Two Open Carriers Stopped, News Article

[Sefner]

This happened in my hometown. Here is story:

http://www.thetimesherald.com/article/20100611/NEWS01/6110310/Gun-advocates-claim-police-violated-rights

A link to the audio of the stop is included in the story. Please listen to it before commenting.

I'd rather this thread not be about OC vs CC (this is L&CR not T&T) but rather the rights prospective of this...

Some background for those not up to spec on every State's laws (I know I'm not):

MI is an OC state.
MI is NOT a stop-and-ID state (as is alluded to by the carriers).
Case law says that OCing is not reasonable suspicion.

What does everyone think of the "conversation" between the citizens and officers? Has anyone encountered anything similar? What about the questions the citizens asked and the answers given to him by the deputy? The guys stopped were obviously very aware of their rights and what to say to get the answers they wanted.

Also no bashing of LEO's please. This is obviously a mildly isolated incident and the Marysville PD is held in very high regard in MI.

[johnwilliamson062]

never had a similar situation in Ohio.

That specific officer did not seem to handle himself very well. He seemed quite offended by the carriers lack of submission more than anything else.

[kodiakbeer]

Interesting. I don't know why they aren't filing an official complaint or going to civil court on the matter.

[rjrivero]

I don't know why Webb and Harris are surprised at all.

It's a small town, with a small town mentality. Stereotypically, the high school bully becomes an LEO and believes his badge makes him right.

(Notice, I said STEREOTYPICAL. Meaning, I don't believe this to be true of ALL (wo)men in uniform, by any stretch.)

If you are to indeed be an ambassador of Open Carry and truly believe that Open Carry is a deterent to crime, and you believe that the benefits of Open Carry are virtuous, then you must understand you will have to confront ignorance.

With that said, you can and *should* (In my opinion) do so in an organized, and well thought out manner.

If it were ME who was to push this agenda, then I would be ready with Citations from Michigan Code citing the fact that Open Carry is indeed LEGAL. I would also be ready with citations from Michigan Code (or by Court Decision) that open carry is not in itself grounds for probable cause, or grounds for a Terry Stop (http://definitions.uslegal.com/t/terry-stop/). I would also arm myself with a letter from the State Attorney General that states it is legal to open carry in Michigan.

Becoming obstinate, in this case, may have become necessary, but it most definately did not need to start that way. I dont know what the stand is of Michigan Open Carry Inc. over such matters. I refuse to believe that the police are bad guys. They are out there doing an ungrateful job, that is becoming more and more difficult all the time. The last thing they need are LAW ABIDING citizens to become a pain in the ass.

You will NOT win an argument with an officer in the street with my word vs. your word discussion. However, if you have the citations in hand, ready to go, you will more than likely prove to him/her that you are indeed legitimately concerned about raising awarness about an issue you feel is important.

[Bamashooter]

i think the guys were getting harassed by a punk cop with a bad attitude. here we cant open carry i carry concealed. its a shame what this country is turning in to. it will get worse if WE dont stand up and speak out.

[Sefner]

If you are to indeed be an ambassador of Open Carry and truly believe that Open Carry is a deterent to crime, and you believe that the benefits of Open Carry are virtuous, then you must understand you will have to confront ignorance.

With that said, you can and *should* (In my opinion) do so in an organized, and well thought out manner.

If it were ME who was to push this agenda, then I would be ready with Citations from Michigan Code citing the fact that Open Carry is indeed LEGAL. I would also be ready with citations from Michigan Code (or by Court Decision) that open carry is not in itself grounds for probable cause, or grounds for a Terry Stop. I would also arm myself with a letter from the State Attorney General that states it is legal to open carry in Michigan.

Becoming obstinate, in this case, may have become necessary, but it most definately did not need to start that way. I dont know what the stand is of Michigan Open Carry Inc. over such matters. I refuse to believe that the police are bad guys. They are out there doing an ungrateful job, that is becoming more and more difficult all the time. The last thing they need are LAW ABIDING citizens to become a pain in the ass.

