Testing of rights/testing police

[noelf2]

Coates or Caoetes(who I think was in Pasco County for many years) griped about how private citizens lacked formal skill training and their firearms would be snatched or stolen in real confrontations,

Several sheriffs here in Virginia presented the same sort of argument to the General Assembly, and pretty much showed everyone their hineys because they couldn't present a single case where an inept carrier was attacked with their own weapon, or lost it somehow in a confrontation. The vast majority of sheriffs think logically, and scoffed at them. So, where's the beef?

As for the "good witness" bit, Id advise contacting the LE agency's non emergency phone # then requesting a area supervisor.....

Nothing, I repeat, nothing works for you better than video and civilian eye witnesses. That's just a fact.

Not all police supervisors or commanders will be honest & many use the ole CYA mindset, . Be ready to go to the media or hire a atty if things go sideways.

Good points! How do you figure out which ones will fall on their swords rather than do the CYA thing? Thanks for understanding my argument.

Id close by saying that many chiefs & supervisors are making efforts to improve conditions........Chief Smith started a new SOP requiring Sanford PD officers to wear a small DV camera & recording of all field interviews/traffic stops.

That's great! But what's the reason? Is it to keep them nice, or is it to protect them in court? Either way, like I said, there's nothing better than video and eye witnesses (video being preferable because it is unimpeachable).

[deepcreek]

QUOTE-trg42 wraglefragle Imagine if someone called up and said they saw someone with a gun, the police did nothing and the person was in fact a criminal and did something to break the law?

^Oh the horror...

"someone with a gun" "criminal and did something to break the law"

Maybe to dispel ignorance.

[ClydeFrog]

I would agree that a good cell phone or iPad2 with audio/video may be practical for LE contacts or if you witness a criminal act but I strongly disagree with the idea that all "eye witnesses" are able or even willing to tell the full truth.

People see what they want to see & sometimes distort the facts. Stress, fear, noise etc can also distort or disorient a "eye-witness".
As a security officer working on various sites & details(retail, hotels/resorts, apt & condo bldgs, estate security, VIP protection, etc) I've dealt with many events where "witnesses" were either wrong or where they lied about the conditions.

Some people are honest & have morals or ethics but sometimes they may have a bias or a agenda & distort what really occurs in a incident.

CF

[noelf2]

CF I totally agree. I never said that "all" eye witnesses are helpful, and I did say I prefer video because it is unimpeachable. I should have made it clear that the good eye witnesses I'm talking about aren't blind, biased, or liars. If you have an eye witness that corroborates your story, you can't do much better unless you have video/audio. And video/audio is way, way superior to the best eye witness IMHO.

[Tactical Jackalope]

I despise when they do those theatrics. They call for it, they are within their "rights" but it's SOP for the police to stop you, I.D. you to make sure you're not a psychopath and are legally allowed to even have that gun. When they start the whole "you're illegally detaining me for doing something legal" I roll my eyes so hard I feel I'm going to go blind for a couple days. Imagine if criminals did that? Someone called the police on you. Most of them aren't used to being around guns all day like we are. Most of them aren't a part of our world. Purposely rattling their cages for a response you initially wanted anyways (hence the camera) is not a good way to fight for your rights.

I think it's the most lame thing you can do, to stir up LE for negative attention.

[noelf2]

it's SOP for the police to stop you, I.D. you to make sure you're not a psychopath and are legally allowed to even have that gun.

Well, it's SOP for them to "try" to do those things, but you aren't obliged to submit to any of it, unless of course you are being detained for a legitimate reason (something other than exercising your rights). Ever hear of "innocent until proven guilty"? Why would a cop think I'm psychopath or guilty of illegally having a gun if I'm not doing anything wrong? Still, I think these videos are educational (shows you what you should and shouldn't do, even if there's a lot of shouldn't in there), interesting, and entertaining. Would you please video yourself rolling your eyes like that? That would be entertaining too.

[Spats McGee]

In Arkansas (&, I would wager, in most jurisdictions), the police are authorized to make a brief, warrantless stop of anyone they "reasonably suspect" has engaged in, or is about to engage in, criminal conduct. The reason for such a stop is often simply to determine the lawfulness of the actor's conduct.

Yes, yes, I've heard the argument that "as a protected constitutional right, carrying a gun cannot be the basis for reasonable suspicion." However, the circumstances under which a firearm is carried may well play a role in determining the reasonableness of the stop. If I'm carrying a camo shotgun in late December while wearing hip waders 100 ft from the entry into the duck woods, then it's unlikely that I'm engaged in bank robbery. OTOH, if I'm carrying an AR-15 down Main Street in Dallas, a court may well find it reasonable for an officer to stop me in an effort to determine the lawfulness of my conduct.

