DWeezy

That is what I thought. You know dang well, that is what he would have done to him. If he was done with him, he should have said, you are free to go.

joshe

The LEO's attitude is a prime example of why a lot of good people have strong negative feelings about police (just because you have a badge,it doesn't mean you have to be a jerk to everyone you interact with) but instead of taking the high ground the camera man had to go and act like a child.

punk rocka

Well we will just have to disagree then, because when you quickly put yourself within a few feet of an officer, and other involved parties, whom are in the middle of a discussion, arrest or some other form of police interaction, I call that inserting yourself to the situation. In fact the first thing the officer said to the guy after he comes up is "you are trespassing too", he hasn't even seen the gun yet, but now he has to be prepared to deal with him as well. The LEO didn't single this guy out and start in on him. He didn't come up and start questioning the guy. In fact, if that individual had not brought himself into the situation, his video would have been much less interesting as the police wouldn't have appeared in it at all or they would have been at such a distance that it would have been a non-event. I think it's highly unrealistic to expect any officer to "ignore" someone who intentionally puts themselves in close proximity to the business he is conducting, especially if they have a visible firearm. Notice I am not saying because they have a firearm since he now has to be dealt with anyway, but it absolutely does create an additional issue for the officer.

LEOs get shot and killed in the line of duty every day and the notion that just because it is a "legal exercise of your right" to OC a firearm that this should provide some blanket protection, even when putting yourself in a close proximity to police business that doesn't involve you, is exactly why you someday won't be able to enjoy that right. Somewhere down the line that type of situation will help to create, or further, some legal argument against OC.

DWeezy

Since you are so concerned about the safety of LEO's, why don't you give up your weapons now and make them feel safer. I myself will be keeping mine and carrying it however I want, as long as the way I carry it is legal. I can see I wouldn't be getting any help from a lot of you, if the police were harassing me. Not even a video recording! I guess that is why I carry my own video and audio device.

BuckeyeEric

Really! Oc'ng should be as natural as wearing a coat if you are cold. I have the right to be warm, dont I?

Majorlk

Sounds good to me!

__________________
An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life. - Robert A. Heinlein

Random

Just because it's not right (discriminating against a group based on the actions of an individual) doesn't mean it doesn't happen. And people who carry guns are a group who are generally mistrusted by the sheep already.

Random

To a lot of the masses, it's worse. SHOULD has nothing to do with it. We SHOULD live in a world where we don't have to fear violent crime, but we don't.

Deal with the facts, not what SHOULD be.

Chiller2

Actually I think it goes back to the civil rights movement it was put in place to keep the "wrong" kind of people from gathering in a group with guns.

Rob P.

Ok, I watched the video. I read every post in this thread. I waited until now to post after thinking about what I wanted to say.

Some of you who have posted in this thread are wrong. You know you are wrong but you are refusing to admit it. So you are continuing to push your incorrect views forward to avoid having to face that truth.

The video shows this:

1) A cop was talking to someone (citizen 1 ) about potential trespass. WHERE is not important to the discussion. Especially if this did not occur in "your" home state where the laws are different.

2) An uninvolved person (citizen 2) walks up and start to film the interaction between the cop and citizen 1. There is NOTHING "wrong" or "illegal" or "idiotic" about this. This happens all the time and can be the basis for news coverage for oppressive acts by the gov. We ENCOURAGE this because it keeps gov on its toes and on the straight and narrow.

3) The cop notices that citizen 2 is OC'ing a firearm. The cop immediately breaks off his interview with citizen 1 and begins to question citizen 2 about ID. Citizen 2 does NOT have to show ID by law.

4) Cop realizes that he is in the wrong and ends interview with citizen 2. However, at the end of the interview cop says something which can be misconstrued as citizen 2 being "detained."

5) Citizen 2 follows cop and asks the question "am I being detained" repeatedly because cop is not responding. Citizen 2 is REQUIRED to ask this question in order to know if he is free to leave without legal repercussion. Again, this is NOT "idiotic" or the act of a "moron." I (and I'm positive you do also) need to know if I am free to leave at the end of any encounter with LEO. If I am unsure I WILL ask until I have assured myself that I am free to leave by either the cop leaving first, the cop telling me I can go, or the cop ignoring my repeated questions to the point only a dimwit wouldn't understand and further questioning would lead to arrest for interfering with an officer in the performance of his duties.

So, given those FACTS citizen 2 did nothing moronic in the video. Cop started on the wrong course of action, caught himself, and fixed his mistake before it got out of hand.

My only remaining question is whether anyone else saw the car drive over the curb/sidewalk when making a left turn?