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; Holdcard "I'm also curious why the officer was allowed to use profanity?" It's the Amendment that comes right before the 2nd one....

Page 8 of 17 FirstFirst ... 456789101112 ... LastLast
Results 106 to 120 of 255

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

  1. #106
    Administrator
    Array QKShooter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Off Of The X
    Posts
    35,311
    Holdcard
    "I'm also curious why the officer was allowed to use profanity?"

    It's the Amendment that comes right before the 2nd one.

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #107
    VIP Member Array wmhawth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Western Colorado
    Posts
    4,408
    Quote Originally Posted by Holdcard View Post
    After reading this thread let me pose a question. What exactly did the original poster do that was illegal?

    I'm not asking for your opinion on how it could have been handled or whether or not you thought he was/was not being cooperative. I'm asking about the law.

    Was he breaking the law by carrying his firearm?
    Was he breaking the law when he did not produce identification?
    Was he breaking the law when he did not answer probing questions?
    Was he breaking the law when he asked why he was being stopped?
    Holdcard
    Holdcard...We have already established that the OP didn't break the law. That doesn't alter the fact that his actions were foolish, provocative, and not in the best interest of gunowners who value the right to carry openly or concealed. I'm not going to put Doobie in jail, but neither am I going to sanction his selfish and childish behavior.

  4. #108
    Member Array Heimer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    The Evergreen State.
    Posts
    75
    Doobie: I'm with ya man, but, I think your method is a bit crude.

    Right from the start you take a confrontational stance with the officer.

    I think had you shown common courtesy and respect to the officer you would have had a much more favorable experience and outcome with the officer.

    Also, I don't think you'd have nearly the number of posters busting your balls, as you do now.

    Instead of saying: I don't have to show you any ID!

    Saying: I'm sorry Sir but I do not have ID on my person, and beeing that I have not commited any crime/s I am not required by law to show you any.

    Kill em with kindness.

    I think we all agree that you're well within your rights. However, I think we would all also agree, that we should make every effort to paint ourselves in a postive light when dealing with the public and police as lawfull gun owners and carriers.

    Just my .02
    I work to buy guns. Not really, but sometimes it feels that way..

  5. #109
    VIP Member Array Thanis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    2,356
    Guy talking with a camera looking around in a semi-frantic manner with an OC in an area know to be less than pro-OC deserves a LE stop. Then watches PD watching him, standing around not doing much. What could the LEO do. If there had been a shooting, they would have been roasted if they did not do what they did.

    I have nothing (other then how asinine everything seams) aginst OC (I sometimes OC), nor do I think the guy did in the vid did anything "wrong." I have no problem with what the PD did. That is what I'm trying to get across, it is much to do about nothing and proves nothing about OC.

    Those in NH should have a 3rd party hidden camera style filming the OC carrying. It seams the confrontation is set up, as most of the time when I watch the various vids, the OC looks unatural, for a lack of a better term trolling.

    Park the car, walk a block without looking like an old western cowboy waiting for a showdown, then I think something of value has been shown. I have seen vids like that, and I think they are better then the one in OP.

    Keep in mind, I'm an occasional OC, so it is not the OC I have a problem with.
    NRA Member
    S&W 642 (no-lock) with .38 Spl +P 135 GR Gold GDHP
    Glock G31 & G33 with .357 Sig 125 GR. SXT Winchester Ranger

  6. #110
    VIP Member
    Array Miggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Miami-Dade, FL
    Posts
    6,258
    Quote Originally Posted by Holdcard View Post
    After reading this thread let me pose a question. What exactly did the original poster do that was illegal?
    Nothing, about the only thing he can be accused of creating anti gunners. Plus making other gun owners think twice about supporting OC.

    I would be really impressed if the OP would go to a state that has no Open Carry law, confront a police officer, in the manner seen in the video, get arrested and go to trial in which with your articulate manner you will convince the judge that OC is a right covered under the Second Amendment and the Legislature will see the brightness of his insight and will fix the laws.
    You have to make the shot when fire is smoking, people are screaming, dogs are barking, kids are crying and sirens are coming.
    Randy Cain.