Excellent post, you are completely right. MOC does indeed publish "tri-folds" to carry around that include the relevant MCL sections and letters from the AG just as you suggested. These guys did not have those with them. I would point out that in cases when LEOs are presented with the law in this manner it is almost always disregarded.

The good majority of incidents that are reported between OCers and LEOs are extremely positive. One recent incident involved officers from one county stopping a couple OC'ers, getting out of their cars, shaking their hands, informing them that they really support what they are doing, and then saying that someone had called 911 on the OCers and that officers from the neighboring county were on their way as a heads up.

I also suspect that attitudes in this case (blame falls on both parties IMO, but better should be expected from the officer) escalated the situation to an undesirable level which caused the need for the OC'ers to stand their ground on their rights. Had the officer approached them in a more calm manner it would have been a different outcome and had the OC'ers been a little more cool and understanding it would have gone a long way.

[csmsss]

It is not illegal to have "an attitude" as regards the exercise of one's rights. It is not the citizen's obligation to be polite to LEO's who are infringing upon those rights.

It IS the obligation of LEO's to understand the laws they ostensibly enforce, and to understand and respect the rights of all those they encounter - not just the ones they like.

[USAFNoDak]

It is not illegal to have "an attitude" as regards the exercise of one's rights. It is not the citizen's obligation to be polite to LEO's who are infringing upon those rights.

It IS the obligation of LEO's to understand the laws they ostensibly enforce, and to understand and respect the rights of all those they encounter - not just the ones they like.

Correct on both accounts. However, as law abiding citizens and good citizens, we should strive to be understanding about the stress that LEO's are under, even in small towns. They may not get the training they need about every law. This can be a problem which migrates down from the top, including a mayor, town council, police chief, sheriff, etc. The beat cop may be getting the wrong information from the top. I would hope most of us would be polite as a courtesy to the police, who do have a thankless and tough job. Now, if the LEO becomes obstinate or pushy for no reason, it may still be wise to stay calm and attempt to deal with this after the fact. That is when we can get pushy and many time have more friends on hand to back us up. I'm talking about a meeting with the mayor, town council, police chief, etc. to complain about the specific officer and his behavior. You can recruit people who have had a similar experience with this officer, perhaps.

Just because some LEO happens to be a punk out for a little power trip, doesn't mean we have to lower ourselves to his/her level. Take the high ground, and fight them later where it can really hurt them, and not you. Those are just my thoughts. I'm sure some folks will disagree.

[USAFNoDak]

I just thought of an example I could provide. This is a true story. When I was about 14, I was walking along a county road in a rural area. We lived out in the country. I happened to have my .22 rifle along as I had been hunting squirrels in a woods nearby and was walking back home. I happened to stop by a local creek which passed under the road. Many times there were carp in there. I saw a couple and was practicing aiming at them as they swam. Just then, a young county sheriff's deputy happened to drive by. He slammed on his breaks, squealed his tires in reverse, and came back to where I was. He immediately took a hostile tone with me. He told me I couldn't shoot from the road, as that was a right of way. I told him I was just practice aiming at some of the carp in the creek. He told me he better never catch me shooting from the road. I told him I knew better than that and I didn't shoot from roads. He told me I better watch myself. He got in his car and squealed the tires as he took off.

I told my dad the story. My dad knew the sheriff real well through the American Legion. He called the sheriff up and told him what had happened. I didn't hear of any repercussions for the deputy, but I'm guessing he at least got a stern verbal reprimand.

[johnwilliamson062]

They may not get the training they need about every law.
In the audio the officer basically states that HIS interpretation of the law is different than the court interpretation given and that as such in his domain the guys must leave. This attitude goes well beyond a simple lack of training.
I agree that taking the issue up with higher authorities later is a good idea. I would have asked the officer to clarify that he was not requesting I leave, but instead officially ordering me to leave as an officer of the law. They go as far as saying they are leaving voluntarily. If they leave voluntarily I don't think that strengthens their case.

