Peace Officers respond to open carry

[Jerrrrstanley]

We got 40 hours in the academy, get a 4 or so hour class every 2 years for recerts, and every time there is a court case that changes our protocol we have to read it and sign off on it.
I think some of the problem is in our acamedy during officer survival training it is all worst case scenarios when it comes to guns. Every scenerio with a gun the trainee is shot because its fun to shoot trainees. Son it is somewhat engrained someone with a gun is going to kill you.

 

[valkyries]

The men practicing open carry were not breaking any laws. I get it, someone called the police because they were concerned. The cops have the duty to stop and check on the situation. After thinking about it I could even see its ok to check their IDs. They could be felons, maybe they have warrants or are barred from owning guns. I also think the cop went a bit overboard saying if you go for a gun Im going to shoot you right in the head. The vast majority of us are not criminals. Maybe if more of us carried openly the public would not be so concerned when they see a gun and call the police, if a lot of us were doing it the police simply would not have time to check every ones id. I also think it would be a great way to deter crime. Who is going to commit a crime in public if they know many of people around them are armed?

 

[0311 Hesco]

I personally find the "shoot you in the head" comment not really that offensive. The officer said IF you reach for the gun, THEN I will shoot you in the head. He was clarifying dominance in the situation as well as consequences for actions. Verbal Judo is a great skill to possess as a cop. Maybe a little harsh for the scenario, but the point was clearly made. I might have told him the same thing depending on the situation. I wasn't there so I won't judge him. We do have a camera but that only tells MOST of the story, not all.

 

[pmclaine]

Serious topics aside someone needs to give him a copy of the standard phonetic alphabet to learn and use.

 

[KYpatriot]

Officers receive training in Constitutional law, I am trying to remember how many hours that class was in my academy. The reality is that most officers are sucked into the mentality that IF someone calls in a complaint, they HAVE to investigate it. When I used to be on patrol I would routinely pull a call, phone the complaintant and let them know why I wouldn't be responding. Officers often use the fact that someone called in a complaint to justify stopping someone, regardless of it's legality. This is a result of poor training, erosion of independent thinking, the "gung ho" mentality and administrators.

I have had administrators advise me to blatantly violate people's rights. Even when confronted with that fact, they are defiant that it is the "right" thing to do. Case in point: a citizen had issue with a city council member and showed up at any public event the council member did with cleverly worded signs (Council member X is a stupid idiot!). This citizen would sit outside the council member's office with his signs, quietly holding them. Of course the council member complained to the Chief and it wormed its way down to me where I was told to contact the citizen and tell him to stop. I refused, reminded them of that pesky 1st ammendment. It got a little heated but in the end they figured it out.

I work on a unit that requires a pretty firm grasp of the 4th ammendment. I occasionally stop to back up some patrol officers and have to pull them aside to talk to them about the legality of their decisions. Everyone needs reminding sometimes that just because we may not personally like something doesn't mean it is illegal.

Just my thoughts.

If only every officer had this much integrity. Thank you sir.

 

[OUinLA]

I thought the cold handled it great. They did what they needed to do and that's it. If you're going to open carry to draw attention you're going to draw attention. Be prepared to be questioned.

Now a pistol on the hip. Who cares? 99.9 percent of the police will not bother you. I have never even asked to see a CCL license on those guys.

 

[j.l.w.]

Seems like we have a lot of cops here, I am wondering if you guys receive any classes on the Constitution and Bill or Rights when you are training or joining a department? Not a sarcastic Q just curious. ON the open carry, there should be no law regulating this at all in my opinion, like some of the older ones here I also carried my 22 to a field next to RT 1 I. NJ to shoot critters, about a half mile walk through my neighborhood, never a second look, today a kid would be gunned down in that same neighborhood by the swat team. I just wish they would change the laws in my state (Fla) to make it okay for inadvertent showing of my carry gun, I ride a lot and sometimes my shirt blows up and the part of the gun shows, never got a complaint but worry about it. I live in Fla now and we are very gun friendly except for lack of long range shooting spots and the no open carry. This cop wasn't that bad, but he still violated the guys rights no matter what the local law is. Most cops are okay and don't mess with people unless they are doing something wrong or messing with others, in my experience.

Officers receive training in Constitutional law, I am trying to remember how many hours that class was in my academy. The reality is that most officers are sucked into the mentality that IF someone calls in a complaint, they HAVE to investigate it. When I used to be on patrol I would routinely pull a call, phone the complaintant and let them know why I wouldn't be responding. Officers often use the fact that someone called in a complaint to justify stopping someone, regardless of it's legality. This is a result of poor training, erosion of independent thinking, the "gung ho" mentality and administrators.

I have had administrators advise me to blatantly violate people's rights. Even when confronted with that fact, they are defiant that it is the "right" thing to do. Case in point: a citizen had issue with a city council member and showed up at any public event the council member did with cleverly worded signs (Council member X is a stupid idiot!). This citizen would sit outside the council member's office with his signs, quietly holding them. Of course the council member complained to the Chief and it wormed its way down to me where I was told to contact the citizen and tell him to stop. I refused, reminded them of that pesky 1st ammendment. It got a little heated but in the end they figured it out.

I work on a unit that requires a pretty firm grasp of the 4th ammendment. I occasionally stop to back up some patrol officers and have to pull them aside to talk to them about the legality of their decisions. Everyone needs reminding sometimes that just because we may not personally like something doesn't mean it is illegal.

Just my thoughts.

Yes, there was training, it wasn't sufficient in my opinion. Also keep in mind that the current applicant pool is coming from the modern educational system. The general understanding of the Constitution is degrading.

