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; Police Harassment Gone Wrong: Man With Gun Owns Cops - YouTube...
this has been posted a couple of times in different forums
Here we go again...
"Death is lighter than a feather, but Duty is heavier than a mountain" Robert Jordan
Glock 19 Gen 4
Si hoc legere scis, nimis eruditionis habes
What many fail to see in this is they have no right to detain him.
If they did this because a black man was walking down a street he did not seem to fit on it would hit the fan.
Dealers selling drugs openly on the street can not be stopped but a citizen not breaking any law can be it happens often.
The officers in this case need a least some form of reprimand for their improper action.
More and more Americans now days find it perfectly acceptable for the Government to detain certain groups of people and demand that they prove their innocence.
One could argue that they had a responsibility to determine he was in fact legally able to posses said firearm, a quick check NCIC check. Could you imagine the blowback if they didn't ID him and confirm that he was legally carrying and then he had shot someone? Skip to the chief's office...
Chief: So you two had contact with the shooter 5 minutes prior to the shooting?
Officer 1: Yes, and he was carrying a firearm openly.
Chief: Did you get his ID?
Officer 2: No, he was openly carrying it.
Chief: If you ran his ID, you would find he had a prior for Domestic Assault, and he wasn't legally able to own that firearm, much less carry it down main street and shoot his wife at the grocery store.
Officer 1: But he said the cops can't ask him for Identification!
Officer 2: Yeah, and he said we couldn't Terry stop him because it didn't apply!
Chief: Get the @#$% out!
Seriously, we ask police to make difficult decision every day, not to mention that most of the case law cited in the video is incorrectly applied. I may not know all the specifics of the local laws, but I think most of us can agree that we want police to actually police our communities and not sit in their car eating donuts.
This is like screaming wolf when there wasn't one. The officers were respectful and tried to do their job. The open-carrier made an asshat out of himself, and incidents like this take away from when we claim actual violations of our rights, like occured in Michigan last year with the carry holder who wasn't allowed to notify the officer.
Officer: Not that I know of.
Chief: Did you demand that he prove that he was not breaking any laws?
Officer: Yes but he invoked his right not to testify against himself.
Chief: That right no longer exists, arrest him for something. Surly he is doing something wrong.
Last edited by mlr1m; July 5th, 2012 at 06:07 PM. Reason: I made an oopsie
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......
His legal knowledge came in handy...knowledge is good.
They were not doing their job they were messing with a citizen that was not breaking the law.
If they were in any city in the US there were people dealing drugs pimp children and breaking all kinds of law in the area why were they not dealing with that.
LEO need to leave citizens that are not breaking the law alone and go after those that are.
But that would not be PC.
A group of gang bangers on the corner in Milwaukee is a much big threat to my safety than some citizen open carrying it is against the law for LEO office to question them about their activates . It they do it is front page news.
Pass a law requiring OC to supply an ID on request, at the same time pass a law jailing those that abuse the right to check .
Pleading the 5th amendment only works if you would be self incriminating. For any sort of a non-citizen initiated contact, police are going to, and should ask for identification. They also would have been justified in conducting a Terry Frisk (Reasonable Police Officer believes the person may be in the possession of a dangerous weapon), unless that doesn't apply in that particular state. It's easy to articulate that person with a gun openly displayed may be concealing other weapons. Thus to conduct said frisk, they would have every right to temporarily detain the individual, and verify his identity. Terry V. Ohio specifically relates to balancing a temporary detainment versus the public safety. Again, unless there is state statute that would supercede accepted case law, the police had every right to stop, detain and identify the individual.
Oh by the way, case law has found that the 5th amendment doesn't apply to refusing to identify yourself. (Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada). If the police have reasonable suspicion, which could be articulated by the firearm coupled with a refusal to identify oneself, they can detain and identify you.
Last edited by BWillis57; July 6th, 2012 at 04:15 PM.
Funny that as soon as the supervisor showed up, the OC'er was on his way. I figure there are a few things to learn here: 1) the patrol officer was wrong and was corrected by the supervisor, 2) the patrol officers need to be better trained as there are many more people purchasing guns and this is going to happen more and more - they will just keep getting caught on tape like this until they and their depts are sued, 3) the 911 operators need to be better trained - "what is he doing with the gun", "that's not against the law", "calling 911 for non-emergency reports can result in fines up to $$$$", and 4) when calls like this are dispatched the officer should either ignore or verify the guy is only walking down the street and leave the person alone.
I have a very strict gun control policy: if there's a gun around, I want to be in control of it.