[azredhawk44]

Wow.

Listened to the audio, and that cop was out of line. Couldn't cite the specific code that was being violated, just resorted to basic bullying. Adhered to his self-perceived sense of authoritay rather than either radioing for procedural/legal backup or admitting that he had no case, keeping an eye on the guys and awaiting procedural/legal backup.

Pretty blatant that these guys were not a "threat" to anyone nearby, but were political advocates. A gun advocate is so unlikely to unholster a firearm in public that the cop is statistically more dangerous to have around than the advocates.

It wouldn't have hurt anything, aside from the officer's ego, to let this go while he did his homework (or dispatch did it for him).

[sundog]

The cop was out of line, here's why. Near the end of the audio, one of the guys OCing asked him that if he showed his ID and the copy verified that he was not a felon, could he continue to carry. The cop said no. The cop was using his badge to bully and by doing so infringed the civil rights of the two guys OCing (provided, of course, that the state law has been described as it is).

[ZeSpectre]

Translator on:

<cop> I don't know what the laws are but it doesn't matter, I'm just going to run things MY way.

<citizen> I DO know what the laws are and I haven't done anything to merit this attention from law enforcement.

<cop> I don't like your attitude.


Having worked with a lot of LE, it's painful to see this kind of bluster on the part of a LEO when what they SHOULD be doing is saying "please stay right here while I verify the correct information".

[USAFNoDak]

That cop, who is the assistant Chief of Police, is in the wrong in this case. His attitude is terrible. Is he really about protecting and serving or is he about controlling and subjecting? I think the latter. These two guys should push a legal challenge to his authority as high as they need to go to get satisfaction. This cop should not continue to operate with that attitude of might before right. His might (armed law enforcement officer) does not trump citizens' rights. He should be informed of that in no uncertain terms.

I always like how the cops want civilians to cooperate with them, yet, the Chief won't tell us what happened or what will happen to the assistant chief. Cooperation between citizens and government is a two way street.

I think these two guys were wise in not pushing it far enough to result in an arrest. That could end up being bad publicity for them and the OC movement in Michigan. They can push this in the legal channels and turn it into bad publicity for the police department if they are not training their officers on how to handle open carry and how not to be jerks when they encounter an OC'er in a public place.

This is a little tangent but still relative. There have been cops convicted of committing felonies. What do you think would have been the response of this assistant chief if one of the OC'er had said, "how do we know that YOU are not a felon? " Just because he hasn't been caught doesn't mean he's not a felon. I would guess that most people who are determined to commit an act of violence with a firearm would not walk around in public with a gun strapped to their hip, especially that close to some uniformed police officers. The jerk assistant should have taken that into account when he was questioning whether they were felons or not.

They were right not to give up their ID's. Once the cops have your ID, you aren't really free to leave. They could then nab you for driving without a license. That's a way to keep you under their control. By not giving up their ID's, these guys were able to leave peacefully any time they wanted, but under their own choice, not the cops. I think that is a good way to handle it, even if the cop doesn't like it. Why should they be able to ask for our "papers" if we've done nothing wrong?

The Chief at least stated that he would have some more training conducted regarding OC. I hope he was serious and follows through on that. If nothing else, that is one big positive which could come from this "confrontation" initiated by what appears to be a "jerk" cop. Most cops are good people. This guy has an attitude which I'm sure has something to do with him being the assistant chief. He has more power than the normal officer on the beat and apparently likes to flaunt it. I hope the Chief knocks him down a few rungs.

[wpcexpert]

I think the cops have a very legitamate point. How are they supposed to know they aren't felons, using the open carry laws to legally/illegally walk into a public place and shoot it up? I think that they should have just produced the ID's and been done with it from the git go. As gun owners that wish to excercise the right of carrying firearms, they could have been much better ambassadors of such. It didn't appear that they wished to educate and co-mingle with anyone. They wanted and looked for confrontation, and they got it.

No matter if they were right or not, they could have handled the situation much better.