I teach a two hour class that is a search & seizure approach to interacting with armed citizens. I will echo the sentiment of one of quoted posts above that too many believe that a complaint mandates action. There is no legal basis to support that notion. Add into the notion that "officer safety" is a foolproof justification to any action and it is a recipe for bad police work.

Officer safety is a goal. Risks are minimized via sound tactics, but there are inherent risks that go along with the job.

 

[Veer_G]

Serious topics aside someone needs to give him a copy of the standard phonetic alphabet to learn and use.

Standards vary: LAPD phonetic alphabet - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[j.l.w.]

Serious topics aside someone needs to give him a copy of the standard phonetic alphabet to learn and use.

Such things can be agency specific.

One of the NIMS standards is to toss code speak and go to plain language to avoid conflicts and misunderstandings.

 

[Guy Montag]

The legality of the stop aside. These people who open carry simply to make a political statement or to bait the police into violating their rights are really going to end up ruining it for everyone else. Just look at Starbucks as an example. Once a pro gun, pro 2 amendment business, they switched their stance when clowns decided that they were going to have mass "sit ins" at their local Starbucks with AR-15s and 12 gauge shotguns strapped to their backs.

Starbucks: Guns unwelcome, but not banned from stores | Fox News

Wrong, Starbucks made NO changes to their policy.


Schultz hopes people will honor the request not to bring in guns but says the company will nevertheless serve those who do.

"We will not ask you to leave," he said.



The legality of the stop is the HEART of the problem, curious how quick you were to AVOID that topic.

 

[pmclaine]

Standards vary: LAPD phonetic alphabet - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sweet.

"Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt" Sam Clemens

My only experience has been with NATO standards and as part of a statist state (MA) that is what we use here.

 

[Slapchop]

Wrong, Starbucks made NO changes to their policy.


Schultz hopes people will honor the request not to bring in guns but says the company will nevertheless serve those who do.

"We will not ask you to leave," he said.



The legality of the stop is the HEART of the problem, curious how quick you were to AVOID that topic.

I never said they changed policy but they DID in fact change their stance on the issue. Read within the very quote that you quoted. I made it easy for you, pertinent text in bold/red and italicized.

 

[robu]

Officers receive training in Constitutional law, I am trying to remember how many hours that class was in my academy. The reality is that most officers are sucked into the mentality that IF someone calls in a complaint, they HAVE to investigate it. When I used to be on patrol I would routinely pull a call, phone the complaintant and let them know why I wouldn't be responding. Officers often use the fact that someone called in a complaint to justify stopping someone, regardless of it's legality. This is a result of poor training, erosion of independent thinking, the "gung ho" mentality and administrators.

I have had administrators advise me to blatantly violate people's rights. Even when confronted with that fact, they are defiant that it is the "right" thing to do. Case in point: a citizen had issue with a city council member and showed up at any public event the council member did with cleverly worded signs (Council member X is a stupid idiot!). This citizen would sit outside the council member's office with his signs, quietly holding them. Of course the council member complained to the Chief and it wormed its way down to me where I was told to contact the citizen and tell him to stop. I refused, reminded them of that pesky 1st ammendment. It got a little heated but in the end they figured it out.

I work on a unit that requires a pretty firm grasp of the 4th ammendment. I occasionally stop to back up some patrol officers and have to pull them aside to talk to them about the legality of their decisions. Everyone needs reminding sometimes that just because we may not personally like something doesn't mean it is illegal.

Just my thoughts.

Their "investigation" could be something as simple as driving by to check out the situation then make the call to the complaint. I have done that several times

 

[0311 Hesco]

The legality of the stop is the HEART of the problem, curious how quick you were to AVOID that topic.

The HEART of the problem is really the citizens of that town. THEY make it taboo to walk around with a rifle. THEY are the ones with the kneejerk to call the police for a dude just talking his hammer for a walk. But that is what makes police look like bad guys. We are sworn to uphold the law, but like it was said earlier, the law and the general populace nowadays have two different views. It might someday become a new game to walk around in a clown suit and start punching babies when you walk by....if that were to happen, then we need to go investigate these baby-punching clowns, AND THE ONES THAT LOOK ALIKE. Just like the cop said, he can't tell from his cruiser if the douche carrying a rifle in town "just because he has the right to" is not actually an insane looney fresh out of the bin on his way to a nursing home or elementary school or the range. That's why we do investigative stops.
If the officer feels he needs to do an investigative stop on Ronald McDonald, he can, as long as if it goes to court, he can articulate it. That's the bottom line, right wrong or indifferent. We don't have enough to prosecute him, (or persecute him for that matter) otherwise he would have been already. So, with the little we know of the incident, along with the call (emergency or non emergency, irrelevant either way), we have to assume he did his job properly, until there is evidence he didn't, right? I thought it was a well executed stop. Maybe a little much on having a drawn pistol (female cop), but can you see if the rifle had a magazine in it? I couldn't and the lead officer seemed a little seasoned and aware of what was going on. Therefore, I defer to his judgment. Part of a cop's job is to council out there. If the douchebags fully knew the law and realized it was an illegal stop, then they should have walked away right? But they didn't, not because they were being held against their will (yes I am FULLY aware of the definition of detention), but because they are dumb enough to pick a tisk with cops because they feel they are exercising their 2A rights. Occasionally, when looking for trouble, you'll find it.
So yes, this sucks, it ALL sucks. America has been asleep for a very long time and we all are paying for it. THIS is what tolerance costs. THIS is what the indifference of good men breeds.
"Doesn't matter what the press says. Doesn't matter what the politicians or the mobs say. Doesn't matter if the whole country decides that something wrong is something right. This nation was founded on one principle above all else: the requirement that we stand up for what we believe, no matter the odds or the consequences. When the mob and the press and the whole world tell you to move, your job is to plant yourself like a tree beside the river of truth, and tell the whole world - "No, you move.""

