police stop man for open carrying (vid) - Page 5

police stop man for open carrying (vid)

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; Originally Posted by HotGuns And to answer your question, YES I have a camera. As hard as it is for some people to believe, it ...

Page 5 of 14 FirstFirst 123456789 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 201
Like Tree148Likes

Thread: police stop man for open carrying (vid)

  1. #61
    Senior Member Array Super Trucker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    S.E. Michigan
    Posts
    534
    Quote Originally Posted by HotGuns View Post
    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.
    The reason I asked that question is for the same reason you answered. Maybe the guy had already had numerous go rounds with this PD and was covering his own butt. That has happened here in MI, the cops forgot everything until the video was shown. It works both ways.
    A lawsuit was recently settled in MI with the OCer getting paid because of this type of situation, the camera helped the OCer in that case as well.

    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.
    I hope we can agree that since you mentioned "a real call" that the situation could have been handled better? I hope the reason was the supervisor didn't want to push for something that is not allowed in that state.


  2. #62
    P95
    P95 is offline
    Ex Member Array P95's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    304
    Quote Originally Posted by Badey View Post
    How is talking to the police for 5 minutes going to save a life?
    Wow....maybe I was talking to fast for ya. Go back and reread the posts...you can figure it out....

  3. #63
    VIP Member Array mlr1m's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    okla
    Posts
    4,298
    Quote Originally Posted by HotGuns View Post
    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.
    I understand your point.
    However can you tell me at what point a person who, in exercising his rights, might choose not to comply with the wishes of the Government without being considered an idiot? When, in your eyes, does a person go from being an idiot to a person exercising his God given rights? How high do we set that bar? If as some say it wouldn't hurt you to comply. Should that be the criteria?
    Should I comply with every Government demand that others feel would not hurt me to avoid being considered an idiot or a troublemaker?
    After giving my name should I also consent to a search of my body? After all whats the harm. Then what about a search of my vehicle or home. I have nothing to hide and it would make the governments job much easier.

    Shouldn't we just give up those rights if all they do is make up look like idiots? At the very least it seems we should refrain from using them. And questioning the authority of the Government. Thats just plain disrespectful. We should just take the Governments word that the are acting within the powers that we the people gave them. They would never abuse them.

    Michael

  4. #64
    VIP Member Array Badey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Posts
    3,385
    Quote Originally Posted by P95 View Post
    Wow....maybe I was talking to fast for ya. Go back and reread the posts...you can figure it out....
    I don't like to make assumptions about what people are saying.

    I am wanting to know how you personally sacrificing 5 minutes of your time to talk to an officer (which you didn't want to do in the first place), or any legal carrier doing the same, is going to save someone's life...

    Would you teach him the heimlich maneuver or CPR in those five minutes? Would you educate him about the importance of using sun screen to prevent skin cancer?

    It seems to me that you are assuming that detaining people doing legal things saves lives, and I am wondering how you are making that connection...
    Brad426, crue2009 and FTG-05 like this.
    Though defensive violence will always be a sad necessity in the eyes of men of principle, it would be still more unfortunate if wrongdoers should dominate just men -St. Augustine

  5. #65
    VIP Member Array nedrgr21's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Midwest
    Posts
    3,919
    The whole position of "just show an ID" and "comply with requests" is nothing more than taking the position that only the LEO's position is reasonable and the only reasonable response by a citizen is 100% mindless compliance with an authority figure. If an officer is willing to infringe on "small" rights, why should we trust them to not infringe on more important rights? This is just wrong and unacceptable on every level - that fact is repeated thru history.
    Where would we be if most of society said "hey riding in the back of the bus ain't great, but at least they don't have to walk" and there are other examples as well, but I don't want tempers flaring and I'm not trying to associate different groups. Bottom line is attitude change always ruffles feathers and the sooner those who are wrong just admit it the sooner everything calms down. Can't we all just get along?


    To just say carrying a gun is misleading - all these encounters involve carrying a gun in a holster - the same way LEO's carry theirs. There is no danger to anyone - it's not like these people are holding the gun in their hands in a low ready position. In fact, as we just saw, an officer responding to such a call can increase the danger to the public safety - generally speaking, they are not masters of muzzle control.