[Sefner]

I think the cops have a very legitamate point. How are they supposed to know they aren't felons, using the open carry laws to legally/illegally walk into a public place and shoot it up?

It is a legitimate point. But it is not what the law states. One good counter-example is a guy walking down the street holding hands with a 6 or 7 year old girl. Are the police to stop that man and make sure he's not sexually assaulting that girl? They can't because they must have probable cause that a crime is about to be committed. In MI, open carrying a firearm is a legal activity and there is a Supreme Court case that says that OCing is not reasonable suspicion. Another example might be the police stopping a government protester on the street and demanding proof that they are not committing treason or sedition and that their speech is not "fighting words" or "yelling fire in a crowded theater".

Now, does that mean the cops can't ask for ID? Not at all, it only means that people are not required to provide it. Had the officer approached them in a calmer manner it might have turned out differently.

Now, had the police reason to believe a crime was about to be committed (that guy has 10 magazines on him, is walking around talking to himself, staring at kids weird, stumbling around, has slurred speech), then they can stop him and ask for ID. If he is drunk he gets charged with public drunkness, illegally carrying a firearm, disorderly conduct, failure to provide ID (or interfering with an investigation) etc etc.

[kodiakbeer]

I think the cops have a very legitamate point. How are they supposed to know they aren't felons, using the open carry laws to legally/illegally walk into a public place and shoot it up?

How do they know you aren't a shoe bomber, or carrying a pound of meth in your camera bag, or that the ten year old with you isn't a kidnapped child instead of your son?
They don't know. And you have the right to walk the street without being questioned as long as you aren't breaking the law.

[USAFNoDak]

I think the cops have a very legitamate point. How are they supposed to know they aren't felons, using the open carry laws to legally/illegally walk into a public place and shoot it up?

The cops should be able to use a little logic and common sense. Most criminals like to have the element of surprise and don't want to attract any attention prior to the crime being committed. I seriously doubt two guys who have plans to walk into a public place and shoot it up would casually stroll along in a public park with sidearms exposed for everyone to see, AND WALK RIGHT PAST A COUPLE OF UNIFORMED POLICE OFFICERS. Well, maybe Harry and Lloyd would, but they are fictional characters from a comedy movie.

Harry: "Lloyd, just when I think you couldn't get any dumber, you go and pull a stunt like this: And totally redeem yourself!"

[ZeSpectre]

I think the cops have a very legitimate point. How are they supposed to know they aren't felons, using the open carry laws to legally/illegally walk into a public place and shoot it up?

Well you see that's the crux of law enforcement. You can't enforce it until a crime has been committed. To "jump the gun" is itself illegal and subject to prosecution. If someone doesn't like that and/or doesn't want to play by that set of rules then perhaps LE isn't the right job for them.

[wpcexpert]

All very true points, and you will notice that I didn't say that the cops were in the right.;) My main point, that none of you seemed to care about, was that the guys could have done more to diffuse the situation. Good ambassadors they were not. We all agree that the law was on their side. But how did it look? What kind of lasting impression did they leave. Gun owners are already fighting an uphill battle, no need to go in unprepared. They lost that battle in my opinion. They weren't prepared to cite exact laws, only that the law says so.

[grey sky]

The officers were not able to cite any particular law either. Leave, " Because I said so" is not a law. Maybe lawfull to move citizens away from crime or accident scene for public safety.
Should a citizen need to carry volumes of current law for officers to read?

[langenc]

""Also no bashing of LEO's please. This is obviously a mildly isolated incident and the Marysville PD is held in very high regard in MI. ""

The high regard is 'advertisement' if you listen to the tape.

Such as "I dont care about the law"!!! really and this was not some beat cop but the ASST CHIEF and LEOs need to know the law, if not find out..
Not horrah for me --to hell with you!!

[Sefner]

langenc,

It's fine to bash this particular officer. What I wanted to avoid were the people that come into the thread and sling various swine-oriented callsigns around about police officers in general. Stuff like that gets threads locked.