 

[Guy Montag]

I fully recognize and acknowledge the culture of the town and the people are part of the problem, but attempting to absolve LE of any role in this problem is not something I agree with. PERCEIVED criminal activity should be investigated by LE, but that is not what this stop was about. It was about equating gun possession with criminal activity, there's no denying that is the biggest reason why this stop ever happened to begin with. No doubt these idiots weren't fully aware of the law or their rights, and opened themselves up with a consensual encounter. But if these guys simply "walked away", who here honestly thinks this would have gone down ANY different? Guns would have been drawn, papers demanded, and you'd be cuffed and stuffed until you PROVED your innocence. That right there is the problem I have with these stops, we've now gotten to the point where far too many in positions of authority operate under the premise of guilty until proven innocent. That is not what the system is supposed to be predicated upon.

 

[0311 Hesco]

First off, I really do think this is a first! A disagreeing conversation on the hide that does not involve anything but the issue itself. Thank you. I hope you're not taking my responses as sarcastic or rude.

I don't think most cops use the guilty until proven innocent, but at the same time, show me a criminal that will tell you he is on his way to shooting up a hospital. It's a very fine line of discernment if there is one at all. I am not absolving LE of anything, however, what is this stop really taxing on the guys carrying the firearms anyway? I understand that their time was taken, but if these two had any sense, maybe they should thank the police officers for doing their job and being concerned for the town they work in. Flip side is maybe the cops are being jerks and had nothing better to do and wanted to impose their ideas on these people. I know that happens, there are cops out there like that, but I don't think this specific stop crossed that line. The officers even let them keep their weapons slung. Some officers say they want to hold it for officer safety. I don't think that's right in all cases either, but if the officer can articulate it in court, then good, bad or indifferent, it doesn't matter. This is what is so hard about law enforcement, you as a good cop, want to do your job and do it well, but there is no specific rulebook. Yes the constitution and the revised code and all that good stuff. But every situation is different and there is only so much case law out there.
My last though is well maybe the cop perceived a potential criminal activity from an aspect that was not caught on camera. maybe this guy has had troubles with LE before or whatever. That was my point before, we have to assume, that the officer did right, the courts we as citizens uphold do. The guys didn't even give them where they live, and the cops were still cool with them. I don't know about the other cops out there but it rubs me the wrong way if you don't want to tell me where you live just to prove a point. Yes, it's your right, but why be THAT guy? Why inconvenience an officer, who has to deal with REAL bad guys, by doing the same things the real bad guys do? If your intentions of carrying the rifle around were in fact pure, why wouldn't you want to be as cooperative as possible? THAT is a huge issue with America as well. Meh...I am going to live on a bunch of acres someday with just my wife kids and dogs....[end rant]

 

[Veer_G]

Does anyone else not get how profoundly disturbing it is for a cop to reiterate at least three times that the cover officer is going to shoot someone in the head if they make a furtive movement, much less blink their eyes or twitch their hips, and then allow them to stand there for the entire stop in possession of the very item that is of concern? It's as if they want them to hold onto it so that they can wait for something provocative enough to warrant a fulminating reaction. It's as if they're playing with them.

 

[ArmyJerry]

No reason for the cop to threaten the citizen like that, would the citizen been within his rights to defend himself if the lady cop shot him, or looked like she was going to shoot him?? what then. Cops should not threaten to shoot law abiding citizens, it could trigger an event.

At the end of the day, we reached a sad point in our history when " good guys" have to threaten other "good guys" with being shot in the head.

 

[Tahoe333]

Because I consistently see people at the range that lack basic firearm safety skills I would have to say yes to being nervous seeing a stranger walk around town with a rifle on his back.
In a urban environment I would use quick access rifle backpack instead of open carry as to not alarm others or draw attention to myself.

 

[Guy Montag]

I never said they changed policy but they DID in fact change their stance on the issue. Read within the very quote that you quoted. I made it easy for you, pertinent text in bold/red and italicized.

Your exact words: "Once a pro gun, pro 2 amendment business, they switched their stance..."

They changed nothing in regards to their existing policy or their "stance", so why suggest otherwise?

Starbucks REMAINS "pro-gun", bold/red and italicized text doesn't change that reality.

 

[Jethro21]

Consent contacts are where an officer really shows his value. There are many times I "want" to talk to someone but may not have the right to force them to stop and talk to me (detain). This is were you make a consent contact. Most people will talk to you, even if they are carrying drugs, have warrants etc.

There has been numerous times where I have been in a convenience store and saw someone open carrying a weapon. Sometimes they even appear to be someone who may not have the legal right (obvious prison tattoos, wearing obvious gang indicia, those things that *may* help constitute reasonable suspicion but not quite enough). Again, absent the specific requirements for a stop based on reasonable suspicion, I am powerless to investigate further UNLESS I initiate a conversation based on consent.

In my opinion, this is the way to handle *most* contacts with people carrying weapons. I hold the 2nd ammendment extremely sacred. I hold all our rights to be extremely sacred. Because I feel this way I force myself to handle contacts differently than perhaps my gut tells me to. For instance, a fellow officer once expressed frustration with the process necessary to arrest a known bad guy ("it is so stupid that we have to watch him until he breaks into that house). While I agreed with him to a point, I had to admit that the same rights that sometimes seem to protect bad guys also protect good guys, and our country would be worthless without those rights.

