Dang, Sergeant Mac, that's more words than I've ever seen you type before... but very balanced and well said.
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; Dang, Sergeant Mac, that's more words than I've ever seen you type before... but very balanced and well said....
Dang, Sergeant Mac, that's more words than I've ever seen you type before... but very balanced and well said.
Do you honestly believe that when blacks first marched for equal rights they wern't looking for attention? Then needed attention to get results. Would voting right laws ever have been enacted without the actions of alot of people demanding their rights?
Where we we be now if Rosa Parks hadn't decided to cause a bit of trouble?
So everyone agrees doobie was doing nothing illegal, right? Was he impolite, rude or offensive in stating his rights and refusing to give information that he wasn't required to? I don't think he was, not from what I saw. Was the officer? Yes.
Many of us may not care for his method or intent, maybe myself included, but he is doing what he believes in and that is his right wether we like it or not. I'm happy that, so far, the majority whim doesn't override our rights, even the ones I don't care for. I fear the day this country becomes a mass of butt-kissing wimps with bar code tatoos on our forheads. Just think, you'd never forget your ID that way. Trouble makers would be easy to track and round up when need be.
"In a republic this rule ought to be observed: that the majority should not have the predominant power." -
-- Marcus Tullius Cicero
please reasonably articulate suspicion so that anyone here will be able to understand what crime he was committing
Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119, ----, 120
S.Ct. 673, 675, 145 L.Ed.2d 570 (2000). To make a showing that he or she in fact had reasonable
suspicion, "[t]he officer must be able to articulate more than an 'inchoate and unparticularized
suspicion or "hunch" of criminal activity.' "Id. (quoting Terry, 392 U.S. at 27, 88 S.Ct. 1868)..
instructive. In United States
v. Dudley, 854 F.Supp. 570, 580 (S.D.Ind.1994), the court held that a radio call alerting police to
the presence of two people in a vehicle with firearms did not provide reasonable suspicion of a
crime justifying the stop, because possession of firearms is not, generally speaking, a crime. The
court discussed in more detail the issues of firearms licensing and whether possession of the
firearm itself was a crime:
[Officer] Martin's impetus to investigate the Dudleys was a radio call alerting him
to the presence of two people at the truckstop in possession of some guns. Of
course the possession of firearms is not, generally speaking, a crime unless you
happen to be a convicted felon, the firearms are otherwise illegal, or you are not
licensed to possess the gun. Martin, presumably not clairvoyant, could not have
known, and did not know, the Dudleys and their guns met all three of these
criteria. In fact he testified he had absolutely no knowledge, or suspicion, that the
Dudleys were engaged in any criminal activity until he discovered the first sawedoff
shotgun. A telephone report of citizens possessing guns or merely engaging in
"suspicious" activity, standing alone, cannot amount to reasonable suspicion of
The court further noted that "if the stop itself is unlawful, neither Terry nor Michigan v.
Long authorizes the police to search the suspects or the suspect's vehicle for weapons, even if the
officers reasonably fear for their safety."
a tip that a celebrant at a festival was carrying a
pistol was not sufficient to justify a stop of the celebrant. See United States v. Ubiles, 224 F.3d
213 (3rd Cir. 2000). "For all the officers knew, even assuming the reliability of the tip that
Ubiles possessed a gun, Ubiles was another celebrant lawfully exercising his right under
Virgin Island law to possess a gun in public." Id. at 218.
This situation is no different than if Lockhart had told the officers that Ubiles
possessed a wallet, a perfectly legal act in the Virgin Islands, and the
authorities had stopped him for this reason. Though a search of that wallet
may have revealed counterfeit bills-the possession of which is a crime under
United States law, see 18 U.S.C. § 471-72-the officers would have had no
justification to stop Ubiles based merely on information that he possessed a
wallet, and the seized bills would have to be suppressed.