[Mawetta]

I hate to be so crude, but here is a reality check for you people. You have no gun rights, socially. We have open carry in Louisiana but there is no way i could actually open carry. It just doesn't work that way. You will be treated as a criminal automatically if you have a gun on your person or car. Let me put this in perspective:

A person can call the police on you, fabricate a story and you could be charged with aggravated assault just for your gun being in a holster. Some old lady can look at you and that is it, the police steal your gun, you have to pay 1,000$ bond or rot in jail for 3 months, just waiting for your case.

This is reality. This happened to me, actually out in the real world, where guns are illegal.

[Mike Irwin]

"A person can call the police on you, fabricate a story..."

That can be done whether you have a gun or not.

Many Virginians open carry every day with no issues at all.

[Mawetta]

Not in a anti-gun city or a city with a high crime rate. NOPD doesn't exactly have a good reputation considering federal charges were filed but only a month ago. We change chiefs so much i don't even know what to think.

Go ahead and exercise your rights, if you have the money to buy your freedom. Without a private lawyer you are better off not even using self-defense. Sad reality, but i know what i've seen inside the Orleans prison system.


I will never open carry, or defend myself, or have a gun anywhere outside of my home or the shooting range trips. I almost got stuck in Jail for months.

[johnwilliamson062]

They were right not to give up their ID's. Once the cops have your ID, you aren't really free to leave. They could then nab you for driving without a license.
Maybe in MI. In Ohio you have 24 business hours to produce your license to the court. If the series of events you described were to actually occur then and citizen with the gumption to pursue a lawsuit would likely find the endeavor financially rewarding although a headache.

Sorry your experiences in NO have been so hostile. My experiences in Ohio, including Columbus and around even Dayton which is not exactly low crime, have been very satisfactory. It takes a few people pushing social limits for those limits to change. I think the reason OC'ers in Ohio now meet so little resistance outside of a few well known and legally besieged municipalities is that a few people did most of the heavy lifting on LEO awareness shortly after OC/CCW became legal by challenging law enforcement in the way these two did.

[Xfire68]

All I can say is WOW!:barf::barf::barf:

Maybe if they wrote the laws like the Dick and Jan books the people that need to understand them and enforce them could????

[Mike Irwin]

"Not in a anti-gun city or a city with a high crime rate."

Think again.

There have been numerous stops of Virginians who are open carrying in BOTH anti-gun cities AND high crime areas.

Your problem appears to be that you are attempting this in what is widely regarded as the city with the nation's most corrupt police department.

[Sefner]

http://www.opencarry.com is a website for Open Carriers. You can find stories listed by state. MI currently has over 77,000 posts and one thread that is over 300 pages long on just Open Carry experiences. The VAST majority (99%) of these experiences look something like this: "OC'd in Wal-Mart, Gas Station, McDonalds for lunch, then took the dog for a walk. No issues." Every once in a while you get something weird like Mawetta is describing, but those issues are always resolved in court and end up on the side of the defendant. Even with that, not a single person has ever spent anytime in jail or had to pay a bond (that I know of) for anything brought about as a result of legally Open Carrying a firearm.

Does that mean everyone should open carry? Absolutely not. Does that mean that the police and general public are learning that gun owners aren't a bunch of crazy redneck Hutaree members out looking to vigilante the city into submission? Read some of the stories about positive police encounters. Even some in Detroit.

[BillCA]

Webb and Harris respond that he doesn't have the right to do that and that they are allowed to carry their firearms.
"Well, you know what, then, you can sue me," Buckmaster responds. "I don't care."

Take him up on the offer. The Assistant Chief obviously doesn't give a damn about the law or the civil rights of the citizens. It's time to show him that he's wrong, in a big way.

Police officers then ask the two men for their identification, which the men say they don't need to provide. The officers say they want identification so they can know if the two are felons.
:
If I give you my ID and prove that I'm not a felon, can I carry here?" Harris asks.
"No," Buckmaster says.
"So, what's the difference then?" Harris says.
Related
"Nothing," Buckmaster says. "So, just leave."