 

[Veer_G]

Your exact words: "Once a pro gun, pro 2 amendment business, they switched their stance..."

They changed nothing in regards to their existing policy or their "stance", so why suggest otherwise?

Starbucks REMAINS "pro-gun", bold/red and italicized text doesn't change that reality.

I wouldn't call them "pro-gun." Saying that you would really rather that people didn't do something in your shop (like carrying a firearm) but acquiescing to their patronage just doesn't equate to being "pro-this" or "pro-that." They're practicing a certain tolerance without displaying enough enthusiasm to make the most sanguine of us perceive a corporate thumbs-up that really isn't there.

 

[eli polite]

I wonder what Rosa Parks would think of that statement?

well said

 

[pmclaine]

Does anyone else not get how profoundly disturbing it is for a cop to reiterate at least three times that the cover officer is going to shoot someone in the head if they make a furtive movement, much less blink their eyes or twitch their hips, and then allow them to stand there for the entire stop in possession of the very item that is of concern? It's as if they want them to hold onto it so that they can wait for something provocative enough to warrant a fulminating reaction. It's as if they're playing with them.

I dont know about this.

My thinking is that disarming him would be a more agressive move on the part of the officer. I'm not familiar with the area of the response but it looks pretty rural and its a state that is probably more gun friendly than where I am from (MA).

Their response I see more typical for a situation like being in MA where the action observed in and of itself is not kosher (no open carry unless actively hunting, on the range etc in areas approved for that).

At the start of the stop the cop stated he knows what is going on and I think one of the other officers had knowledge of one of the two doing similar in the past. They seem pretty easy going with the incident save for the nervous low ready and the threatening language - posturing.

I think they knew the kid was legally right and were smart enough to know that involutarily disarming him would have been a violation on their part and could lead to escalation (see the video of the MSGT in Texas).

I think they are posturing for the camera. He is trying to be tough and appear sympathetic. As much as the kids want the video to go viral the officer seems to also want to be portrayed as the worlds best law man.

I cant judge much from the video not coming from the area. How this is handled in the Boston metro area and how that was handled depends on context. How much open carry occurs in that location? At least they have the law on the books so how much really doesnt matter. Looks kind of small town to me. How well known are the citizens by the local PD? are these guys strangers?

It wasnt the worst video Ive seen but it wasnt the best either. One thing is for certain the more professionally these incidents are handled by the responding officer the better the outcome for both parties. "Shoot you in the head" is not that professional by any standard. There is a time and a place for that and proceeding to contact when you have a pretty good idea you are being filmed and possibly baited is not the time.

 

[Slapchop]

I wouldn't call them "pro-gun." Saying that you would really rather that people didn't do something in your shop (like carrying a firearm) but acquiescing to their patronage just doesn't equate to being "pro-this" or "pro-that." They're practicing a certain tolerance without displaying enough enthusiasm to make the most sanguine of us perceive a corporate thumbs-up that really isn't there.

Don't bother Veer, some people just don't know when they're not welcome. Starbucks made their intentions very clear and that was because of the misguided few who ruined it for everyone else.

 

[sharac]

While I agreed with him to a point, I had to admit that the same rights that sometimes seem to protect bad guys also protect good guys, and our country would be worthless without those rights.

Amen

 

[xdpatriot]

The HEART of the problem is really the citizens of that town. THEY make it taboo to walk around with a rifle. THEY are the ones with the kneejerk to call the police for a dude just talking his hammer for a walk. But that is what makes police look like bad guys. We are sworn to uphold the law, but like it was said earlier, the law and the general populace nowadays have two different views. It might someday become a new game to walk around in a clown suit and start punching babies when you walk by....if that were to happen, then we need to go investigate these baby-punching clowns, AND THE ONES THAT LOOK ALIKE. Just like the cop said, he can't tell from his cruiser if the douche carrying a rifle in town "just because he has the right to" is not actually an insane looney fresh out of the bin on his way to a nursing home or elementary school or the range. That's why we do investigative stops.
If the officer feels he needs to do an investigative stop on Ronald McDonald, he can, as long as if it goes to court, he can articulate it. That's the bottom line, right wrong or indifferent. We don't have enough to prosecute him, (or persecute him for that matter) otherwise he would have been already. So, with the little we know of the incident, along with the call (emergency or non emergency, irrelevant either way), we have to assume he did his job properly, until there is evidence he didn't, right? I thought it was a well executed stop. Maybe a little much on having a drawn pistol (female cop), but can you see if the rifle had a magazine in it? I couldn't and the lead officer seemed a little seasoned and aware of what was going on. Therefore, I defer to his judgment. Part of a cop's job is to council out there. If the douchebags fully knew the law and realized it was an illegal stop, then they should have walked away right? But they didn't, not because they were being held against their will (yes I am FULLY aware of the definition of detention), but because they are dumb enough to pick a tisk with cops because they feel they are exercising their 2A rights. Occasionally, when looking for trouble, you'll find it.
So yes, this sucks, it ALL sucks. America has been asleep for a very long time and we all are paying for it. THIS is what tolerance costs. THIS is what the indifference of good men breeds.
"Doesn't matter what the press says. Doesn't matter what the politicians or the mobs say. Doesn't matter if the whole country decides that something wrong is something right. This nation was founded on one principle above all else: the requirement that we stand up for what we believe, no matter the odds or the consequences. When the mob and the press and the whole world tell you to move, your job is to plant yourself like a tree beside the river of truth, and tell the whole world - "No, you move.""

