Hooksett, NH cop acts belligerent and uses profanity to Law-Abiding Citizen for OCing

i read over well ... skimmed over this whole thread. i think there are a few IMPORTANT things that seem to have been missed over the entire topic.

first off: "trolling" is not against the law. i will not debate this. unless you can site the RSA that says otherwise it has absolutely no grounds other than an argument with no merit.

Second: Every officer in the entire state was sent a letter, from the governor, about the rights of citizens in the state in regards to open carry. It wasnt that long ago. EVERY officer SHOULD be aware.

Third: Open carry is a RIGHT in the state of NH. Regardless of the reason for doing so.

Fourth: In the wonderful state of NH, and outlined in that letter previosly mentioned, citizens not only have the right to openly carry but that officers should respect that right entirely. That means that we do not have to produce our identification card, do not have to identify ourselves, unless we are doing something WRONG.

The police dont have the right to interoogate or detain based on the unnecessary fears of sheeple.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doobie

Note: there is some profanity in the video. There is a blue title box that appears for 5 seconds before the profanity.

Notice how belligerent the cop is to a law-abiding citizen exercising his rights..

---

You like to create drama dont you? I am with you on OC'ing, its our right, I do it too. But come on brother, your walking around video taping your self and creating more drama for your self with the cops. Should have carried your ID and stop being a douche to them. They were doing thier jobs.

I know OC'ing is our right, but maybe sometimes you should just CCW instead. Less headache.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LFoD

i read over well ... skimmed over this whole thread. i think there are a few IMPORTANT things that seem to have been missed over the entire topic.

first off: "trolling" is not against the law. i will not debate this. unless you can site the RSA that says otherwise it has absolutely no grounds other than an argument with no merit.

Second: Every officer in the entire state was sent a letter, from the governor, about the rights of citizens in the state in regards to open carry. It wasnt that long ago. EVERY officer SHOULD be aware.

Third: Open carry is a RIGHT in the state of NH. Regardless of the reason for doing so.

Fourth: In the wonderful state of NH, and outlined in that letter previosly mentioned, citizens not only have the right to openly carry but that officers should respect that right entirely. That means that we do not have to produce our identification card, do not have to identify ourselves, unless we are doing something WRONG.

The police dont have the right to interoogate or detain based on the unnecessary fears of sheeple.

---

No one questions the legality of Doobie's actions. His right to do what he did is not in question. The wisdom of his method is what should be at issue. I believe he really wants to further the cause of our RKBA, but is going about it wrong. Frightening sheep and alienating cops at the same time doesn't seem like a sensible formula for strengthening our gun rights to me. Maybe it's legal...Probably not wise. Even though he may have been within "his rights", I think he would have done well to have presented his ID upon what was most certainly a reasonable request from Law Enforcement.

i forgot one more important thing. the reason that this is being done isnt to scare the sheep and alienate the cops like some have pointed out. it is because people have been detained at length and read the "riot act" so to speak when they are simply open carrying to open carry. yes, doobie went "looking for it" and he got it. but he is in no way breaking the law. concealing because it is "less headache" is NOT the answer.

Would your opinions on this matter somehow change if he didnt go "looking for it" like he did in this instance?

if so please see this: YouTube - Open Carry Legal in New Hampshire?

if you watch the movie you will see that Dave is detained and not free to walk away by the police. At the end they resport to "busting girlscouts" for hanging signs on the post. Just searching for a reason to detain them more. Resorting even to rules about gathering "more than three people" on the sidewalk. No crowd before 3,4 no 5 police including a bike cop showed up.

Dave was walking from his car to Murphy's taproom roughly 40 yards away.

So please. Tell me, how was Dave wrong? How is Doobie doing anything other than exercising his rights? Looking for it not looking for it antagonizing belligerence, not identifying himself, even being stubborn ... all of that is perfectly LEGAL. Detaining someone, harassing them, interrogating them with no cause, is and should be ILLEGAL. Not to mention the tangent one could go off into about tax dollars being WASTED.

Quote:

---

How is Doobie doing anything other than exercising his rights? Looking for it not looking for it antagonizing belligerence, not identifying himself, even being stubborn ... all of that is perfectly LEGAL.

---

Legal? Perhaps. Smart? Not really. Is it legal to walk on a train track? Sure. Is it the smart thing to do when the train is coming? No.

Quote:

---

Detaining someone, harassing them, interrogating them with no cause, is and should be ILLEGAL. Not to mention the tangent one could go off into about tax dollars being WASTED.

---

In Doobies video,I did not see anyone being detained, harassed or even interrogated. Are you taking about a different scenario?

Doobie was not detained. He certainly wasn't harassed and he dang sure wasn't interrogated.
Granted, the cop was a bit unprofessional with his choice of words, but that is about the only mistake I saw on his part. It is the cop's job to respond to a call put out by the dispatcher. You cant just pick and choose which calls to respond to and which not to. The person of interest sets the tone of the stop.
How the stop progresses is up to that person. Be polite and you will be treated politley. Act stupid and you will be treated like you are stupid.

