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; If you disagree with the police, the time and place to do it is not in the street, but the courtroom. If you feel so ...
If you disagree with the police, the time and place to do it is not in the street, but the courtroom. If you feel so traumatized by being asked for your ID, smile give it to him, and then call your attorney. If he trampled on your rights, then uphold them in court don't try to make an example on the street.
In some areas of Wisconsin we had had Chief of police and Mayors state openly that regardless of the law they will take anyone open carrying to the group take the weapon and force them into court to get it back.
They are some them threaten to do the same to CC citizens. Not my words theirs on the new and in the papers.
It happens in places like Madison an only makes the news once in awhile, while a couple law suit have been won the amounts were tiny and it was paid by the tax payers not the officers or the mayor.
This is no different than when I am riding my bike late on a Friday or Saturday night 2-3am. I get stopped . Not speeding nothing wrong with my bike and I get question for 5-10 minutes.
How much you been drinking? Well I don't drink not at all ever. I ask why he stopped me I get a phony reply like my tail light was flicking or some other made up lie.
Again this happens often it is not legal for them to do it but they do.
Some justify that by saying well they are just trying to keep drunks off the road. Ok I can see that but it get old after awhile and there are plenty out there breaking the law they could be dealing with.
Very narrow class of people LEO are allowed to mess with now days. I ask a LEO in Milwaukee about things like this one day he made it clear many arrest are not made or stops made because they already know the DA will just throw it out and then they get reprimanded.
Return LEO to doing just Law enforcement , Then they may find I leave my gun at home.
For all of you that think the guy was out of line by the way he relied on his rights when stopped for open carry, do you also think he would have been out of line if had acted the same way if he was carry concealed?
The issue of consent and RAS is independent of the carry method. The same MWAG call could happen if he printed. Would you all feel it's justified to be detained, your weapon seized, and your background checked just because you printed when you bent over to pick up a gardening magazine in your local Barnes & Nobel?
Don't get hung up on OC v. CC. Once there is knowlege of the weapon, the situation is the same, regardless of carry method. Think about it.
Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same.
Would you consent to the officer's requres if the officer stopped you because he saw you print, or because someone called the officer when that someone saw you print?
Or...would you consent to a DUI test if an officer stopped you without RAS? The officer just wants to make sure you're not drunk, and the only reason the officer stopped you is because he received a call that you were "driving a car." Nothing in the call indicated you were driving under the influence or breaking any laws. The officer states that once he receives a call that you are driving, he needs to "check it out." Public safety. Can't have people driving 3,000 pound vehicles down the road while intoxicated.
The situations are the same.
So the Office is him self committing a breach of law. The officer is not doing it to protect anyonme he is doing it because he disagree with your right and he thinks he is above the law.
They were try to deal with prostitution and drug sale in the area was their claim. Strange part was NO Drug dealer that were there most of the day or prostitute were arrested. Everyone that was stopped was recorded and many were stop many times . Our office in there and we have workers that in summer start at 4am. They were stopped a lot and every time it was documented. Along comes the press and gets a hold of these stops. Next thing you know some of these workers wife's are hearing their husbands were stop in prostitution stings in Milwaukee some many times. Police Chief thoughts on the subject so what.
All these men were doing was showing up for work. So what was the big deal get stopped show your license tell the officer your going to work.
Not that easy, often they would search the car making people late for work. The response to question saying your going to work were met with "you know how many times I hear that one"
The Office can not put down he stopped you because he was bored and wanted to talk or he did not like you he puts down suspicious behavior . So the next time you get stopped for anything it shows you were stopped 2 days ago for "suspicious behavior" now the Officer that has you detained is thinking what have I got here you are now maybe cuffed and or having your car ripped apart.
Much more to it than simple saying so what if they do it.
"To my mind it is wholly irresponsible to go into the world incapable of preventing violence, injury, crime, and death. How feeble is the mindset to accept defenselessness. How unnatural. How cheap. How cowardly. How pathetic." Ted Nugent
With a perfectly lawful activity, it seems to me that police SHOULD first perform an initial visual scan to attempt to validate and corroborate the person's story of a threat. Mere sight of a weapon isn't a crime, nor is it even dangerous. Short of behavior that backs up the call that was made, there is NO reason, IMO, for a stop, let alone search, take-down or any of the other stuff that all-too-frequently occurs.This is why I don't open carry. Someone called the police. They were doing what police do.
Taking down a carrier based on a 'bare fear' MWAG call makes as little sense as taking down a driver of a vehicle because of a MWAV call ... since obviously being in a car implies one could at any moment run over an entire crosswalk full of people, dangerous devices that vehicles are.
In a state and locale where carry is not a crime, the call to police/911 should be answered very simply: "Thank you for your call. In this state, the carry of a firearm is lawful and accepted. Can you confirm whether the person was acting in an overtly threatening manner, sir/ma'am?" THAT's what the statutes say. It's beyond me why such MWAG calls aren't answered in this way, because it's that one question that answers whether there's any legitimacy to claims of a threat, or whether the caller is simply ignorant of reality in his/her state.
Now onto the issue of being treated with respect. If an officer asks me for an ID he is doing nothing wrong. Now if the State this happens in does not require me to show an ID I would be doing nothing wrong to refuse his request. If both the officer and I are doing nothing wrong legally, is it you opinion that the wishes of the Government should supersede my rights?
Is exercising my rights disrespectful if it somehow interferes with the desires of another person?