I can dig this^^^^^^

 

[eli polite]

I understand what they are TRYING! to do but I think that they are going about it all wrong.. I think it would be smarter if they notified the local police station that they were going to be practicing there open carry rights that day and that it would be according to the law.. I KNOW! they should not have to! but the real problem as stated before is the general public. There is so much ignorance out there.. The real problem is going to occur when some dumb ass calls the cops and makes false statements like he was pointing it at people, or I saw him shoot it, Eventually this behavior will damage even further our 2A rights For the most part the public is NOT! aware of responsible gun owners because they are not seen, or herd from.. we only see the STUPID! behavior on the news! IF the general public called 911 to report a gun toating person and the operator said "Yes we know he is there he is responsibly invoking his 2a rights" than the may be the public would see us as RESPONSABLE! but instead these guys set out to purposely cause a response from people and officers. Rite now the public in general sees a guy with a gun and automatically HES A BAD GUY! Changing that mentality does not happen by creating hi stress situations that can be avoided.

 

[coanan]

Seems like we have a lot of cops here, I am wondering if you guys receive any classes on the Constitution and Bill or Rights when you are training or joining a department? Not a sarcastic Q just curious. ON the open carry, there should be no law regulating this at all in my opinion, like some of the older ones here I also carried my 22 to a field next to RT 1 I. NJ to shoot critters, about a half mile walk through my neighborhood, never a second look, today a kid would be gunned down in that same neighborhood by the swat team. I just wish they would change the laws in my state (Fla) to make it okay for inadvertent showing of my carry gun, I ride a lot and sometimes my shirt blows up and the part of the gun shows, never got a complaint but worry about it. I live in Fla now and we are very gun friendly except for lack of long range shooting spots and the no open carry. This cop wasn't that bad, but he still violated the guys rights no matter what the local law is. Most cops are okay and don't mess with people unless they are doing something wrong or messing with others, in my experience.

Read up on SB234 Small sample Senate Bill 0234 (2011) - The Florida Senate

 

[sharac]

Eli: I think that would be a good idea too as it would avoid (or at least increase chances of) unnecessary tensions and panicky reaction (not always depends on a cop) from police and at the same time loose nothing towards educating/exercising rights. Seeing videos of police cams and people cams of police in action in US it is more of a wartime reaction force than peace officers work. Even SWAT teams are quipped like soldiers and not police officers and all this shoot first and ask questions later mentally sure doesn't raise survivability odds to open carry practitioners.

Luckily you guys still have (at least written) relatively good laws and rights (although not always respected in practice) and there is still "gun culture" present in minds of at least some (relatively important % of populace) people. Here in Europe we don't have this, hunters have the best organization and tradition but also they are under heavy attack (some is their own fault as they are mainly older men from ex system where this was privilege of party members who are also alcoholics -> many accidents lately 2 idiots "mistook" hawk for a water rat) from public who equate guns with murder and mayhem (why oh why i wonder ).

 

[pmclaine]

America has been asleep for a very long time and we all are paying for it. THIS is what tolerance costs. THIS is what the indifference of good men breeds.

....and I have a feeling you can trace this indifference/ignorance directly back to whomever decided to take ABC SchoolHouse Rock off the air.

If you are younger than 40 you probably ask "What the fuck is ABC Schoolhouse Rock". Back in the day kids watching Saturday morning cartoons used to get educated on things like the Constitution, the system of checks and balances, how a bill becomes a law as well as other educational material during commercial breaks (Conjunction Junction Whats your Function?). At 5-6 yoa I knew a "Poor old Bill" was introduced in Congess, had to pass Constitutional muster and was signed by the President to become law (even explained the Veto and options to adress that circumstance). I specifically remember the cartoon about the Bill of Rights had a kid shout out "The right to bear arms" when the 2A was addressed and a civilian was depicted holding a musket not a Guardsman.

Find the origin of the demise of Schoolhouse Rock and you have found the cabal that is for the dumbing down of America so as to institute the weakening of our Constitutional protections.

Their evil in manipulating people in harmful ways has no bounds. Our education system is in their control. I dont think your average teacher is aware they are being used in this manner and what the consequences are. My kids school just instituted "Tools of the Mind" check that out and from where it derives, specifically Lev Vygotsky, than tell me this is good. In addition to huge taxes for public ed that funds crap like Tools of the Mind we pay for another service that actually gives them reading, writing and arithmetic in a traditional manner. We work with our kids way more than my parents ever did in order to offset the assault of crap they are faced with. Its not easy for them, I think they will be wired differently and different is bad when you are a kid, but they are going to be capable, reasoning, responsible kids. Im just lucky I have good kids to work with.

 

[0311 Hesco]

^good for you man! I def. want to homeschool when I have kids. Kinda why I want to get back to a little plot of land and a simple job yes, a 9 to 5. I never thought I would say that, but it is time for some regularity in my life.
As funny as your comment is about schoolhouse rock, I think it goes back even further. I think the breakdown in America started when the "home" TV started breaking up dinnertime. It when from communicating at the table and knowing what your kids were into and giving them attention, to "shut up Johnny, I'm trying to watch this!" and worshipping the TV. I am so thankful (now looking back) that my parents were so "uncool" because I had rules and chores and bedtimes and family dinners.

 

[Deputy D.A.]

If you want to discourage open carry in lieu of concealed carry, then make concealed carry legal in every jurisdiction and don't require a license that costs $100 or more for license, background check, fingerprinting, etc. and requires the time and cost of a course, and renewal every few years, and isn't universally accepted by every state you travel in that allows concealed carry. I am not suggesting that background checks are necessarily a bad thing in their intent or that people carrying guns shouldn't have some basic level of training. But regardless of how much training and experience you have you will have to take the time and pay the cost for another state approved course and the fee for the license only to have the right to carry unseen by others. Or you can exercise your Second Amendment right and carry openly for FREE. My point is that if society and government want people to carry concealed rather than openly than don't charge them and inhibit their ability to carry concealed. For most people the money and time may not be much of an issue, but for those who are below the poverty line, another $100 plus to exercise their right to carry and protect themselves may be a meaningful expense. Maybe the costs should be a sliding scale, or waived based on income, or classes should be waived based on verifiable past experience, or maybe there should be a national permit good in all states.

