Hooksett, NH cop acts belligerent and uses profanity to Law-Abiding Citizen for OCing - Page 2

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; I'm not sure I understand this. Can you walk around in NH with a fire arm and NOT have an ID?? I'm not against OCing, ...

Page 2 of 17 FirstFirst 12345612 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 255

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

  1. #16
    VIP Member Array Dal1Celt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Clarksville, TN
    Posts
    2,672
    I'm not sure I understand this.

    Can you walk around in NH with a fire arm and NOT have an ID??

    I'm not against OCing, but I think if you do you should have an ID on you and if you don't and you get detained, I'd expect that you get cuffed and taken to the station until such time that you can be properly identified and cleared.

    Now let the fight begin.
    "Without fear there can be no Courage!"


  2. #17
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    27,894
    Quote Originally Posted by Dal1Celt View Post
    I think if you do you should have an ID on you and if you don't and you get detained, I'd expect that you get cuffed and taken to the station until such time that you can be properly identified and cleared.
    On what charge?

    I expect my city services not to abuse their limited authority to help keep my town civil, and I expect them to do it lawfully and reasonably. Arrest of people because of someone's nervous tick isn't sufficient cause.

    To ban guns because criminals use them is to tell the law-abiding that their rights and liberties depend not on their own conduct, but on the conduct of the guilty and the lawless.
    Lysander Spooner (1808 1887)
    Good quote. Time to re-read it and understand the true merits of the concept.
    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.

  3. #18
    Member Array doobie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    New Hampster
    Posts
    233
    Quote Originally Posted by Dal1Celt View Post
    I'm not sure I understand this.

    Can you walk around in NH with a fire arm and NOT have an ID??

    I'm not against OCing, but I think if you do you should have an ID on you and if you don't and you get detained, I'd expect that you get cuffed and taken to the station until such time that you can be properly identified and cleared.

    Now let the fight begin.
    Yes, you can walk around WITHOUT any idea as long as you are not committing a crime, and even then you don't really need an ID, but you are required to ID yourself to police if they detain you.

    What was recorded was an illegal terry stop. There was no reasonable cause to believe anything was done wrong. If they had cause to believe any law was broken the video would have ended in the back of his cruiser. It would have been a violation of RSA 564

    594:2 Questioning and Detaining Suspects. – A peace officer may stop any person abroad whom he has reason to suspect is committing, has committed or is about to commit a crime, and may demand of him his name, address, business abroad and where he is going.

    They didn't have cause to demand a name/address/business so nothing was done wrong. If you have nothing to hide, why not hide what you don't have to hide?

    Live Free or Die: There ARE worse things that death.
    Criminals For Gun Control
    Brady's Campaign Pro-Gun Forum

    Member: NRA, PG-NH, GO-NH
    Life Member: JPFO, GOA
    Clubs: LF&GC

  4. #19
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by ccw9mm View Post
    Ah, me. Where to begin.
    At the beginning!

    The police didn't know this. They didn't respond to the scene based on this. Nothing in the action (the walking) justified this.
    The point is the person WANTED a confrontation. It was not someone simply walking down the street. Intent is the key. It is insufficient to review this incident in a vaccuum; that the LEO did not know the plan. Like many of these internet videos, the BP incident comes to mind, the people have the intent for their own selfish reasons to incite an incident. All to often they succeed and their stunts show up and they achieve their fifteen minutes of fame.

    The person's presumed likelihood to meet up with LEO's who took his walking with a gun badly doesn't change the fact that no overt action justified the contact.
    And you know that how? LEO make judgements all the time. In some settings, openly carrying a gun demands scrutiny by the public, even if it is perfectly legal. If you see someone injecting themselves on the street corner it is worthy of investigation. If the man is simply injecting insulin then the identification should take a few seconds. I imagine some would scream harrassment. My rights! My rights!

    And the person's having a tool on-hand to record the incidence of any harassing behavior isn't relevant as justification for contact. The fact he had such a tool wasn't known to the responding officers at the time. What the person intended to do with such a recording isn't much different from what a newsie intends to do with a recording of harassment he/she witnesses. One cannot be a criminal, unjustifiable ("childish, juvenile"?) act, whereas the other is a gleaming, shining example of high responsibility.
    If the recordning device was meant to intimidate the LEO then the LEO should react accordingly.


    The "childish, juvenile scenario" would be the walking down the street?
    No, it would be planning for a confrontation by seeking a situation that could be recorded.