Its a simple thing really.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LFoD

i forgot one more important thing. the reason that this is being done isnt to scare the sheep and alienate the cops like some have pointed out. it is because people have been detained at length and read the "riot act" so to speak when they are simply open carrying to open carry. yes, doobie went "looking for it" and he got it. but he is in no way breaking the law. concealing because it is "less headache" is NOT the answer.

Would your opinions on this matter somehow change if he didnt go "looking for it" like he did in this instance?

if so please see this: YouTube - Open Carry Legal in New Hampshire?

if you watch the movie you will see that Dave is detained and not free to walk away by the police. At the end they resport to "busting girlscouts" for hanging signs on the post. Just searching for a reason to detain them more. Resorting even to rules about gathering "more than three people" on the sidewalk. No crowd before 3,4 no 5 police including a bike cop showed up.

Dave was walking from his car to Murphy's taproom roughly 40 yards away.

So please. Tell me, how was Dave wrong? How is Doobie doing anything other than exercising his rights? Looking for it not looking for it antagonizing belligerence, not identifying himself, even being stubborn ... all of that is perfectly LEGAL. Detaining someone, harassing them, interrogating them with no cause, is and should be ILLEGAL. Not to mention the tangent one could go off into about tax dollars being WASTED.

---

Yes from what I've seen from alot of posters is if he wasn't looking for trouble he wouldn't have had as much of a negative reaction from the forum members. in regards to the youtube footage you just posted its funny how the same people keep getting stopped. 20 video's on youtube of the same person or same small group of peoplehaving "incidents" with police shows more that they are looking for police not that police are looking for OCer's.

They could do alot of good trying to defuse the situation and educate the police rather then instantly get defensive and talking about their rights being infringed. That wouldn't get them their moment in the spot light though so thats not what they do.

I would be more sympathetic if they 1 weren't looking for trouble and 2 were more receptive to police. LEO's have a tough job with out you wasting their time. As he said he usually OC's when he's in a big group. (more people to witness his spectacle)

The same could be said to Dave, quit waisting tax dollars. I'd like to see just one video where Dave is actually receptive to the police and not trying to make a scene out of it. Oh wait you don't post those ones on youtube, they don't get your desired result.

the analogy you use of working on a train track while the train is coming is what we like to call a straw man argument. has nothing to do with it. its like comparing apples to eggplant. nuff said.

doobie was not free to go. therefore he was detained. he was interrogated. and he was harassed. not to mention verbally assaulted. do you stand up for the thugs in hopes that they will protect you when you need it? I have had enough encounters with my local police department to know that they are not there to protect anyone. i know enough cops who have told me exactly the same.

p.s.
Interrogation or questioning is interviewing as commonly employed by officers of the police and military.

The interviewee is also referred to as a "source". It is used for getting information from a suspect, witness or victim after a crime has been committed.

Interviewing is not necessarily to force a confession, but rather to develop sufficient rapport as to prompt the source to disclose valuable information.

Interrogation is accusatory in nature, and the suspect is told that they committed the offense, and presented with facts to obtain a confession.

I watched the second video and think the second guy handled it better. In the end the police wound up leaving peacefully only citing a violation that didn't exist before they showed up.

It may just be me but Doobie seemed more confrontational, like he was looking for an incident. Dave seemed more of 'matter of fact'. Maybe it's just Doobie's personality, I don't know.

The statue cop was interesting. He could have loosened up a little.

I think maybe the friend would have done better to take the phone from Dave and then shut up. His behavior was much more annoying than Dave's.

Holdcard

HotGuns,

You said he was not detained, does that mean he could have just walked away? What is the correct term for what happened.

Not questioning you, just a bit confused. The legal/LEO definition of detained seems to be different than mine.

Holdcard

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TravisABQ

Doobie, have you been confronted by police and been cooperative about identifying yourself? Would it make the slightest bit of difference?

---

I've complied with their requests in full the first two times I was stopped. I've even 'shot the breeze' with two of the officers previously afterward, most officers are like, "you aren't doing anything wrong, but we have to investigate, yada yada...."

Would it make the slightest difference in which part? I usually try to be nice and just let the officer know that no disrespect is meant to them by not providing their information, but I don't believe in a 'papers please' approach to this.

If one in my state does not have a pistol/revolver license, they are REQUIRED by law to open carry. Because they don't have a pistol/revolver license doesn't mean they should be harassed/detained/be talked to EVERY time they go out.

I've been stopped 4 times in Concord (3 of which were within a month of each other), and once in Manchester and Hooksett (both on the same day).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bhaz413

You like to create drama dont you? I am with you on OC'ing, its our right, I do it too. But come on brother, your walking around video taping your self and creating more drama for your self with the cops. Should have carried your ID and stop being a douche to them. They were doing thier jobs.

I know OC'ing is our right, but maybe sometimes you should just CCW instead. Less headache.....