So, Buckmaster lied when he said he wanted to find out if they were felons. In essence, it would be the same kind of constitutional violation if he walked into a bar and demanded every patron provide ID so he could ensure none were parolees violating a no-alcohol rule.

Buckmaster at several points threatens arrest if Harris and Webb do not leave.
Webb and Harris ask under what law they would be arrested. Buckmaster replies disorderly conduct. He adds the men were disorderly because they won't provide identification.

The Asst.(remove the 't') Chief demands identification, threatens to arrest them for not providing same as "disorderly conduct" with no supporting state law, then says later that providing ID would make no difference. How quaint.

The next day, Harris said, he called Buelow and talked about the situation. He then went to the police station to file an official complaint. He said no forms were available, and the chief was not in the office.

Do you think the lack of complaint forms might have been orchestrated? The real answer would be to enlist some other good citizen to inquire at the front desk how one files a complaint. If the officer says you fill out a form and talk to I/A personnel ... but can't give you a form, that in itself is likely a violation of state laws. If a form is given out, the citizen can take it back to the carriers to file for action.

The carriers should contact their local association(s) for some legal assistance. They could get their letter of apology and force some changes in that department in lieu of a full blown §1983 suit in Federal court. They could even suggest that alternative is acceptable as a "learning situation" for the ASSt. Chief as well as for the rest of the force.

Personal Opinion - Buckmaster is the kind of cop who is used to using intimidation and threats of illegal actions to get what he wants. As evidenced by his statements, HE has a problem with citizens carrying guns - most likely because he believes it's a special privilege of badge holders. He's gonna do what he wants to, regardless of the law or civil rights (sounds somewhat like a criminal, no?) and use intimidation, harrassment and threats to do it. He invites the citizens to sue him because he doesn't believe their "mumbo jumbo". Not only should they sue him, they stand a good chance of showing that as an Asst. Chief he should have known his actions were flagrant civil rights violations -- stripping him of any legal protections against being sued individually. Once he loses his house it'll put PD's on notice that running roughshod over people's rights won't be tolerated. And losing that kind of suit makes him inelegible for most LEO positions in the future too.

If the Chief doesn't at least restrict him to clerical duties for six months, the Chief - who said he is "not going to second-guess my officers on the street" should be censured by the city counsel for failing in HIS duties.

[fineredmist]

If you want some interesting reading do a search for "James Goldberg in Ct" and see whta he went through with local and State police who did not know the law and were arrogant to boot. He is sitting on a legal settlement with the State as I write this. I know James and his family personally and they went through a great deal of misery with this. It is a education to read.

[NavyLT]

Go ahead and exercise your rights, if you have the money to buy your freedom. Without a private lawyer you are better off not even using self-defense. Sad reality, but i know what i've seen inside the Orleans prison system.


I will never open carry, or defend myself, or have a gun anywhere outside of my home or the shooting range trips. I almost got stuck in Jail for months.

The jail cell of a coffin knows no defense lawyers or parole. I would rather pay the lawyers than cause my life insurance to pay the funeral director any day.

[Xfire68]

BillCA, I agree completely! I listened to the audio again this morning and it just got my blood boiling!:mad:

LEO's can't be allowed to just make up the laws the way that they see fit and only if it helps their situation! This NEEDS to be a lesson for this department and others like it!

More and more I feel as though we are all in a police state and can't "really" live freely in any way due to these revenuer's that feel they are above the rest of us!

I am not anti LEO's in any way even though it may sound like it. I have a number of friends that are police officers. It is the ones that abuse the system to no end that rub me the wrong way! They need to remember we DO have rights?

[MTT TL]

I see stories like this posted all the time sans audio tape.

The police have a little problem in that they want to keep the public safe but are often not skilled enough to properly recognize threats. For example in this situation something that has been often brought up is that they could have been mass shooters. Number of mass shooters operating as a pair and open carrying nationwide in the US = zero to date. After a two minute chat it should have been 100% apparent that they were not a threat at all.

