Hooksett, NH cop acts belligerent and uses profanity to Law-Abiding Citizen for OCing
This is a discussion on Hooksett, NH cop acts belligerent and uses profanity to Law-Abiding Citizen for OCing within the Open Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Granted the LEO should not have lost his cool and been unprofessional...but dude is just out looking for trouble HOPING to get confronted. Stupid....
June 8th, 2009 09:58 AM
Granted the LEO should not have lost his cool and been unprofessional...but dude is just out looking for trouble HOPING to get confronted. Stupid.
Friends don't let friends be MALL NINJAS.
I am just as nice as anyone lets me be and can be just as mean as anyone makes me. - Quoted from Terryger, New member to our forum.
June 8th, 2009 10:07 AM
Every one of his confrontations would have happened whether the OP was videoing or not, I think that is the point. At least we see how the police react.
They knew they were being recorded and they still acted the way they did.
If you want to prove an injustice then video it for all to see. None of this his word against mine.
Maybe if the sheeple see enough of these videos they will stop calling the police.
Proofread before you post!!!
A reminder to me.
June 8th, 2009 10:52 AM
I think this embodies what I was trying to say, at least much of my point is contained in the quote. I have a habit of putting myself in the picture in a 'what if it were me' kind of way. Although I don't carry a video camera, I do keep my head on somewhat of a swivel whether I'm OC, CC or in a criminal protection zone NC.
Originally Posted by tbrenke
Now we come back to selective enforcement of the LAW (maybe not the best way to say it, didn't know of a better way to make my point). The officer is using the LAW to stop and question this person. The officer is using the distinction of the LAW to 'legally detain' this person. (you may say he was not 'detained', but I'm betting he'd be in handcuffs if he just walked away from the officer) Because of the LAW this person was NOT FREE TO LEAVE, but a technicality in the way the LAW is written allowed the officer to LEGALLY restrict this persons freedom. The LAW may state it differently, but in my mind if your not free to leave, you're a captive.
Now because the citizen is using the distinction of the LAW not to answer, this person he is deemed a malcontent, trouble maker, etc... Well, which is it? The officer is using the LAW, and so is the citizen. Why is the right of the officer superior to the right of the citizen?
While I agree that Doobie did act confrontational does that really justify the officers tone and use of profanity? If the officers freedom of speech is protected under the LAW then why is the citizen's freedom not to speak such a problem? After all both could claim the LAW on their side as both did fall under the LAW.
The officer has the right under the LAW to ask questions, the citizen has the right under the LAW not to answer. If a person chooses to use the LAW and not answer questions how does that brand the citizen uncooperative and deserving of the treatment given? Both are following the LAW. We all seem to be in agreement here.
Would I do the same thing, no. I try not to be confrontational. I put more effort into going unnoticed. Although I do have to admit there are times I've wished I had a video recorder in hand with some of the things I've witnessed with both parties, LEO and detainee.
Arizona is an open carry state and I did just that before we got our right to carry concealed. During that time I was stopped multiple times by officers and never had a problem. However I was cooperative to a degree and tried to be as pleasant as possible. (Multiple is a relative term, roughly 10 or so stops over a 11 year period)
I'm wondering where to draw the line, how much information does an officer need to judge me a good guy. They are skilled and trained in the LAW and interrogation, I am not.
How many stories have gone around this forum about someone who tried to be cooperative and answered too many questions and it cost them money and even freedom? Things have changed, I don't think it's prudent anymore to have the mindset that I've done nothing wrong so I have nothing to hide. I truly wish it did work that way.
All that being said, I support the officers decision to stop Doobie. He was acting out of the ordinary. Had Doobie 'politely' declined to answer the questions I wonder if it may have gone differently. Both the officer and Doobie had a confrontational tone from the very beginning of the incident.
June 8th, 2009 11:34 AM
The guy is not breaking any law and he does have the right to open carry. But he is trying, in his own way, to help our cause or prove a point by seeing what kind of reaction he can get out of the cops. He says so on the video. The cops are, for the most part, being cooperative and respectful, but he wants to just keep pushing. I think his time could be better spent doing what someone else mentioned. Have an open carry bbq or something.
Originally Posted by CEW58
What he's doing is perfectly legal, he knows it and the cops know it. So whats the point?? You watch the video and its like a little kid " Hey watch this. Check out the rreaction I get out of this cop".... Give me a break.....
