I do agree that the more people OC-ing in places where legal will acclimate the :sheep: and the antis to see that its not evil, but thats not the same as comparing to a uniformed officer since OC-ing is part of our job
good ole blue like we wear seems more professional looking IMO, and I think it looks more sharp, we don't wear external tac vests unless its a special unit/special assignment, day to day patrol wears traditional navy blue uniform/equipment
the tac vests being worn by patrol units is a little over the top at times, but in some places that is done for comfort = ie:external vest carrier is cooler vs wearing traditional vest under uniform in humid or hot conditions,
there were times when I was on evening shift that I would have loved to had an external carrier, working wrecks/auto burglaries in 105 degrees on concrete/pavement in July with vest under uniform is no fun
You will note, in all of my posts, I have never, not once, said that OC should be illegal. However, just because something is perfectly legal does not mean that I need to support the behavior and embrace it. It isn't about guns, it's about behavior.
Your question about OC'ing as an LEO in uniform is, frankly, quite silly. You know better. The gunbelt, gun and various equipment worn are part of the uniform. Duh. We are talking about civilian OC, not a cop's uniform. But if you want to use that argument, you should know that several police officers have been disarmed and killed with their own handguns, and this is with level II and III retention holsters. So much for the "deterrence" argument for OC.
I don't know of even ONE of my fellow officers who open carries off duty, and this is a large metro police department. THAT should tell anyone with some common sense something.
I think the thread is about ..... a guy who was doing something legal, while someone not legalliy authorized harrassed them and then called the cops, because the nimrod didn't understand the laws. The guy doing what was legal to do, then gets a trumped up charge.... because they can't prevent him from doing what he was legally doing, carrying a gun.
In the old days, they called that harrassment.
When it's all over, I hope he enjoys his new car and house.
Mexicans, blacks, Indians, and others ..... received the same treatment in the past if they were found in the wrong area of town at night..... if they and many others had not stood up for their rights, it may be still going on. So, there is a 'solid' historical precedence behind "standing up for and exercising your rights", or they will continue to be stomped on.
Here is a link to the police report on the incident. One thing to take into consideration the officers only made the arrest "AFTER" calling the on duty magistrate for approval. The magistrate determined there was in fact probable cause for the arrest. Once a judge/magistrate determines there is probable cause and signs the warrant the officer is no longer liable so to speak the judge is and judges are exempt from civil litigation.
Homeboy's actions led to his arrest. All he had to do was act like an adult just a little and it would have been done. The fact that he knew the CPL had the incorrect information will work against him. Once again he wanted attention and he got it.
Christopher Allen Proescher
"As for trespassing, it will be interesting to see how they explain he was trespassing when he was in the act of leaving as asked and the only reason he stuck around was because he was detained by LE. If he was asked to leave, and he was leaving, that does not seem to be trespassing to me. Unless we find out he was asked multiple times. That could be problematic. I bet the voice recorder shows that though. Funny how handy that thing might be."
Local law can not over ride state law in GA, so that says he was not trestpassing. His actions were not up to par. When the police asked questions about his licence he must answer truthfully. The guard and the police should know the law about places where you can and cannot carry. Should he sue? I dont think so, but that is his right to do so.
Whether he was within his rights or not....there's a lot to be said about not acting like a jerk. Sounds to me like he could have easily avoided the escalation of the situation. Does sound like he was trolling for a confrontation. To me, that attitude and firearms don't mix well
I read the police reports and from what a gather the man is a jerk. He got arrested on the word of a Security guard for crimminal trespassing. I hope that does not set a standard for he says she says. Again, a situation starts with somebody doing nothing wrong but being a jerk. If folks, individuals and govt mind thier own business' then stuff like this would not make the news. Almost everyincident you read about a person getting arrested for OC has nothing to do with them OC'ing. It is always something subsequent like disprderly conduct or in this case crimminal trespass. How does one crimminally trespass if they are carrying legally? I know..some would say his CPL was not valid becasue of the birthdate...but don't forget that the Security Guard did not know that. Here is the deal...for folks that think the dude is a jerk and/or don't like OC'ing in public they will assume that everything the Guard said is true. And everything the idiot said is not.
So now we assume the Security Guard is telling the truth and assuming the OC'er is lying. You get arrested for that! Not one gun related charge unless I missed something.
I'm not going to speak to this specific situation, but more to the general tactic of provoking confrontations. The reality is that there are places where police routinely harass people who OC. In those circumstances I support the people who take it upon themselves to take advantage of the situation to provoke court battles. Oftentimes without such action nothing changes. There is certainly precedent for this, as unfortunately to bring legal action in these circumstances you have to prove that you suffered in some way, or it just gets thrown out and ignored. Sure there are other tactics, such as rallies and demonstrations, but these aren't a panacea, there are plenty of places where the broad public support just isn't there, yet the individual should still be entitled to their rights under law.
This isn't unique to firearms, it was practiced during the civil rights battles in the 50's and 60's, and in some cases was quite effective. It's also a tactic used against road checkpoints, in some cases with great success. Making it successful requires tact, and from the other comments it seems like in this case the tact was lacking, but as far as the strategy, I think in some cases it's really the last option left to oppose abuse by those in authority. Even lawyers have been known to utilize such tactics.
Where I live, it took a court battle to bring our city in line with state law regarding firearms, and since then things have improved dramatically for the rights of the OC crowd, especially since part of the outcome meant a fairly large chunk of money spent on proper training of local LEO. I don't know if the guy went out looking for a provocation or not, but regardless, he fought an oppressive system and the outcome was a strengthening of the rights of everyone. To dismiss such tactics out of hand seems counterproductive imo.
I'm not an OC'er and I'm not in favor of OC. However, I am also not in favor of government violating civil rights. I don't care if you are Black, Hispanic, Communist or Tea Party'er. I think there is a point at which we must demand that Police, as an arm of the government, follow all the rules they are sworn to enforce on others.
Martin Niemoller said
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak for me