This is a discussion on police stop man for open carrying (vid) within the Open Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; 1 a : EXHAUST, FATIGUE b : to annoy persistently 2 : to worry and impede by repeated raids *harassed the enemy* synonyms see WORRY ...
How annoyed can someone get in 5 minutes? That does not fit the definition of "persistent" harrasment. If nasaly voiced OC guy had any social skills at all, he could have avoided any definition of being '"harrased".1 a : EXHAUST, FATIGUE b : to annoy persistently
2 : to worry and impede by repeated raids *harassed the enemy*
synonyms see WORRY
And contrary to popular belief, citizens are not the "enemy", nor are the cops.
And really, how many people carry cameras for cop encounters of the close kind? That dude was trolling. He got what he wanted and posted it on the internet for the whole world to discuss how terribly he was treated and two dozen forums are now arguing about how their rights are about to be violated by the evil police. That does everyone some good eh?
I have a very strict gun control policy: if there's a gun around, I want to be in control of it.
Don"t let stupid be your skill set....
And Shepards we shall be, for Thee, my Lord, for Thee,
Power hath descended forth from Thy hand, So that our feet may swiftly carry out thy command,
And we shall flow a river forth to Thee, And teeming with souls shall it ever be,
I disagree with your definition of persistent also. I won't keep pasting definitions but what would you define as a persistent cough? Can we agree that it is one that will not go away? If yes after the OC guy didn't want to answer questions, did the cop go away? If he had, I would agree with you but he did not, his supervisor had to call him off so to speak.
When a cop does something that I am 100% certain is not needed I can get annoyed in less than a minute. The definition we are discussing doesn't say how annoyed it says annoyed more then once, which I hope we have already agreed had happened in the first minute and a half of the video.
Did the supervisor agree with the beat cop?
Not being rude but that should be the first sign that the beat cop was wrong, it was dropped very fast once the boss arrived.
If I were bothered by the same cops over and over as this guy was I would also carry a camera to cover my backside. Do you have a camera while on duty, all of my family members do up here. If yes why do you have one?
Let me ask why it has to be the "nasally voiced OC guy" that could have avoided the situation?
Did the OC guy initiate the stop?
Did the OC guy do anything illegal?
Did the OC guy want to be detained?
Did the supervisor agree with the OCer?
I am thinking if you answered yes to any of those, then it wasn't the nasally voiced OC guy that needs his skills reviewed.
I have to ask, why do you feel that the "nasally voiced OC guy" has bad social skills?
And also, why did the OCer get what he wanted? Since the supervisor agreed with the OCer, why is the OCer still wrong in your view?
Maybe open carriers should start reporting people that they see on the street because that person looks like they might be soliciting sex. After all I would bet that in most cities there are far more people soliciting sex on the street than there are open carriers committing crimes.
I don't really think that he was wrong, I just think that he was acting like an idiot about it.
Whether an idiot is right or wrong, he's still an idiot.
The fact that the Supervisor called it off did not necessarily mean that the officer was wrong. It just meant that it wasn't worth messing with. Believe it or not, the whole set of circumstances was being evaluated the whole time. The Supervisor knowing that, may have been satisfied that the situation was just that...a guy walking around that happened to be open carrying. He may have known that it was a set up, that the guy with the high pitched squealy voice was wanting to get some footage,so he decided not to play his game.It could have been that they had a real call that they needed to get to. I don't know, I wasn't there. But it could have been any reason.
And to answer your question, YES I have a camera. As hard as it is for some people to believe, it benefits Officers far more than it benefits citizens. I cant even tell you how many cases have been lost when the videos came in to play. It's always the same ole crap..."I don't remember it being that way", or "I don't remember saying that" or " I didn't hear him tell me to stop 23 times before he tased me", or some chicken piddle excuse trying to justify a lie. I love cameras. The best thing is seeing some highly indignant high society type that screams bloody murder because he got arrested realize that the jury has him pegged for the fool he really is.
I must admit, that can be entertaining.
Whose life are you saving? More people die in car accidents then by legal folks carrying a gun, why don't we see stories and videos of cops just randomly stopping everybody just to visit? I mean you are saying a 5 minute visit is acceptable. I'll give you a hint: at least in MI that is not allowed, just like it isn't allowed to bother an OCer.
A cop in my state is not allowed to just stop and ID you for OCing, you seem to think that them doing so is OK,
I will ask where is the line you will allow them to cross, I mean you allow them to do stuff they are not allowed to do, where do you personally draw the line?
I guess I am see the situation differently because my time is important, and wasting it on a visit with a cop where nothing good can happen is not acceptable to me.
Giving up my lunchtime to do CPR on somebody, yes. Just to PROVE I am not a criminal No Thanks.
UNITED STATES v. DeBERRY, No.) US v DeBERRY, specifically confirms that the police can compel a Terry stop for no other reason than suspicion that they are armed.
Armed persons are so dangerous to the peace of the community that the police should not be forbidden to follow up a tip that a person is armed, and as a realistic matter this will require a stop in all cases. For suppose DeBerry had made no threatening gesture but had simply denied in answer to the officer's question that he had a gun. Could the officer have left it at that? Or should he have asked for consent to frisk DeBerry and if DeBerry refused, insisted? The answers implicitly given by the cases we have cited are “no” and “yes,” respectively. We think these answers strike the proper balance between the right of the people to be let alone and their right to be protected from armed predators.
Even if this were Texas rather than Illinois, and carrying a concealed weapon was lawful except for felons and a few other classes of ineligibles, the police would have been entitled to accost DeBerry and ask him whether he was carrying a gun. They might have a hunch he was a felon and so violating the law. It would not matter, so far as the Fourth Amendment is concerned, as we explained earlier.
Furthmore this is a 7th circuit court of appeals case, meaning that it is not binding on other jurisdictions. The summary at the end amounts to "dicta" not binding caselaw, as the judgement against Deberry was in fact affirmed.
This has been beaten to death, but the reason a lot of OCers record LEO encounters is not to "get footage" (although some, unfortunately, do), but to protect themselves. There have been several OCers who have had false charges brought against them, where having a recorder saved them from jail, and some have not had recorders and faced or are now facing charges because a police officer claims they did something that they claim they did not do.
Just like police officers have cameras to avoid bogus charges of brutality (among other legitimate reasons), OCers, generally carry cameras (again, there are some losers out there for attention, but we are speaking generally here) to avoid bogus charges of brandishing, threatening, etc.
"... advice is a dangerous gift, even from the wise to the wise, and all courses may run ill." -J.R.R. Tolkien