As with the case of the hypothetical wallet holder, the authorities here had no
reason to know that Ubiles's gun was unregistered or that the serial number had
been altered. Moreover, they did not testify that it is common for people who
carry guns in crowds-or crowds of drunken people-to either alter or fail to register
their guns, or to use them to commit further crimes-all of which would be
additional evidence giving rise to the inference that Ubiles may have illegally
possessed his gun or that criminal activity was afoot. Therefore, as with the wallet
holder, the authorities in this case had no reason to believe that Ubiles was engaged in or planning or preparing to engage in illegal activity due to his
possession of a gun. Accordingly, in stopping him and subsequently searching
him, the authorities infringed on Ubiles Fourth Amendment rights.
Id. at 218 (emphasis added
Doobie...I just do not get it.
Near the end of the last video you referred to a person in red pick-up that conversed with you about why the policeman stopped you and responded to him saying, "Well, I guess he wanted to harass me."
I don't get it...The cop stated he was just doing his duty after someone reported seeing a MAN WITH A GUN. He stated over and over, "I'm just doing my job", I don't have a problem with you carrying, it's your right".
Where exactly was the harassment???
To me this whole thing just seems like a waste of resources.
Here is a different perspective, one that hasn't been posted yet.
A guy is lawfully carrying a gun. Somebody calls it in because they are scared or not used to it, but they assume the worst.
The Dispatcher calls on me on the radio while I am sitting in a patrol car and all I hear is that somebody has called " man with a gun, walking down the street x at the x block, check to your own satisfaction" a term that is used alot on the radio here...which means basically means "do what you feel you need to do, handle it like you think it ought to be handled."
So maybe I am sitting in a car observing traffic on the side of the rode, maybe running Radar in a spot known for excessive speeding. Now I get a call to call check out a man with a gun walking down the street. I may even be out with a car or even eating, or trying to eat and now I have to get up, leave my food there and go.
Now, I've got to stop what I am doing and go to this call. No big deal, that's what I get paid for right?
So I find this guy, observe that all he is doing is walking from point A to point B and so far,nothing seems out of place, other than the fact that he is openly carrying a gun. Knowing the laws, I know that single fact alone, being a legal activity, is no real cause for concern. He does not appear to be doing anything suspicious other than the fact that he is walking down the street trying not to run into something while he is video taping himself and talking to himself. Not behavior that we see everyday,but still no harm done.
So, do I stop and question him? Do I roll by him and tell dispatch that he is OK?
Do I know for sure what is up?
No.. I do not.
For all I know he could be walking to rob a store, walk into a school and start shooting, or he could be meeting his ex girlfriends boyfriend for a duel that starts at high noon. Of it could be that he is just walking to a restaurant because he is hungry, maybe he is walking to visit his Mom that lives down the block or maybe its such a pretty day that he just goes out for a walk and thinking about the recent crime he's read about in the Sunday edition of the paper he decides to strap his gun on before going.
The fact is...I don't know until I stop and talk to him.
So I do that. I stop, identify myself as Officer Friendly and ask him whats up.
What he may not know is that I am listening to his speech, the manner in which he says it, his body language, how his eyes move,even his posture.I'll be watching his hands and I will note the gun, the ammo that he is carrying and even the holster.
I ask a few basic questions like name, where he is from, where he is going. Depending on his response, I may just say OK, I got a call on you, just had to check,be careful and have a good day.
Or it could be that you feel like asserting your right to carry but you refuse to give me your name because I am just another" jack booted thug" trying to harass you. Now, I ask for your I.D. and you refuse to give it to me, because you read the state statutes that say an officer cannot require you to give it to them.
Knowing that you don't have to give it to me, I don't say much. I note that you are carrying a gun as a "responsible citizen", but you don't want to tell me who you are.I observe that you really aren't dangerous in any way, that you probably don't have any intent to do wrong, but that you are claiming to be a responsible citizen,yet you insist on refusing to help me do my job and help me to get on my way to do something more important. I also see you video taping the whole encounter and I know that whatever I say will more than likely be cast on every web site on the Internet and millions of people around the country will be talking about this very thing for weeks to come.
And here I am, a very pro gun cop, that likes the idea of everyone being armed so that they can protect themselves, so much so that I teach people how do it correctly and safely quite often. And here you are supposedly trying to educate people by wearing your gun where they can see it, yet, you are acting not much different than the thugs that I take to jail when it comes to communication. You are asserting your right to be a jerk and for what cause? To educate me? To educate the people that have gathered to watch and listen to how you respond to my questions?
