? I am all for gun laws (I carry a 357 magnum with me) but I just don't see the point of needing to carry your weapon in plain sight. Is it because if people see your gun they won't appraoch you in the first place? It just comes off as complete self righteousness.

 

[IrishinTN]

Thanks. To me if a guy is walking up and down the street with a gun and people are calling the police on him, the cop should be able to run the I.D just to verify the guy can carry the gun. The kid was clearly just being an asshat and had recited the whole thing.

To your point, and this might have been mentioned but I'm not reading five pages of posts, there were two guys in Oregon who took unloaded AR-15 type rifles slung over their shoulders into the city and just walked up and down the street with them. These two were not waving them or intentionally acting suspicious, just trying to show people that just having the gun doesn't make it dangerous.

Now, not being used to seeing such activity, of course people called the police who did stop the men and talk to them. However there is nothing illegal about carrying these weapons and the police said as much. They also said that people should call them if someone is acting "menacing" with a weapon, but not just because they see someone carrying one. They said it only takes away time that could be spent on other calls. People should never call the police unless they fell outright threatened.

Of course, I suppose that is a gray area depending on the personality of the people involved.

 

[BobD]

I don't know where some of you live, I've been fortunate enough to live in California, Rhode Island, Georgia, Washington, Florida, Colorado and Indiana. I've never once had a problem with a police officer. I always treat them with the respect I feel they deserve as a public servant that may someday have to put their life on the line for me, as I did for them in the Army. The general attitude of many of these posts makes me shake my head at the world.

Respect law enforcement officials and first responder' s.