Prepare for the worst and hope it never happens
June 8th, 2009 12:04 PM
This whole thing is kind of funny to me actually.
First, as I said before if someone called it in the call taker should have never sent the call. This ties in with the civil rights protesters and also with what SgtMac said about RAS. I refused to dispatch officers to investigate a "well dressed black man standing at the bus stop. This is a white neighborhood and he doesn't belong here. Two busses have gone by and he didn't get on either of them." This was at a bus stop that was served by four different routes. The man was standing at a bus stop, minding his own business but he caused alarm in the community. He was not doing anything illegal. Just as the OP was walking down the street, perhaps causing alarm in the community, but not doing anything illegal.
Do you all think it would have been reasonable for one of my officers to approach the citizen at the bus stop and address him like this officer did? Would we all have no problem with the officer questioning him the way the OP was questioned?
Also lets remember that this did not occur in a vacuum. Unless the officer was more than half brain dead he observed the OP for a few seconds before approaching him. Hmmmmmm what is that in his hand? Looks like a video camera. And look at how marvelously he conducted himself.
Just based on his colorful language who here would think that this guy was pro 2A or even on the fence and has now changed his mind based on this?
I think this video would be a wonderful tool for roll call training for officers on how not to handle a contact like this.
Infowars- Proving David Hannum right on a daily basis
June 8th, 2009 03:20 PM
We have plans to to have a very peaceful and helpful to the community event in Hooksett. It is being organized between people who know each other as we had some issues in previous events when random people were able to show up.
Originally Posted by QKShooter
June 8th, 2009 03:23 PM
Can't believe it, another common sense post!!
Originally Posted by mcp1810
The only thing I would question about the incident would be the lack of an ID. I am not sure about Doobies state, but in NE, you have to be 21 years old to carry a hand gun. Having an Id to prove that would seem reasonable. One of the largest C-stores in the state are now carding anyone under 40 purchasing beer, so it would seem reasonable to have an ID for age verification.
An ounce of lead is worth 200lbs of cop.
June 8th, 2009 03:30 PM
Proof is not needed unless the officer claims he has reason to believe I am not 21 years old. I asked him at least once, "Have I done anything wrong?" I believe the first time his response was "walking around our <censored> town with a <censored> gun."
Originally Posted by SleepingZ
The officer had NO RAS. He did not claim to have RAS or give any indication that he has RAS. Even if he did have RAS all I would need to provide is my NAME, ADDR, BUSINESS and WHERE I'M GOING. A person does not need to provide AGE. One is NEVER required to provide a license/ID unless I'm driving a motor vehicle.
My first two detentions I did provide the officers with my name/addr, etc. The first one I had my wallet and shirt stolen from me after I told the officer I don't consent to him taking my shirt or wallet. And then he searched my wallet after I said I do not consent to you searching my wallet.
These first two (or three) events occurred before I had a video camera that I carried with me and are the exact reason I started to carry a video camera.
June 8th, 2009 03:45 PM
This is a situation where BOTH parties were wrong. Your method gives us a bad name and the officers language gives police a bad image. I hear ya, the officer was wrong! but so was your method of "displaying" your rights. Find another method please. Find a way to educate others of your right to OC. If you are looking to show that the local police are abusing their powers then you have to go about it differently. No jury is going to be on your side with the "trolling" technique you are displaying, especially if you live in a anti 2A area.
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."
June 8th, 2009 04:18 PM
It's an offense in NE for anyone under 18 to POSSESS a handgun (the law actually says "revolver", but case law applies it to pistols as well), absent adult supervision.
Originally Posted by SleepingZ
To be eligible for a NE CONCEALED handgun permit, the applicant must be 21 or older.
There is no restriction in STATE law regarding open carry. Some cities have such ordinances, though.
June 8th, 2009 04:20 PM
NH for the most part is fairly pro 2A. Unfortunately OC (which by default is legal since there is no statute against it) is not as common as some would like it to be. As a result both the public and some local law enforcement are not quite as well educated on the laws as most of us.
Originally Posted by usmc3169
Some are trying to change that, as we've witnessed in this thread. Will it work? Only time will tell. I'm not going to debate the merits of the OP's actions, I'll leave that for others.
June 8th, 2009 04:26 PM
OK while I'm not going to argue that Doobie is being conspicuous, but other than carrying openly, WHAT exactly is he doing which responders here take issue with?