    Straw man argument. Hm. Yes, upstanding citizens want to support justifiable police behavior. Upstanding citizens should also want to correct unjustifiable police behavior. It's a duty and responsibility, as citizens.
    It is not the duty of citizens to entice injustifiable police behavior. The is childish, irresponsible, and deserves whatever outcome occurs.

    When "nervous nellies" in the public are abusing the policing, it absolutely is. Takes 5 seconds to say: "I'm sorry ma'am, but it's perfectly legal to openly carry in this state. Unless there's a criminal act or reasonable suspicion of a criminal act ...."
    A person would ot call police unless they had concern. The police have a duty to respond, not dismiss the concerns of the public they serve.

    And you know this is "some thug" how, exactly? "Casing" the neighborhood how?
    That is the point! You cannot tell the difference between a thug and a law abiding citizen.The thug is simply walking down the street doing nothing llegal...yet. Profiling is absolutely an important tool in determing further action or investigation.

    You would be irresponsible to make such a call on the basis of seeing someone carrying, calling on everyone carrying. It's unjustified, alone without corroborating factors.
    No, it is not irresponsible. It is the responsibility of police to determine if the call is unjustified, not the citizen.

    If we're willing to accept assertive contact (or, worse, even aggressive take-downs, as happens in many places) of anyone daring to openly carry, in the absence of any criminal behavior or reasonable suspicion of criminal behavior, then a police state is what we deserve.
    Providing identification and answering a few simple questions should not be feared and does not portend a police state. Why are some so frightened by police?

  5. #20
    VIP Member Array Dal1Celt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Clarksville, TN
    Posts
    2,672
    Quote Originally Posted by ccw9mm View Post
    On what charge?

    I expect my city services not to abuse their limited authority to help keep my town civil, and I expect them to do it lawfully and reasonably. Arrest of people because of someone's nervous tick isn't sufficient cause.
    How about no ID?

    I'm not saying that OCing is wrong, especially among the LAW ABIDING. I'm stating that you should have ID on you when you are armed, this way they can do a quick check to ensure you are a LAW ABIDING citizen.

    Going out armed and without ID is asking for trouble. Not to mention going out armed, no ID and video taping yourself trolling for a response.
    "Without fear there can be no Courage!"

  6. #21
    VIP Member Array Dal1Celt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Clarksville, TN
    Posts
    2,672
    Quote Originally Posted by doobie View Post
    Yes, you can walk around WITHOUT any idea as long as you are not committing a crime, and even then you don't really need an ID, but you are required to ID yourself to police if they detain you.

    What was recorded was an illegal terry stop. There was no reasonable cause to believe anything was done wrong. If they had cause to believe any law was broken the video would have ended in the back of his cruiser. It would have been a violation of RSA 564

    594:2 Questioning and Detaining Suspects. – A peace officer may stop any person abroad whom he has reason to suspect is committing, has committed or is about to commit a crime, and may demand of him his name, address, business abroad and where he is going.

    They didn't have cause to demand a name/address/business so nothing was done wrong. If you have nothing to hide, why not hide what you don't have to hide?

    Live Free or Die: There ARE worse things that death.
    I'm not saying you are wrong in your right to OC. I think it's wrong to do so going out armed, IDless and video taping yourself looking for a response.

    It's just MHO, but I believe we have a right to OC, but need to carry ID, so that when the sheeple do get spooked and LEO does respond we get IDed and released.

    I do believe the LEO in the video was wrong about his use of profanity, VERY unprofessional on his part.
    "Without fear there can be no Courage!"

  7. #22
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    27,894
    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    That is the point! You cannot tell the difference between a thug and a law abiding citizen.
    ... implying that visibility of a gun, by itself, is an overtly threatening action and justifies police response. Hm. Interesting.

    It is the responsibility of police to determine if the call is unjustified, not the citizen.
    We're all citizens. We all have responsibility to obtain the civilization we seek. When we abdicate the responsibility to think, then others are going to think for us. This was the point.

    Yes, police have a responsibility to nip abuse in the bud, when it comes down the pike. But the average biped still has a brain. He/she should take it out for a spin, once in awhile. It'll do a body good. We'd have far less thuggish behavior as a result of our abdications.

    Providing identification and answering a few simple questions should not be feared and does not portend a police state. Why are some so frightened by police?
    Police shouldn't be feared, you're right.

    But people have a responsibility to be on guard for abuses. Misconstrue it as "fear," if you must.
    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.