    Ego will kill you. Leave it at home.
    Signed: Me!

  7. #111
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by Holdcard View Post
    After reading this thread let me pose a question. What exactly did the original poster do that was illegal?
    No one is claiming he did anything illegal.

    I'm not asking for your opinion on how it could have been handled or whether or not you thought he was/was not being cooperative. I'm asking about the law.
    No, you're not. You know very well that open carry is legal in that jurisdiction.

    Was he breaking the law by carrying his firearm?
    Was he breaking the law when he did not produce identification?
    Was he breaking the law when he did not answer probing questions?
    Was he breaking the law when he asked why he was being stopped?
    You keep referring as to whether he broke the law. That is not the issue at all.

    Whether or not you agree with his methods, I don't believe he broke any laws in this state/county/city otherwise he would probably have been ticketed or arrested.
    That's exactly correct. He wasn't arrested. He wasn't detained. The important part of you comment is 'agree with his methods.' That implies he was trying to accomplish something. And that something was to anatagonize LEO and cause a scene that he could record and post on the internet. It is childish behavior and damages law abiding, ADULT, gun carriers.

    I'm really not attempting to take sides here, I'm just curious as to what law he broke, or what reasonable suspicion the officer had to stop him. I'm also curious why the officer was allowed to use profanity?
    The reasonable suspicion was well articulated by SergeantMac. Allowed to use profanity? What does that mean? Act like a child; get treated as such.

    In my mind this is not only about 2nd amendment issues.
    This has nothing to do with the Second Amendment.

    What information must I legally give when an officer has stopped me for - walking my dog, driving a red van, eating lunch, talking on my cell phone while walking to my car after eating, pushing a cart full of groceries, wearing a specific pair of shoes, having short hair, wearing a specific color shirt or pants?
    If you act like a juvenile then society will mandate exactly the information you must give. Why go down that route? Simply answer questions and provide reasonable information; i.e. act like an adult and your question becomes irrelevant. Act like a petulant child and society will demand legal responsibility.

    Yes I know the list is ridiculous but since legally carrying a firearm is no more illegal than anything on my list, so what gives and what's next?
    No, its not illegal but it poses far more potential risk than the style of shoes you wear. Certainly the difference is obvious, no?

    What's next? What do you have in mind? This has nothing to do with a slippery slope. It has everything to do with disciplining children, educating them as to the error of their ways and trying to get them to act like adults so as not to show gun carriers in a bad light.

    Just because someone wears a hooded sweatshirt on a cold day does not necessarily mean the person should be stopped and questioned. Or does it?
    How is that related to someone planning for a confrontation, creating a situation, and recording it to generate controversy on the internet?

  8. #112
    VIP Member
    Array CopperKnight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Spokane area, WA
    Posts
    6,742
    Quote Originally Posted by doobie View Post
    I've been detained 5 times in under 2 months.
    Because you are looking to be "detained". I wouldn't describe this incident as "detained". You were always free to go, as the officer indicated as soon as you asked.
    Quote Originally Posted by doobie View Post
    A man with a gun in itself is not illegal; it is my RIGHT. Another person's annoyance and alarm does not OVERIDE my RIGHT.
    Which is why you weren't arrested.
    Quote Originally Posted by doobie View Post
    If the officer has reason to believe I've done something wrong or am doing something wrong, or WILL do something wrong, then YES he had a responsibility to stop me.
    I believe SgtMac and HotGuns have clearly indicated why the officer's contacted you.
    Quote Originally Posted by doobie View Post
    He refused to answer what I was doing wrong with anything other than, "what are you doing in our <censoring> town with a <censoring> gun?"
    You weren't doing anything "wrong", but you were (as previously indicated) clearly acting in a way that caused you to be looked into. The profanity may have been unneccesary by the officer, but it has NOTHING to do with your rights.