---

Send me the money to get a license and perhaps I'll think about going to CCW.

I'd guess that most people doing things similar to doobie have had negative interactions with LE before. Right or wrong, like it or not, they are doing something.

It wasn't that long ago that PA was similar in the type of incidents and interactions. The 2009 MPOTEC training and updates has addressed the legalities of open carry and interaction with CC/OC civilians. The reports I hear about seem to be much more positive. Negative incidents, at least reported on PAFOA boards, have dropped considerably. Much of that was made possible by a bunch of like-minded ladies and gentlemen on that forum. Some using methods a bit similar to doobie's. We, here in PA, owe them a big thanks for what they've done. Despite the naysayers, some on here, the results have been very positive. It would seem that it may even improve the relationship between LEOs and CC/OC civilians. People are more willing to be cooperative when they don't feel they are being forced to do something they don't have to. Mutual respect goes a long way.

As for scaring the sheep. For the most part, they ain't all that scared of us. The ones that are, generally don't like people carrying anyway. Hiding ain't going to protect your rights in the long run, just delay the inevitable.

I OC, but I do not go out with the intent to cause a concern/conflict. I go about my normal routine and don't think I've ever gotten any flak.

One LEO that spoke to me actually stated he wished more people would OC.

I don't feel the need to go out with a camcorder or video phone on during my walks.

There is a right way to promote your beliefs and a wrong way.

By the way I have a CWP, I split time between OC and CC.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dal1Celt

I OC, but I do not go out with the intent to cause a concern/conflict. I go about my normal routine and don't think I've ever gotten any flak.

One LEO that spoke to me actually stated he wished more people would OC.

I don't feel the need to go out with a camcorder or video phone on during my walks.

There is a right way to promote your beliefs and a wrong way.

By the way I have a CWP, I split time between OC and CC.

---

Would your beliefs change if you'd had negative interactions wih LE?

One of the things that encourages me is this video that was related to the OP's. I hope I got the linky right. If so, this is the way things ought to be.
YouTube - NH: Hooksett officers defend open carrier from Massh**le

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kpw

Would your beliefs change if you'd had negative interactions wih LE?

---

I do not think so. I think that in order to have a negative interaction you need to be uncooperative and evasive with LEO.

Quote:

---

You said he was not detained, does that mean he could have just walked away? What is the correct term for what happened.

---

I would call it being interviewed. An interview is with both party's talking to each other. An interrogation is more severe, usually when being detained.

Quote:

---

doobie was not free to go. therefore he was detained.

---

Since doobie was doing nothing illegal, doobie was free to go, and doobie knew that all along.

Quote:

---

he was interrogated.

---

Being free to go at any time was not an interrogation. Obviously, your version of the word is different than mine.

Quote:

---

and he was harassed.

---

You call that harassment? Get real man. Asking someone questions that they can answer freely or not is far from harassment.

Quote:

---

not to mention verbally assaulted.

---

Actually he was not. While I do not in anyway condone the speech used by the officer, he was not verbally assaulted. Using cuss-words to describe a gun or a town is not verbal assault...at least not in this part of the country.

Quote:

---

do you stand up for the thugs in hopes that they will protect you when you need it?

---

I am under no illusions. Why would a thug protect me? Now there is a straw man argument.

Quote:

---

I have had enough encounters with my local police department to know that they are not there to protect anyone. i know enough cops who have told me exactly the same.

---

Ah I see. You have had "encounters" with your local police so you are an expert on how they behave everywhere. I get it now. Of course the cops with tell you that they are not there to protect you. Saying anything different would be a lie.

Quote:

---

Interrogation or questioning is interviewing as commonly employed by officers of the police and military.

The interviewee is also referred to as a "source". It is used for getting information from a suspect, witness or victim after a crime has been committed.

---

Wrong. A crime does not have to be committed for an interview. An interview can be done on a witness to a crime. They did not commit the crime. An interview could be as simple as you walking down the street and me asking you whats up. No crime has been committed.

Quote:

---

Interviewing is not necessarily to force a confession, but rather to develop sufficient rapport as to prompt the source to disclose valuable information

---

.

See above.

Quote:

---

Interrogation is accusatory in nature, and the suspect is told that they committed the offense, and presented with facts to obtain a confession

---

An interrogation is when I have arrested you and you are sitting in a room by yourself. The camera is recording you. I walk in and start asking you questions. You are not free to leave, you may or may not be in cuffs. Yes it is accusatory, otherwise you would not be there to be interrogated.

Asking for an ID is not an interrogation, now matter how much you would like it to be. Asking where you are going is not an interrogation.Asking why you are wearing a gun is not an interrogation.

Understand just one thing. If you act like a jerk, you will be treated like a jerk. Cops deal with jerks all day long, its nothing new.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dal1Celt

I do not think so. I think that in order to have a negative interaction you need to be uncooperative and evasive with LEO.

---

If that were only true. :frown:

Hardly an LE basher but there are always bad apples. Fortunately, they seem to be few and far between around here.