  8. #23
    VIP Member Array wmhawth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Western Colorado
    Posts
    4,533
    Looks for trouble, finds it, and then makes a point of being uncooperative when questioned. The spectacle this idiot makes of himself cannot help our image or our cause.

  9. #24
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    27,894
    Quote Originally Posted by Dal1Celt View Post
    I'm stating that you should have ID on you when you are armed ...
    One's actions should drive situations. What papers one has in a wallet don't change that. And, as it turns out, being identified is simple, even if those papers aren't on your person. Not all states demand papers on the person. In those places, that's perfectly law-abiding. IMO, it's absolutely upstanding everywhere, in spite of statutes to the contrary, but that something else entirely.

    Going out armed and without ID is asking for trouble.
    Such a person isn't asking for anything to happen. That's what criminals do.

    This person was walking. In all likelihood, that normal, non-criminal, non-inciting action was going to result in police contact, given the anti-gun attitudes known in that town. But the knowledge of probability doesn't itself incite anything.

    ... video taping yourself trolling for a response.
    Some are mistaking having the ability to record with (non-existent) overt acts to incite a situation worthy of recording. Time to review the video.
    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.

  10. #25
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by ccw9mm View Post
    ... implying that visibility of a gun, by itself, is an overtly threatening action and justifies police response. Hm. Interesting.
    Depends on context, no? Profiling is an important tool.

    We're all citizens. We all have responsibility to obtain the civilization we seek. When we abdicate the responsibility to think, then others are going to think for us. This was the point.
    I don't disagree that some are fightened by guns and call the police for no good reason. That should not eleicit a dismissive response from LEO.

    But people have a responsibility to be on guard for abuses. Misconstrue it "fear" if you must.
    It is praiseworthy to be vigilant; quite another to attempt to entrap LEO into an abuse.

  11. #26
    Member Array doobie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    New Hampster
    Posts
    233
    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    At the beginning!



    The point is the person WANTED a confrontation. It was not someone simply walking down the street. Intent is the key. It is insufficient to review this incident in a vaccuum; that the LEO did not know the plan. Like many of these internet videos, the BP incident comes to mind, the people have the intent for their own selfish reasons to incite an incident. All to often they succeed and their stunts show up and they achieve their fifteen minutes of fame.
    No, the person would have been 1000 times happier if there was no confrontation. I open carry everywhere I go. The question is do I have a video camera on my person in case I'm stopped or not.

    And you know that how? LEO make judgements all the time. In some settings, openly carrying a gun demands scrutiny by the public, even if it is perfectly legal. If you see someone injecting themselves on the street corner it is worthy of investigation. If the man is simply injecting insulin then the identification should take a few seconds. I imagine some would scream harrassment. My rights! My rights!
    Open Carry is 100% legal and the Attorney General has stated in letters the Chiefs of police in the state, "Another person's annoyance and alarm does not override a persons right." As mentioned with RSA 594:2, they had no reason to believe any crime, was or would be happening.

    Do you think the Jewish people in Germany thought, "Well, they want my papers, sure I'll give them my papers. They want my guns, OK, we'll turn them in, it's not like they are going to kill us! They want me to wear a Star of David on my clothing, OK! It's our religious symbol, we'll wear it! They want us to go in these cattle car trains, SURE WHY NOT, they are the police/government, we must always comply with their requests no matter how unjustified we think they are."

    If the recordning device was meant to intimidate the LEO then the LEO should react accordingly.
    Usually the LEOs aren't recorded and a transcript is made of their side of the conversation recreated from a guess based on what was recorded by me, but since this officer so so blatantly belligerent it was kept.




    A person would ot call police unless they had concern. The police have a duty to respond, not dismiss the concerns of the public they serve.
    I have concerns when I go to a park and my kids are forced to hear someone reading from the bible and preaching.

    That is the point! You cannot tell the difference between a thug and a law abiding citizen.The thug is simply walking down the street doing nothing llegal...yet. Profiling is absolutely an important tool in determing further action or investigation.
    If no action has been done; nor any action being done to give a police officer reason to believe a crime, has, is, or will be committed then a THUG is still a law-abiding citizen. They could watch all they wanted, but detaining someone unlawfully in which they have NO REASON to believe they have DONE, are DOING, or will be DOING anything wrong is wrong on their part.