    As to "getting stopped on a regular basis", if I were a LEO supervisor that repeatedly had officers wasting their time stopping citizens who are doing nothing wrong I would put a stop to it before my dept and city were sued. Apparently monetary penalties are the only thing they understand.
    Brad426, carracer and DefConGun like this.

  6. #66
    VIP Member Array mlr1m's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    okla
    Posts
    4,298
    In my area of Oklahoma the Highway Patrol officers are required to make a minimum of five contacts each shift. They do not have to be arrests or tickets but just documented contacts. I can see where open carriers might be used to fill this requirement on a slow day.

    Michael

  7. #67
    VIP Member Array nedrgr21's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Midwest
    Posts
    3,919
    Dept quotas don't justify this.

  8. #68
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    28,387
    Quote Originally Posted by Badey View Post
    It seems to me that you are assuming that detaining people doing legal things saves lives, and I am wondering how you are making that connection...
    I think it's clear that the average law enforcement department and LEO is seeking to help ensure public safety (aka saving lives) via ensuring violent criminals don't have weapons in our communities, hence such stops and questions. Not that I agree such stops should be justifiable, simply based on 'bare' sightings alone. I don't, personally. But until it's unlawful to stop/question simply because someone called to complain about a simple sighting of a perfectly legal tool, then in the pursuit of 'public safety' departments and LEO's are going to continue to justify such stops.
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, SAF, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  9. #69
    VIP Member Array Badey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Posts
    3,385
    Quote Originally Posted by ccw9mm View Post
    I think it's clear that the average law enforcement department and LEO is seeking to help ensure public safety (aka saving lives) via ensuring violent criminals don't have weapons in our communities, hence such stops and questions. Not that I agree such stops should be justifiable, simply based on 'bare' sightings alone. I don't, personally. But until it's unlawful to stop/question simply because someone called to complain about a simple sighting of a perfectly legal tool, then in the pursuit of 'public safety' departments and LEO's are going to continue to justify such stops.
    I understand that, and your premise... but as to the other poster's point, I don't understand how me giving up my time is going to save a life, unless I am a threat to society. So it seemed to me that the poster that I was questioning was saying that him being stopped was going to save lives (so was he saying he was a threat to society?).

    This is akin to the TSA full body scanner argument. It may save lives, so let's give up our 4th amendment rights. I know many people who are ok with this, but I am not.

    I guess my opinion is, if you are ok with it, that is ok with me. I am not, and that should be ok with others.

    They will argue that I am making the streets unsafer by making it harder for police to detain people, and thereby endangering public safety, and I will argue that they are making it easier for us to be detained, and thereby eroding our liberties...

    I guess we each do what we think is right and call it a day.
    Though defensive violence will always be a sad necessity in the eyes of men of principle, it would be still more unfortunate if wrongdoers should dominate just men -St. Augustine

  10. #70
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    28,387
    Quote Originally Posted by Badey View Post
    ... but as to the other poster's point, I don't understand how me giving up my time is going to save a life, unless I am a threat to society.
    And that's the ostensible point of a desire by departments/communities to want such stops/questions. Like you, I disagree with that basic premise. To my way of thinking, if it's a perfectly lawful and reasonable activity, and a perfectly lawful and appropriate tool to have, then it shouldn't matter unreasonable some might think my making lawful use of a defensive tool might be.
    Badey likes this.
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, SAF, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  11. #71
    VIP Member Array nedrgr21's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Midwest
    Posts
    3,919
    HotGuns, you've recently referred to Chiefs that promote these stops as half wits, patrol officers as "not knowing how to act", and the stop in the current vid as not being "real". I think that all adds up to the LEO's acting like jerks/being unreasonable/imbecilic/lacking common decency, not the oc'er.
    S.D. and FTG-05 like this.