 

[pmclaine]

If you want to discourage open carry in lieu of concealed carry, then make concealed carry legal in every jurisdiction and don't require a license that costs $100 or more for license, background check, fingerprinting, etc. and requires the time and cost of a course, and renewal every few years, and isn't universally accepted by every state you travel in that allows concealed carry. I am not suggesting that background checks are necessarily a bad thing in their intent or that people carrying guns shouldn't have some basic level of training. But regardless of how much training and experience you have you will have to take the time and pay the cost for another state approved course and the fee for the license only to have the right to carry unseen by others. Or you can exercise your Second Amendment right and carry openly for FREE. My point is that if society and government want people to carry concealed rather than openly than don't charge them and inhibit their ability to carry concealed. For most people the money and time may not be much of an issue, but for those who are below the poverty line, another $100 plus to exercise their right to carry and protect themselves may be a meaningful expense. Maybe the costs should be a sliding scale, or waived based on income, or classes should be waived based on verifiable past experience, or maybe there should be a national permit good in all states.

I don't understand why permit fees for firearms are not akin to poll taxes.

...and a drivers license fee is not a good comparison as we do not have an Amendment in the Bill of Rights that protects your right to transportation.

 

[Deputy D.A.]

Your points are well taken. Right to bear arms is a constitutionally protected right, where as a driver's/operator's license is under our laws a privilege and not a right. Placing a financial hurdle on the poor's right to exercise their right is by and large unjust, although I understand the arguments that are made to justify it.

 

[bogeybrown]

Over the course of the last few days, when I've had time I've watched a BUNCH of the Youtube open carry videos. The majority are filmed by the citizens rather than dash-cam. They caused me to do some very deep soul-searching on how I, as a very pro 2A guy, would have responded in each of the situations when I was an officer.

It's funny that "Schoolhouse Rock" was brought up, because I often equated a lot of what we did on patrol to "Sesame Street" in that we spent all day looking for "which of these things is not like the other". A guy pushing a lawnmower down the street a 2 in the afternoon is reasonably going to cut someone's grass. A guy pushing a lawnmower down the street at 2 in the morning likely just liberated said lawnmower from someone's shed. It's not illegal for a guy to push a lawnmower down the street at any hour of the day, but if you're living in that neighborhood do you want me to investigate the guy at 2 A.M. who just broke into your shed? When I'm taking the burglary report from you the next morning do you want me to tell you how I watched the guy walk away with your lawnmower? Or to take it further, do you want me to tell you that one of your neighbors called in a report of the suspicious guy with your lawnmower and I elected not to stop him because not every complaint requires a response?

Take that to the step we're discussing ideologically right now and make it reality: As CNN is airing footage of YOUR dead child being pulled out of her daycare where some whackaloon just went on a shooting rampage at 12 noon on a beautiful spring day in small-town America, do you want the Police Chief or anyone else for that matter explaining how they'd received 10 calls from concerned citizens about some guy walking down the street with a rifle towards the daycare but his officers were counseled not to investigate those incidents or even to respond to the scene?

I am in no way advocating an abridgment of our rights as firearms owners. However, as the point has been raised, it is the ultimate in naiveté to believe that a municipality will not enact laws based on public outcry. We had ordinances enacted against loud stereos in cars and sagging pants just to name a few solely based on public demand. The city also enacted an ordinance requiring that any person lawfully contacted by LE was required to show identification upon request. I know the key word there is "lawfully" which will always be debated. In the video at the beginning of this thread the police officer explained that the city could do something drastic like enact an ordinance infringing on rights as a kneejerk response and the kid said it wasn't possible or likely or whatever. The city of Chicago is STILL enacting ordinances to negate CCW which was mandated for the State of Illinois by the Federal Govt.

NEVER underestimate the willingness/ability of government to use a temporary public outcry to get where they've always wanted to go. The initial Patriot Act is one of the largest most visible examples in recent history and that was enacted by a much more "stable" government than we have now.

The questions I posed above are NOT meant to advance one side of this discussion or the other. They are some of the things I ran through MY mind as I was watching those videos and gut-checking myself on how I'd respond and what the potential worst-case scenario would be based on each of my responses. I presented them for you to mull over and decide what you think the reasonable response is if you're supposed to maintain public order and protect the citizens, and will be terminated from your job and unemployable for the rest of your life in your chosen career if you make the wrong decision. Or, as happens in LE quite a bit, you make the RIGHT decision and still get terminated for violation of policy, and are therefore unemployable by any other LE agency.

 

[Veer_G]

A guy pushing a lawnmower down the street a 2 in the afternoon is reasonably going to cut someone's grass. A guy pushing a lawnmower down the street at 2 in the morning likely just liberated said lawnmower from someone's shed. It's not illegal for a guy to push a lawnmower down the street at any hour of the day, but if you're living in that neighborhood do you want me to investigate the guy at 2 A.M. who just broke into your shed? When I'm taking the burglary report from you the next morning do you want me to tell you how I watched the guy walk away with your lawnmower? Or to take it further, do you want me to tell you that one of your neighbors called in a report of the suspicious guy with your lawnmower and I elected not to stop him because not every complaint requires a response?