I actually use one of the "Open Carrier vs. Police" videos to teach about Terry stops in my ConLaw class. I think it was this one: http://www.policeone.com/Officer-Saf...rry-advocates/

[Tom Servo]

Ever hear of "innocent until proven guilty"?

Yep. I've also heard of "disturbing the peace," which can be invoked, especially when Joe Bob waltzes into the local coffee shop with a military rifle slung over his shoulder and a demeanor that suggests confrontation. I've also heard of "obstruction," which can come up if someone's disruptive enough.

Why would a cop think I'm psychopath or guilty of illegally having a gun if I'm not doing anything wrong?

"Wrong" is subjective. A guy hunting in the woods is one thing. A guy walking down a busy roadway during rush hour with a revolver in his hand is another.

I actually use one of the "Open Carrier vs. Police" videos to teach about Terry stops in my ConLaw class.

I'm familiar with that one, and the officer handled himself well. The conversation in that video also reinforces my point that the folks engaging in this behavior often know less about the law than they think.

[noelf2]

Yep. I've also heard of "disturbing the peace," which can be invoked, especially when Joe Bob waltzes into the local coffee shop with a military rifle slung over his shoulder and a demeanor that suggests confrontation. I've also heard of "obstruction," which can come up if someone's disruptive enough.

Agree. And that's where keeping calm and recording the event can keep you from getting trumped up charges if a cop wishes to do so. First off, I've learned from these videos (not just the ones that you linked) that people talk too much. If you tell the cop that you are within your rights, and he doesn't say "oh well in that case have a good day, bye bye", you won't convince him by saying it again, and again, and again. I would make boring videos. The cop in that first video handled the AR carrying guy very well. I think that is a case of reasonable suspicion that would hold up in court.

Quote:
Why would a cop think I'm psychopath or guilty of illegally having a gun if I'm not doing anything wrong?

"Wrong" is subjective. A guy hunting in the woods is one thing. A guy walking down a busy roadway during rush hour with a revolver in his hand is another.

Tom, walking down a busy roadway with a revolver "in his hand" is wrong. Holstered where lawful, isn't.

[ClydeFrog]

I agree with post #55. If a gun owner or 2A supporter wants to stir up conflicts or start "range wars"(a MP slang term for petty disputes between MP companies or LE agencies) by carrying firearms then they need to get a hobby or maybe a better past-time(volunteer work, stamp collecting, photography, etc).

Id add that if a gunner or hard-charger wants to post a online clip, tell the truth, don't lie, distort or edit remarks, yell crass insults or use excessive profanity.
Sometimes, video can work in a sworn LE officer's favor.
About 2mo ago, the metro PD in my medium size city(800 sworn LE officers) gave a patrol officer a - write up & HR action because he went off on a subject who spat on him.
The police department's own citizen review board watched the video of the event & sided with the police officer!

Cops have a tough job but need to maintain a high level of standards & ethics.
They are not robots or perfect(see the recent Sidney NE police video) but acting like a jerk to anger them isn't ethical either.

CF

[Tom Servo]

Tom, walking down a busy roadway with a revolver "in his hand" is wrong.

And yet, it was technically legal when a guy did it a year or so back. That was the point the guy doing it was trying to make (or at least that's what he claimed).

Cops have a tough job but need to maintain a high level of standards & ethics.

Agreed, and we of all people shouldn't be making that job harder just so we can impress a few of our friends on the internet.

[noelf2]

Sometimes our other rights make a cop's job harder too. I agree that it's not helpful to test a cop performing his/her duty. I would never do so intentionally. But I recognize the right to practice your rights for whatever you want (impress your friends, expose an injustice or a common illegal practice, etc.). Irritating cops this way isn't smart, but it's not breaking the law. If you are bent on testing a cops resolve, legally, you better be recording it.

[apr1775]

In my opinion there is nothing wrong with open carry. If you should be approached by police, ALWAYS BE POLITE. I have been in a few police contacts while open carrying. I was respectful and always addressed them as "sir" or appropriate rank or title. This way the encounter stays focused on rights and law not rude behavior. Things have ended well.

A hand gun in a holster, open or concealed, is something you carry just in case. Hopefully you never need it. Should be seen as normal as long as you are just going about your business.

A slung long arm, seems to signify you have an expectation that you will likely need to use a firearm. Absolutely your right to do so, just not normal in most everyday situations.

A gun in hand indicates you are engaged in something.

In some situations I can see an officer being concerned and initiating a field interview, if for nothing else to make sure there is not a situation that he should know about.

[arch308]

In my humble opinion these people are just wanting attention. They want to be internet heros. These videos do not help the cause of 2A rights, they only reinforce the bad images non-gun people have of us.