    No, it is not irresponsible. It is the responsibility of police to determine if the call is unjustified, not the citizen.
    Dispatch: The person is walking with a gun?
    911 caller: Yes
    Dispatch: Are they waving it around?
    911 caller: No it is in a holster.
    Dispatch: Are they treatening someone?
    911 caller: No they are just walking on the side of the road by themselves.
    Dispatch: Okay, it sounds like they are doing nothing wrong, we'll send an officer to drive by, but unless the subject gives us reason to believe they are doing anything wrong we can't detain or question them.

    Not very hard. Drive by watch the person for a few minutes, or an hour or two. No need for an unlawful terry stop.

    Providing identification and answering a few simple questions should not be feared and does not portend a police state. Why are some so frightened by police?
    See my above example about Jewish people in Germany. In much shorter words that was part of my family. They didn't live to see the end of the war and were buried in a big pit with countless others. I have respect for police when they are not violating the Rights of the People. When they harass or act in a belligerent or unlawful manor that is what I take issue with.
    Criminals For Gun Control
    Brady's Campaign Pro-Gun Forum

    Member: NRA, PG-NH, GO-NH
    Life Member: JPFO, GOA
    Clubs: LF&GC

  12. #27
    Member Array nikdfish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Person Co. NC
    Posts
    143
    Would folks also call persons of color sitting in a Jim Crow era "whites only" bus station waiting room or lunch counter trolling? Civil rights are civil rights...

    Nick
    Retired FBOP
    NRA Life member

  13. #28
    Member Array doobie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    New Hampster
    Posts
    233
    Quote Originally Posted by wmhawth View Post
    Looks for trouble, finds it, and then makes a point of being uncooperative when questioned. The spectacle this idiot makes of himself cannot help our image or our cause.
    Story about a person walking around doing nothing wrong getting harassed,

    or a story about some thug shooting up a building/school/cars?

    Hmmm, those are about the only stories I ever hear. I think I prefer this one.
    Criminals For Gun Control
    Brady's Campaign Pro-Gun Forum

    Member: NRA, PG-NH, GO-NH
    Life Member: JPFO, GOA
    Clubs: LF&GC

  14. #29
    VIP Member Array wmhawth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Western Colorado
    Posts
    4,533
    Quote Originally Posted by doobie View Post
    Story about a person walking around doing nothing wrong getting harassed,

    or a story about some thug shooting up a building/school/cars?

    Hmmm, those are about the only stories I ever hear. I think I prefer this one.
    You're not making much sense pal.

  15. #30
    Moderator
    Array RETSUPT99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Central Florida
    Posts
    45,346
    What if this guy were to be stopped and questioned while walking down the street without being armed...would that be OK?

    Is it the legal firearm that made the difference?

    How about if he were to wear a Jesus shirt, would that be OK?

    How about if he was black, would that be OK?

    How about if he wore a 'U.S. flag shirt', could he be stopped then?

    Perhaps skipping down the street; stop him for questioning?

    I do have some concerns with individuals who seem to be trolling for problems, but if they are not doing anything illegal, there is no reason for them to be detained. I guess this is a great test for the police to watch but use common sense and abide by the law written in 'black and white'. Anything else on the part of LE would/could be construed as 'power hungry'. Without this power being 'checked' once in a while, we will develop into a nation of, "Your papers please!"

    There's my $..02
    The last Blood Moon Tetrad for this millennium starts in April 2014 and ends in September 2015...according to NASA.

    ***********************************
    Certified Glock Armorer
    NRA Life Member[/B]

Page 2 of 17 FirstFirst 12345612 ... 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
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Nullification: Twenty-five States With Firearms Freedom Acts
    By mrreynolds in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: April 8th, 2010, 12:58 PM
  2. July 3rd: Hooksett, NH: Open Carry Litter Clean Up
    By doobie in forum Open Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: July 7th, 2009, 09:45 PM
  3. Acts 2:38
    By First Sgt in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: January 23rd, 2009, 06:51 PM
  4. Comparison between law abiding citizen and criminal
    By celticredneck in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: December 2nd, 2008, 08:31 AM
  5. Article: Criminal Protection Acts (Ohio)
    By fortysomething in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: December 28th, 2005, 07:28 PM

Search tags for this page

hooksett issues
,
wicked guns hooksett nh
,
wicked weaponry
,
wicked weaponry facebook
,
wicked weaponry hooksett
,

wicked weaponry hooksett nh

,
wicked weaponry in hooksett nh
,
wicked weaponry in nh
,

wicked weaponry nh

,
wicked weapons hooksett nh
,
wicked weapons nh
,
wickedweaponry
Click on a term to search for related topics.