Take that to the step we're discussing ideologically right now and make it reality: As CNN is airing footage of YOUR dead child being pulled out of her daycare where some whackaloon just went on a shooting rampage at 12 noon on a beautiful spring day in small-town America, do you want the Police Chief or anyone else for that matter explaining how they'd received 10 calls from concerned citizens about some guy walking down the street with a rifle towards the daycare but his officers were counseled not to investigate those incidents or even to respond to the scene?

Or, as Harry Callahan said ...

 

[Shoottothrill]

I am very pro 2A, and very pro Constitution in general. I feel that the officers could have handled this a little better. The officer who stated that himself or his partner would shoot them in the head was way out of line. That is a threatening statement being made to a law abiding citizen by a police officer. At that point the man could have felt that his life was being threatened and reacted badly. It does not matter that the officer said "if you do this or if you do that," its still a life threatening and inappropriate statement. Also for any of the officers to have their weapons drawn was also in my opinion inappropriate. That in itself is threatening a law abiding citizen. Who was doing nothing wrong, and breaking no laws. What if you were walking down the street with no weapon and an officer approached you and said they got a call that a suspicious person was in the neighbor hood. The officer then proceeded to let you know that if you made any sudden moves that either he or his partner was going to shoot you in the head. Neither person was breaking any law. Is this the way we want our officers talking and threatening the general public when not a single law has been broken?

I also feel that the men with the guns probable should not be walking around suburbia with long guns because it does make people nervous in today's America. But it is their right and I support that right 100%. They should not be stopped by Police or threatened to be shot in the head. If the officer had simple said can I talk to you for a minute and the guys consented he could have just had a polite conversation with them and let them be on their way. The officers were giving commands and orders and these men were being illegally detained in my opinion.

I felt that the officer's should have taken the call and simply observed the men from a distance, when officers were satisfied that nothing was amiss they could have continued with their day.

 

[BGE541]

I personally find the "shoot you in the head" comment not really that offensive. The officer said IF you reach for the gun, THEN I will shoot you in the head. He was clarifying dominance in the situation as well as consequences for actions. Verbal Judo is a great skill to possess as a cop. Maybe a little harsh for the scenario, but the point was clearly made. I might have told him the same thing depending on the situation. I wasn't there so I won't judge him. We do have a camera but that only tells MOST of the story, not all.

I see the point you are getting at but (from someone who was'nt there but is familar with Verbal Judo) his verbage of "Shoot you in the head" leaves a little to be desired. LEAPS and good, bad, good... he did well for the entire stop but again those words are awkward (read: unlikely/improbable... realistically it would make more sence to go for the best target of opportunity, the body not the bobbing head.) Unless the Officer is going to take the risk of a 20+y T-Box shot from the draw with his pistol... I'll leave it at that. Good on them for exercizing our rights and good on the Officer for not going 0-100MPH at the sight of a Ghost gun with 30 round magazine-clip.

 

[BPaulk]

I am very pro 2A, and very pro Constitution in general. I feel that the officers could have handled this a little better. The officer who stated that himself or his partner would shoot them in the head was way out of line. That is a threatening statement being made to a law abiding citizen by a police officer. At that point the man could have felt that his life was being threatened and reacted badly. It does not matter that the officer said "if you do this or if you do that," its still a life threatening and inappropriate statement. Also for any of the officers to have their weapons drawn was also in my opinion inappropriate. That in itself is threatening a law abiding citizen. Who was doing nothing wrong, and breaking no laws. What if you were walking down the street with no weapon and an officer approached you and said they got a call that a suspicious person was in the neighbor hood. The officer then proceeded to let you know that if you made any sudden moves that either he or his partner was going to shoot you in the head. Neither person was breaking any law. Is this the way we want our officers talking and threatening the general public when not a single law has been broken?

I also feel that the men with the guns probable should not be walking around suburbia with long guns because it does make people nervous in today's America. But it is their right and I support that right 100%. They should not be stopped by Police or threatened to be shot in the head. If the officer had simple said can I talk to you for a minute and the guys consented he could have just had a polite conversation with them and let them be on their way. The officers were giving commands and orders and these men were being illegally detained in my opinion.

I felt that the officer's should have taken the call and simply observed the men from a distance, when officers were satisfied that nothing was amiss they could have continued with their day.

I read this whole tread this morning and I was taken back by the LE after they new there was no threat and still offered to shoot them in the head if they moved . The speech from the LE was just for the video and the other LE with the AR rifle around his neck walking up to the Citizen in a threating manor and one behind with her gun drawn was over the top. Maybe the second and third threat might be illegal. I am glad know body was shot the citizen/dumbass for the baiting and the LE being over zealous I have a badge and gun I am your boss do what I say instead of making it a friendly stop with no aggression would have been better. IMHO

 

[paindoc]

I am only 50 years old however to demonstrate how much times have changed I grew up in Broward county Florida and for a oral report I reported on my NRA junior shooting program that I did over my seventh grade summer.So for my eighth grade report I brought in my own Anshultz rifle, 100 rounds of ammo, my shooting jacket, my sling, my shooting Mitt, my spotting scope, etc. etc. I carried my rifle over my back on my sling (uncovered) with all of my equipment on the Broward County school bus until I got to the school and which I gave the report demonstrating the function of the rifle in front of my class and teacher to a very bored audience. I went home on the bus with all my equipment the same way that I came to school that morning and found out a week later that I got a B+ on my report with the only problem being the fact that I did not give enough history of the origin of the sport itself. If that doesn't illustrate how much times of changed and I really don't know what else would. LOL. Wtf were my parents thinking!!!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[BPaulk]

Paindoc, I am ten years older than you but I grew up in Mississippi late 60's early 70's and in High School during hunting season we carried our guns in the back windshield in our trucks. Times have changed for the worst I am afraid. Its a wonder that German Anshultz rifle didn't kill all of you. I have two East German Suhl's but I keep them locked down in a safe. It's a wonder I live with a lot of guns nobody has every been killed in my home just lucky I guess.
Great post you should have gotten and A. Today it would be Jail time.