[ClydeFrog]

A few years ago, I read a online forum post of a woman in AK who got into a huge dispute with her local PD because she decided to jog around her town, HOLDING her firearm.
She stated she was a formal NRA member & supported 2A issues.
The woman was not charged but made a citizen complaint over the LE contact.

As stated, I agree you should be polite & professional but so should the sworn LE officers.
The police chief of Milwaukee WI has been quoted by the media as saying; "We'll take the guns away from the citizens then we will decide if they can have it."

Clyde F

[jimbob86]

Honestly, they are doing it for the attention it gets them. They say they are doing it for their rights, but that isn't it. If that was the case then they wouldn't have 3 or 4 buddies filming the whole thing. All they want is to get the video on YouTube and get comments saying how good they are and how bad the police are.... I hate it, and I hate their agenda.

Those who do not protect themselves with video evidence can be abused by uniformed thugs like the Milwaukie CoP tha Clydefrog just mentioned. We had a recent case locally where Police Officers went after a guy because he was filming his brother's arrest ..... they took the guy's memory card out of his phone and destroyed it ...... but a neighbor recorded their actions and publicly posted video of same, leading to a formal investigation and firings. Without the video, nothing would have come from it ..... and these bad apples would still be out there being bad apples, on the public dime.

The guys doing the video recording may not have been angels, but the Police MUST be. If they are not, they have failed at being Police Officers, and are just part of another, albeit much better organized and financed, street gang.

[noelf2]

In my humble opinion these people are just wanting attention. They want to be internet heros.

Quite right! I think we can all agree with that, but what's your point? We either make that sort of behavior illegal and have a police state, or we agree that they have the right to be stupid and carry on.

These videos do not help the cause of 2A rights, they only reinforce the bad images non-gun people have of us.

Again, what's your point? If that is the case, what should be done about it? You see everyone has an opinion here, but does anyone want to sacrifice a right so idiots can't have that right? There are more rights involved in this practice than 2A. 1A, 4A, and sometimes 5A rights can be demonstrated in these videos (maybe more?).

[thallub]

There is a danger that "testing police" and "testing of rights" will backfire.

In about 1967 the CA legislature became concerned when a group of folks started carrying loaded guns in public. The result was the Mulford Act that outlawed the carry of loaded guns in public.

Fast forward about 45 years to a time when gunowners in CA started carrying unloaded guns in public. The CA legislature and governor had a solution to that one too. They outlawed the carry of unloaded guns in public.

[jimbob86]

The right was tested, and failed, in California. Neglect will do that, in that a right will wither if it is not excercised enough.

Those suggesting we not excercise our rights for fear of losing them are asking us to let them wither ....... of what use is that?

I am reminded of Theoden from The Two Towers, hiding in Edoras because Grima Wormtounge has convinced him he is too old and frail to fight for what was his ..........

[noelf2]

The result was the Mulford Act that outlawed the carry of loaded guns in public.

After fast forwarding from 1967 - propel yourself out of CA to a place where the people have a better appreciation for the constitution and their rights, because people began exercising those rights, challenging the ignorant, and educating their friends and neighbors (i.e. almost everywhere else), showing that the laws can and will favor groups of folks open carrying guns. There are some videos where open carry groups were confronted by cops, but the cops ultimately had to stand down because they were wrong.

[arch308]

Noelf2,
I just wanted to voice my opinion that these attention hounds aren't helping. That is the point. I never said or implied that they shouldn't be allowed to play their games as it is within their rights just as it is your right to disagree with me.

[jimbob86]

Arch, are you suggesting they are harming?

The more common guns are in public, the less serious the cases of FBPSH there will be, over time, and the fewer of them.

[MRYANJ99]

I had an experience with one of these types of open carriers recently. I was standing in line at Taco Bell and this kid in front of me was there with his girlfriend and he's got a 1911 tucked in his waistband in plain sight. Usually this wouldn't bother me, but he was talking to the girl and kept mentioning how great his gun was. Now whenever he mentioned his gun, he'd talk very loudly and would be looking around to see if anyone was paying any attention to him. I'm guessing he either just got his gun or just got his permit and was trying to show off. All he did was manage to make a whole bunch of people nervous by being such a knucklehead about open carry.

Non-gun (for lack of a better term) people tend to get very nervous when they see someone with a gun. When I'm carrying, I try not to have anyone notice to avoid a potential scene. I get that it's our right to open carry, but people need to use their heads and have some common sense. Trying to draw attention to yourself when you're carrying a gun is just asking for trouble from both sides of the law.

[noelf2]

I don't think he'd have made me nervous. I'd just roll my eyes because he's a goober.

[arch308]

I just don't think planned confrontation is a good idea. In principle I tend to agree with constitutional carry. Get the media involved and it turns into a circus, and the media is very seldom on our side.

Hell, maybe I'm just getting old. I'm not the rebel I once was.