I don't see it as being a good diplomat for the cause. I just see it as being less than smart, because you aren't aware enough to know an ally when you see one,or maybe you wont answer a simple question because you want to be the next hot topic on the Internet channels, and you haven't yet figured out that if you want to be effective at what you do, that actions speak louder than words and that what you think is a "noble cause"and you refusing to communicate is only making my job harder.
On the other hand...
If I don't stop you and check you out and you do go stupid and kill somebody, the first thing that the public is going to say is "where were the cops when we needed them"?or "why couldnt the cops do something"?, just like they do when anything bad happens. When the investigation begins and its found out that I just drove by without questioning you, what are the relatives of the people you just killed going to think? The first thing that they will think is that I didn't properly do my job and they would be correct.
So thankyou for contributing to just one of a million ways that a cop is danged if he does and danged if he dont.
As for me...
I just see it as a waste of time.The people watching you see you as another radical wearing a gun, and that image will be stuck in their brain until someone else gives them another image of a gun owner, either good or bad.
And just exactly how this is "helping" to "educate" everyone and make things better for us all?
Freedom of speech means nothing to those who are too weak in their convictions to speak out against the evil that eating the heart of a nation like a cancer- Billy Graham
AR. CHL Instr. 07/02 FFL
Maker of cool things to shoot
I certainly don't agree with walking down the street while open carrying and video taping yourself, but if I interpret the video correctly, the OP was walking from his car to a restaraunt or something. I see nothing wrong with that, but I would choose a voice recorder over a video camera. LEOs are required to respond to calls, especially man with a gun calls. The caller may not provide all the details and for all the police know, it could be a threatening person waving a gun around, or someone peacefully walking down the street open carrying.
Open carry is still considered uncommon and unnatural, especially in places like New Hampshire because its location is surrounded by states with restrictive gun laws. I personally would not have done what Doobie did, but to each his own.
USMC rule # 23 of gunfighting: Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everyone you meet.
I am the God fearing, gun toting, flag waving conservative you were warned about!
1. Complaint(s) indicating alarm by members of the public. Whether that alarm was justified or not cannot be determined without investigation.
2. Officer's visual confirmation that there was, indeed, a man carrying a gun while walking down the sidewalk. (not a crime in and of itself, but confirms that complainants are not hallucinating, or mistaken).
3. (like it or not) Unusual appearance and behavior.
4. CHANGE IN DEMEANOR/BEHAVIOR upon spotting police. Most people do not do this. Most people are not that aware of police presence, and, even if they are, most do not assume the police are there FOR THEM. Criminals, on the other hand, are ACUTELY aware, and have guilty consciences (at least about getting caught).
5. Makes cell phone call upon seeing officer approaching, then hangs up before officer makes contact. This heightens suspicion, and, while it might be completely innocent, is nonetheless consistent with what a criminal might do - call for backup or escape assistance.
6. Evasive responses to questions. Most innocent people do not do this. Most criminals do.
Look, no ONE thing here adds up to RAS. But the standard is not ONE thing, it's the "totality of the circumstances"....which DOES, in my opinion, add up to RAS - closer to the bottom than the top end, but within the spectrum nonetheless.
I personally would have probably handled it differently, more casually.
"Hey, can I talk to you for a minute?"
"Can you do me a favor and keep your hand away from your gun? I'll do the same so we can both be more comfortable."
"We've received numerous complaints about a man with a gun walking down the sidewalk, and apparently, that's you. What's going on? You're not in any trouble right now, I just want to make sure there isn't any trouble brewing."
"Are you having any conflicts with anyone else right now?"
"Is there anything that precludes you from legally possessing a handgun?"
"I'd like to check to be sure that's the case. Could I see some I.D.?"
^ Sergeant Mac, thanks. Saying it's suspicious and articulable isn't the same as explaining why it's suspicious and articulable. I appreciate the response. Now it makes sense why some folks are more adamant.
Sgt Mac and HOTGUNS both hit it on the head.
Irresponsible gun ownership here is what I am seeing Doobie, whatever your problems with the local cops are - find another way to deal with it. You are giving US a bad name.
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."