 

[marduk185]

pigs that make these unconstitutional stops should be arrested and tried the same as any armed citizen illegally detaining or harassing another citizen would be.

 

[Jethro21]

Hard to argue with the logic posted above....oh yeah, and productive too.

Thanks for adding such wisdom to the discussion!

Yours truly,
One of the pigs

 

[bogeybrown]

It really is awesome that there are still so many places in America where the sight of a police officer with his weapon drawn, or threatening violence, is an affront to your sensibilities. I mean that sincerely, and not as a goad.
There are areas of this country where a "routine" traffic stop is conducted with a weapon drawn and typically "concealed" behind the officer's leg. There are areas where the police and public regularly threaten each other with violence and it's just part of the day to day dealings in those places. Even some of you in relatively quiet places may be pretty amazed at how policing is conducted in some of the areas in your own city (those areas you see on the news but would never even consider driving past).

Again, that's not a taunt or any form of criticism. Tone can be tough to gauge on a forum so I wanted to be clear. I really do think it's cool that there are still places in the U.S. where the conduct of the officers on THAT stop was in some way offensive (their conduct, not the fact that they made the stop to begin with).

 

[runningun6mm]

Read the thread, and I am LE. It is interesting to see how some interpret when they were not there. Every situation is different, there is no such thing as a routine traffic stop or standard day in law enforcement. I have used verbal judo along with body language to make sure that everyone knew what my next move was. 90% of law enforcement is reactive, only 10% proactive. If you think is it different... come take a ride for a shift.

Steve

 

[Whit]

Read the thread, and I am LE. It is interesting to see how some interpret when they were not there. Every situation is different, there is no such thing as a routine traffic stop or standard day in law enforcement. I have used verbal judo along with body language to make sure that everyone knew what my next move was. 90% of law enforcement is reactive, only 10% proactive. If you think is it different... come take a ride for a shift.

Steve

Is it possible to ride with LE for a shift? I have quit a few of LE friends but never crossed my mind to ask. I have volunteered to participate in one of there training cert, I found fun and electrifying (wink).

 

[runningun6mm]

stop in and ask on the ride along.... each agency is different on rules and waivers....i have not heard of anyone being turned away from a ride along... rescheduled yes but not refused

 

[0311 Hesco]

I read this whole tread this morning and I was taken back by the LE after they new there was no threat and still offered to shoot them in the head if they moved . The speech from the LE was just for the video and the other LE with the AR rifle around his neck walking up to the Citizen in a threating manor and one behind with her gun drawn was over the top. Maybe the second and third threat might be illegal. I am glad know body was shot the citizen/dumbass for the baiting and the LE being over zealous I have a badge and gun I am your boss do what I say instead of making it a friendly stop with no aggression would have been better. IMHO

But how do you know if there was no threat? Because you were able to see that on video? I couldn't. We weren't there and many times if there is one gun there is another, or a knife. There is nothing illegal about the words of the cop. He could have had 18 other calls that day where people ended up shot. Sure, that's not realistic. HOWEVER, until you deal with crap like this, just take into consideration that the officer wants to go home at the end of his shift. There is no sign painted on the bad guys differentiating them from the good guys, and for that matter, the idiots that like toting their guns around to prove a point. You want to prove a point? Use your vote. Not your gun. It makes us all look bad and puts us all into positions we don't want to be in; citizen, cop or criminal.
The thing is, is that when you are put into a situation where you don't know if you the guy with the slung rifle is fingering a pistol that is obscured by the rifle (or any unknown situation), the cop HAS to take charge and basically say "I have a badge and a gun, and for the next few minutes, I am king of your world. Not because I want to, but because I can't tell if you are a good, bad or retarded dude." Aggression is needed to set the tone for this. Try talking to a gangbanger thug with a weakness in your tone and see how far that gets you. If not by good graces, it will land you 6 ft. under.

 

[marduk185]

But how do you know if there was no threat? Because you were able to see that on video? I couldn't. We weren't there and many times if there is one gun there is another, or a knife. There is nothing illegal about the words of the cop. He could have had 18 other calls that day where people ended up shot. Sure, that's not realistic. HOWEVER, until you deal with crap like this, just take into consideration that the officer wants to go home at the end of his shift. There is no sign painted on the bad guys differentiating them from the good guys, and for that matter, the idiots that like toting their guns around to prove a point. You want to prove a point? Use your vote. Not your gun. It makes us all look bad and puts us all into positions we don't want to be in; citizen, cop or criminal.
The thing is, is that when you are put into a situation where you don't know if you the guy with the slung rifle is fingering a pistol that is obscured by the rifle (or any unknown situation), the cop HAS to take charge and basically say "I have a badge and a gun, and for the next few minutes, I am king of your world. Not because I want to, but because I can't tell if you are a good, bad or retarded dude." Aggression is needed to set the tone for this. Try talking to a gangbanger thug with a weakness in your tone and see how far that gets you. If not by good graces, it will land you 6 ft. under.

your entire argument is irrelevent once you accept the fact that these stops are unconstitutional from the start. the cop is attempting to mitigate a percieved threat in a situation he wrongly created by illegally stopping and harassing citizens based on their personal belongings.