But if you are the deputy police chief how do you back down from trying to control the situation? Your ego won't allow it.

He then compounded his error by lying to cover his butt. Something more common in public service these days than hamburgers.

[Mawetta]

My friend was put in handcuffs for around 30 minutes over a toy gun, with an orange Muzzle! He had to wait in handcuffs until a high ranking officer came out to release him. - Hammond Louisiana.

[langenc]

My friend was put in handcuffs for around 30 minutes over a toy gun, with an orange Muzzle! He had to wait in handcuffs until a high ranking officer came out to release him. - Hammond Louisiana.

What a shame!! No need to remind me to stay out of NOLA and all of LA, along w/ IL and Wisconsin.


I hope the fellows from Marysville, MI sue for all they can!!

[BillCA]

I see stories like this posted all the time sans audio tape.

The police have a little problem in that they want to keep the public safe but are often not skilled enough to properly recognize threats. For example in this situation something that has been often brought up is that they could have been mass shooters. Number of mass shooters operating as a pair and open carrying nationwide in the US = zero to date. After a two minute chat it should have been 100% apparent that they were not a threat at all.

Perhaps I was lucky... during my LE training and when working with senior officers, I learned that there are times when taking a "soft approach" and learning what you can before you decide to take enforcement action is the best way to deal with non-violent people.

Obviously LEOs do have a safety concern and it would be prudent to tell the O/C'ers to keep their hands away from their weapons "and we'll get along fine." 98% should understand that. The obstinate 2% who don't will learn why it's a good idea.¹

Anytime a LEO encounters someone doing "the unusual" that is not harming anyone or anything and they start citing statutes, case law or questioning under which statute they'll be charged, the immediate next question is "are you advocating or protesting something?" This usually gives them a chance to "impress" you with their knowledge (right or wrong) and disclose their purpose. If they claim they're "just exercising their rights" you can ask them to "enlighten" you. This can be an interesting and polite discourse. In some instances, the LEO can tell them either to go on their way OR inform them that some other statute applies² [if it does] and give them a chance to "correct" their behavior.

Of course, for this to happen, the officer has to be comfortable enough that the people he's talking to are not attempting to either "catch him off guard" or "set him up" for some kind of legal action. And too many "activists" seem to go to great lengths in asking stupid, annoying or momentarily irrelevant questions, IMO. In the case at hand, the Asst. Chief opened himself and his department to some serious civil rights claims. I hope he feels silly sitting in an academy class with recruits learning the principles of the constitution.


¹ Face it - if you don't understand why, you shouldn't be carrying. If you understand and claim it's your right to do as you please by putting your hand on/near the gun, just remember the phrase "Life is tough when you're stupid".

² In some states, a city's muni code might cover having firearms around carnivals, county fairs and the like. Or it may be that guns are prohibited in city/county parks as part of the "parks & recreation" code or "health & safety" code.

[HKFan9]

These cops should be out of the job IMO. They were completely rude from the start, and you can tell they are just on a power trip. He continued to openly admit he would make up a story and arrest the man for Disorderly conduct... WOW. If the chief heard this same audio tape, I would hope he had the common sense to take their badges right there. Unfortunately a lot of police departments are a "good ol' boys club" and they will get a slap on the wrist.

People wonder why citizens are coming more and more wary of police officers... I know there are a FEW good ones out there, and my heart goes out to you.... but some of your fellow officers are the last people I would want to protect and serve me....:mad:

[KyJim]

There's no doubt the Asst. Chief here was way in the wrong. And, if I were the chief, I would have those complaint forms available and order the Asst. Chief apologize. The Asst. Chief is open to liability and the city possibly possibly exposed to liability by failing to provide training and/or take corrective action.

This does provide a good lesson for anyone engaged in lawful conduct that some officer might not like -- have a tape recorder handy and turn it on (assuming this doesn't violate any state eavesdropping statute).