    You gave an honest description of your actions and, as you should have expected, you got honest answers from the Defensive Carry community. You know how much those of us here are serious about our rights and ability to carry a gun to defend ourselves. I suggest you take these comments and advice to heart and look at yourself and your actions through the eyes of others who are as serious about selfdefense and rights as you are.
    eschew obfuscation

    The only thing that stops bad guys with guns is good guys with guns. SgtD

  9. #113
    kpw
    kpw is offline
    VIP Member Array kpw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    2,149
    Quote Originally Posted by wmhawth View Post
    I think we have a responsibility to each other not to pollute the stream for others. Doobie may think he is helping our cause by his strange method of "exercising his rights", but in actuality he stokes the engines of the likes of the Brady Batch and others of their ilk. I wish he wouldn't use his rights to endanger my rights.
    So protecting your rights are more important than exercising his? Sorry, but they are the same rights for everyone. Our rights don't trump anyone else's.
    The Bradys and such have all the fuel they need until they can fix the world in their view. The doobies of the world don't really have that much of an impact either way.

    We all have the same right to do what doobie did. We choose not to for our own reasons and disapprove of those that choose a different path because we think it endangers our favorite rights. We have a right not to be harrassed when doing nothing illegal. As minor as it was, that is what the officer was doing. Don't think so? How many here would have tolerated behavior and profanities like that from a civilian without calling it harrassment? The officer has a job to do so talk to him, ask questions if he likes but don't get upset because doobie didn't bend over for him. There is always a point where someone will stand their ground but some give up a whole lot before they get there. Others, not so much.
    "In a republic this rule ought to be observed: that the majority should not have the predominant power." -
    -- Marcus Tullius Cicero

  10. #114
    Administrator
    Array QKShooter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Off Of The X
    Posts
    35,311

    Post doobie

    Have you thought about getting together with some other like minded citizens?

    Have an outdoor lunch or a BBQ in a legal public area.

    Let law enforcement as well as the local news media know ahead of time that folks attending that function will be there with their families, friends, and will be legally open carrying their personal firearms in order to reaffirm their State right to do so.

    Make certain that the event stays peaceful and with folks on their very best behavior and minus any beer or alcohol.

    That way you may actually garner some positive news coverage in combination with promoting your cause and simultaneously educating Law Enforcement as well as the general public that visible firearms do not necessarily equate with anything negative, harmful, threatening, or dangerous.

    And Law Enforcement will certainly appreciate the Heads Up.
    Liberty Over Tyranny Μολὼν λαβέ

  11. #115
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by kpw View Post
    We have a right not to be harrassed when doing nothing illegal.
    Just curious, but where is that 'right' described and protected?

    As minor as it was, that is what the officer was doing. Don't think so? How many here would have tolerated behavior and profanities like that from a civilian without calling it harrassment? The officer has a job to do so talk to him, ask questions if he likes but don't get upset because doobie didn't bend over for him. There is always a point where someone will stand their ground but some give up a whole lot before they get there. Others, not so much.
    Most adult, law abiding citizens cooperate with law enforcement. The people that fear police constantly accuse them of harrassment or abuse when the vast majority of people applaud their efforts.

    When people act out, especially when allowed to carry a gun in public, then it is the duty of police to ensure the safety of the public. And when someone is belligerent, uncooperative and acting like a toddler then they should be corrected. It is the responsibility of adults to teach children how to become mature adults. In this case, this behavior damages our rights.

    It is the people who complain loudest about 'papers please' are exactly the ones that will cause us to enact laws that required showing identification.

    It is sad that some take our rights for granted, not realizing it is society that enables protection of those rights.

    A right abused is a right lost.

  12. #116
    kpw
    kpw is offline
    VIP Member Array kpw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    2,149
    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    It is childish behavior and damages law abiding, ADULT, gun carriers.

    The reasonable suspicion was well articulated by SergeantMac. Allowed to use profanity? What does that mean? Act like a child; get treated as such.

    If you act like a juvenile then society will mandate exactly the information you must give. Why go down that route? Simply answer questions and provide reasonable information; i.e. act like an adult and your question becomes irrelevant. Act like a petulant child and society will demand legal responsibility.

    It has everything to do with disciplining children, educating them as to the error of their ways and trying to get them to act like adults so as not to show gun carriers in a bad light.
    SD, the thing is, we are not children and LE is not our daddy. As childish as anyone thinks doobie's behavior may be, he was perfectly legal to act that way. Society has mandated what he could and could not do and he acted within those limits. We just don't like it.