How many "different ways" are there to open-carry, which will not create "alarm" or induce police response?
True, Doobie dials it up by not having ID, but if there is a law requiring him to carry ID, it sure seems like he'd be arrested in short order. Doobie is not the only guy who gets cheeky over demands to see his "PAPERS PLEASE", and he is not the only law abiding citizen who gets difficult like that.
Doobie, have you been confronted by police and been cooperative about identifying yourself? Would it make the slightest bit of difference?
In the video at the start of this thread, it seemed that the officer had little real interest in assessing Doobies identity. It was about public complaints over entirely legal behavior.
Doobie is annoying the police by refusing to submit to their AUTHORITAI! And THAT is what seems to be central to posters criticism of him.
But Doobie, you are inviting a dangerous response. Plenty of people will side with the cops, as you have already seen.
I once declined to provide my ID to a cop, and my dad who was watching thought I was lucky to not get shot in the back.
I was young and full of vinegar, but I decided that doing what cops see as "provocative" was not a strategy conducive to my health and well-being.
Please Doobie, find another hobby before you meet the "rogue cop" you seem to be trolling for.
June 8th, 2009 04:33 PM
Here's the problem:
Originally Posted by kentuckycarry
Any person, in Hogsett, NH, or anywhere else, could be refusing to identify himself to a police officer for any number of reasons, legitimate or otherwise, including (but certainly not limited to) the following:
1. They simply know they don't have to, and wish to make a point of that.
2. They're not violating any laws, but are doing something or have done something nearby which could get them in some sort of trouble with some entity OTHER than government, and don't want to generate any "proof" that they were in that area.
3. They're not violating any laws RIGHT NOW, but did a short while ago, or plan to in the near future, and don't want to generate any "proof" that they were in that area.
4. They're worried about being added to The List(tm).
5. They know damned well that there's an arrest warrant for them out of some other jurisdiction for murder/robbery/theft/possession/DUI/unpaid parking tickets.
That's just five off the top of my head. Three of those are an SEP - Somebody Else's Problem (because they sure aren't mine), but the other two most definitely ARE of concern to me, and there's no way to know for sure which one it is.
June 8th, 2009 04:50 PM
Just so some of you know, many people who OC do so sans ID.
In some states it's required by law, and in some it isn't.
As for the OP:
While I don't see anything wrong with the practice of OC, or the practice of having a recording device with you (anyone who carries CC or OC should have one), I'm not so quick to agree with him on some things.
Based on his rendition of the second youtube he posted, it didn't sound like the officer was out of line in any way, and to accuse him of harassment seems unfair. Again, this is based on what doobie reported was said.
June 8th, 2009 05:04 PM
I admit I didn't read this whole thread, but to those who think he was looking for trouble, or that there is no slippery slope, let me tell you from the experience in Canada that you are wrong.
When we went from carrying openly to being more discrete in the 1930's we ended up getting a handgun registry, then over time handguns were not seen so it was easy to outlaw carrying them, then it was easy to outlaw using them outside of a range, then came a registry on long guns, and the reclasification of many long arms so they can only be used on a range. Not to mention the confiscation of many firearms.
Rights not excersized are rights lost. Now while it is legal is the time to put firearm ownership out in the open and defend your rights, don't let them slip away because you don't want to cause a disturbance. If no one carries openly because the police will harrass you, then pretty soon it becomes easy to ban open carry, after all no one does it anyway.
Those of you who don't do so for whatever reason have that choice, but please don't critisize those who are willing to stand up for their rights, and by default your rights as well.
By mrreynolds in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
Last Post: April 8th, 2010, 11:58 AM
By doobie in forum Open Carry Issues & Discussions
Last Post: July 7th, 2009, 08:45 PM
By First Sgt in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
Last Post: January 23rd, 2009, 05:51 PM
By celticredneck in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
Last Post: December 2nd, 2008, 07:31 AM
By fortysomething in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
Last Post: December 28th, 2005, 06:28 PM
Search tags for this page
wicked guns hooksett nh
wicked weaponry hooksett
wicked weaponry hooksett new hampshire
wicked weaponry hooksett nh
wicked weaponry in hooksett nh
wicked weaponry in nh
wicked weaponry nh
wicked weapons hooksett nh
wicked weapons nh
Click on a term to search for related topics.