  12. #72
    Senior Moderator
    Array HotGuns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    15,129
    Quote Originally Posted by nedrgr21 View Post
    HotGuns, you've recently referred to Chiefs that promote these stops as half wits, patrol officers as "not knowing how to act", and the stop in the current vid as not being "real". I think that all adds up to the LEO's acting like jerks/being unreasonable/imbecilic/lacking common decency, not the oc'er.
    I think its a combination of all of the above. I think that the Oc'er is the biggest halfwit. Not for what he was doing, but for how he was doing it. He's right in the the mix with all of them. He has the verbal skills of a 3 year old and he aint got enough sense to pour pee out of a boot. Not exactly the best picture for the OC movement.
    ccw9mm and BWillis57 like this.
    I would rather stand against the cannons of the wicked than against the prayers of the righteous.


    AR. CHL Instr. 07/02 FFL
    Like custom guns and stuff? Check this out...
    http://bobbailey1959.wordpress.com/

  13. #73
    VIP Member Array BenGoodLuck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,537
    Let's make it simple - an officer can pull you over for driving down the street, but that doesn't mean he has a legal right to. He has to observe you violating the law. The person in the video was not violating the law. Change the 911 call to this:

    Caller: Yes, I'd like to report a man driving a car.
    Operator: Is he doing anything illegal.
    Caller: No, he's just driving a car and I don't like that.
    Operator: This is for emergency calls only. Please hang up immediately.


    Now with the officer and the gentleman:

    Officer: Sir, please step out of the vehicle.
    Driver: What did I do, officer?
    Officer: We received a call that you were driving a car. This is a common occurrence.
    Driver: Was I violating any laws?
    Officer: No, sir. Now may I see your driver's license and registration.


    The guy in the video is standing up for his rights. People who find that objectionable are just used to the police overstepping their legal bounds and hav lost the ability to stand up for their constitutional rights.
    S.D. and FTG-05 like this.
    Ben

    Cogito, ergo armatum sum. I think, therefore I am armed. (Don Mann, The Modern Day Gunslinger; the ultimate handgun training manual)


  14. #74
    VIP Member Array Harryball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Lansing Mi
    Posts
    7,732
    Quote Originally Posted by ccw9mm View Post
    It need not be a "game." Nor do we need to live with it. We the People simply need the will to force onto the books sensible, clear legislation that demands on-scene accountability for evaluating tips with thin believability or impact prior to their involving a stop. As with "bare" fear, bare sightings in a state that allows carrying of weapons shouldn't by themselves justify much beyond brief monitoring. All too often, such situations have resulted in an over-the-top, violent take-down until a person could be proved legit. IIRC, a few states have put some reasonable restriction on contact stating that mere sightings alone don't justify a stop/detaining/disarming. Kudos.
    You mention force. Are we to believe that you advocate the take over of the tyrannical arm of the government? How far do we have to push with that force? Like I said in a prior post, I thought the OCer played the GAME right, he was clear and articulate. Make no mistake, it is a game. To be honest its a game we can win, but we have to show a little more tact in how we do it.
    Don"t let stupid be your skill set....

    Never be ashamed of a scar. It simply means, that you were stronger than whatever tried to hurt you......

  15. #75
    Senior Member Array Spidey2011's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    887
    Quote Originally Posted by P95 View Post
    So how do you determine the difference between the two people? What if they got a call about a man...or woman walking down the street with a gun...did not respond...and they killed 5 people? The only way they can determine if you are hostile or not is to stop you and ask a few question. If that is what it takes to keep the streets safe and people from getting killed...what is the big deal? You think your rights are violated by being stopped...what about innocent people who are shot everyday? What about their rights? If I OC and get stopped for identification....no big deal. You make yourself look suspicious by refusing to show ID.....JMO.
    So having ID means you're not a criminal? Hardly. I would think if someone were so intent on hurting someone, that they could simply have the conversation with the officer and then continue on to do their dirty deed while the officer drives off. Someone showing ID means nothing.

Page 5 of 14 FirstFirst 123456789 ... LastLast

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

cops stopping people who are opening carrying a weapon
,

guy carrying a gun makes the cops look like fools

,
guy with gun owns cops
,
open carry in mi youtube
,
open carry in the usa youtube
,

open carry law suits

,
open carry police harassment videos
,

open carry police stops

,
open carry police stops videos
,
open carry stops
,
real videos of what to do if a police officer stops you for open carry in wisconsin
,
video of man carrying gun ,make police look like fool
Click on a term to search for related topics.