    As much as I like Sergeant Mac's approach, his definition of RAS might be a little wanting in some states. His approach seems more than reasonable but I'm sure there are some that would take offence to it anyway.

    I keep writing like I'm sticking up for doobie's methods, I'm not. Just his right to do as he feels is right within society's limits. As for harming gun owners, I could find a lot more harm being done at a public range or the gun counter at a sporting store.
    "In a republic this rule ought to be observed: that the majority should not have the predominant power." -
    -- Marcus Tullius Cicero

  13. #117
    VIP Member Array mlr1m's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    okla
    Posts
    4,298
    Quote Originally Posted by wmhawth View Post
    Holdcard...We have already established that the OP didn't break the law. That doesn't alter the fact that his actions were foolish, provocative, and not in the best interest of gunowners who value the right to carry openly or concealed. I'm not going to put Doobie in jail, but neither am I going to sanction his selfish and childish behavior.
    Just like the folks that marched for their civil rights. Trouble makers. If you have a right to do something why upset the folks by exercising that right? No need to rub their noses in it. You should be happy to sit quietly and know that you have a right. Lets don't spoil things by exercising our rights in public.

    Michael

  14. #118
    VIP Member Array mlr1m's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    okla
    Posts
    4,298
    Quote Originally Posted by QKShooter View Post
    Have you thought about getting together with some other like minded citizens?

    Have an outdoor lunch or a BBQ in a legal public area.

    Let law enforcement as well as the local news media know ahead of time that folks attending that function will be there with their families, friends, and will be legally open carrying their personal firearms in order to reaffirm their State right to do so.

    Make certain that the event stays peaceful and with folks on their very best behavior and minus any beer or alcohol.

    That way you may actually garner some positive news coverage in combination with promoting your cause and simultaneously educating Law Enforcement as well as the general public that visible firearms do not necessarily equate with anything negative, harmful, threatening, or dangerous.

    And Law Enforcement will certainly appreciate the Heads Up.
    + 1000000 ! A great idea!

    Michael

  15. #119
    Senior Member Array highvoltage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    NH
    Posts
    1,121
    There are two completely opposite ways to approach something. One is to quietly go about your business and draw as little attention as possible. The other is to make yourself known and draw as much attention as possible to your cause. This post seems to be about the latter.

  16. #120
    kpw
    kpw is offline
    VIP Member Array kpw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    2,149
    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    Just curious, but where is that 'right' described and protected?
    Here in PA it is 18 Pa.C.S. § 2709

    Most adult, law abiding citizens cooperate with law enforcement. The people that fear police constantly accuse them of harrassment or abuse when the vast majority of people applaud their efforts.
    There is a difference between cooperation and invasion of privacy. Your definition clearly differs from others. Some do fear the police for whatever reason and sometimes it has been justified. No?

    When people act out, especially when allowed to carry a gun in public, then it is the duty of police to ensure the safety of the public. And when someone is belligerent, uncooperative and acting like a toddler then they should be corrected. It is the responsibility of adults to teach children how to become mature adults. In this case, this behavior damages our rights.
    I didn't see any belligerance on doobie's part in the video. Did you? I saw a man that didn't want to answer questions he didn't have to. I saw no rudeness at all unless you call saying no to LE rude.

    It is the people who complain loudest about 'papers please' are exactly the ones that will cause us to enact laws that required showing identification.
    How so?
    "In a republic this rule ought to be observed: that the majority should not have the predominant power." -
    -- Marcus Tullius Cicero

Page 8 of 17 FirstFirst ... 456789101112 ... LastLast

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, 11:58 AM
  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, 08:45 PM
  3. Acts 2:38
    By First Sgt in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: January 23rd, 2009, 05:51 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, 07:31 AM
  5. Article: Criminal Protection Acts (Ohio)
    By fortysomething in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: December 28th, 2005, 06:28 PM

Search tags for this page

hooksett issues
,
wicked guns hooksett nh
,
wicked weapon nh
,
wicked weaponry
,
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.