Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Guy Open Carries and Handles it like a G [VIDEO]

page: 3
65
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 02:02 AM
link   
He's pretty lucky he didn't catch these cops in a bad moood. Walking up on a cop with a video camera and a handgun, open carry or not, is pretty ballsy. I wouldn't recomend it.

That being said I'm a strong advocate for open carry states. Law abiding citizens who have a handgun safety card should be allowed to carry a weapon openly. And I don't care what the bald officer said, if felons are packing heat it's 99% concealed.




posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 02:15 AM
link   
reply to post by vermonster
 


Ok, I am going to put in my .02...

The guy in the first video was an idiot for approaching the cop during a traffic stop. With or without a weapon, that is something you just don't do. Everyone knows that. I definitely encourage filming from a distance and holding the officer accountable. Doing what he did tho was just ignorant.

I am glad however that he held his ground afterwards and knew the laws. I think everyone should learn their rights and stand up to the police when they're in the wrong.

As for the guy in the 2nd video:

He was a complete idiot just doing it for show. Those guys are what I would call actual COPS. I won't use LEO as a term for them, as I feel LEOs are scum. They are the ones who are quick to tase, beat and shoot people. The COPS in that video were very cool and very patient. I can't say they would be that way with a stranger who was walking around with an AK, but they were cool with him. He was a complete jerk tho and was far too cocky.

That is just my opinion.
edit on 13-7-2011 by EagleTalonZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 02:16 AM
link   
At the end of the day this arguement will go back and forth Ad Infinitum , while most of us that wear and have worn uniforms understand the viewpoint of the citizen , many citizens simply can't understand the viewpoint of the officer , JUST BECAUSE SOMETHING IS LEGAL, DOESN'T MEAN IT'S A GOOD IDEA!!!... I'm Pro 2A as the next guy, but I'm also pro common sense. I've worn a uniform in the past and understand the need for "Officer Safety".

If everyone open carried , the officer probably would not have given the guy with the camera a second look because it wouldn't have been out of the ordinary to the officer to see a citizen with a firearm displayed on his hip. But everyone doesn't open carry , so this isn't a regular occurance to the officer, having someone who he doesn't know from adam armed and videotaping him. That raises the "just don't feel right" alarm in that officer.

If your wife or mother called you on the phone telling you that there was some guy she didn't know videotaping her get into her car in a parking lot and he had a pistol on his hip what would your reaction be then?

Having someone you don't know videotape you raises alarms in anyone for the simple fact that it isn't a common occurance, having someone you don't know with a pistol videotaping you should make you pretty damn concerned.

I think the officer handled it well, there is a certain amount of stress involved in dealing with an armed person when you don't know their intentions (however pure they may be). I ask you not to go out and emulate this experiment for the simple fact that even though you know you're John/Jane Q Public outstanding citizen, the other guy with the gun doesn't know your story, and it could go south very quickly with tragic results.

If you want to be a 2A crusader go educate people on it or go pressure your elected officials to become pro 2A, If you're going to OC do it responsibly.

Open Carry Scenario on "The Best Defense"



posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 02:20 AM
link   
The man complied with the officers instructions to back away from the scene, then the officer began to stalk him until back up was on the way.

If the officer was concerned with officer safety, the time to have asked for ID was when he approached the Traffic stop. Any arguement about officer safety after the traffic stop was worthless since the officers attention was no longer divided.

Odds are, the officer didn't even noticed the gun until after he was finished. I'd bet he focused on the camera and was more concerned about that, than the gun on the guys belt.

But come on, you have to admit the guy was looking for a confrontation and got what he wanted. But it was funny when he said, I'm leaving and did.



posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 02:34 AM
link   
reply to post by EyesWideShut
 


THIS is about as square as you can hit a nail on the head.

Open carrying is a right by all means, but that right comes with responsibilities. This country may have been founded on individual freedoms, but those freedoms come with an immense amount of responsibility. The United States of America's greatness came from its trust of the individual to apply rationality with regards to their freedoms, something this man neglected completely.

This man's actions were extremely irresponsible, and as EyesWideShut eluded to, took a safe situation to a level of danger and conflict not present before the armed individual's arrival. If you think that all LEO's should assume to know that an individual is mentally stable and benevolent then we would have large amounts of dead officers, deputies and troopers.

What I've noticed more than anything is Vermonster, among others, seem to misplace their anger and frustration with the system. Your main beef should lie with the policy makers of this nation, not those trying to "keep the peace."

Regardless of how many instances of abuse of authority (which I've gone into in great detail in other posts) there have been. No matter how many youtube videos are posted of brutality, the fact of the matter is that these instances represent less than 1% of LEO and public interactions.

edit on 13-7-2011 by ateuprto because: (no reason given)
edit on 13-7-2011 by ateuprto because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 03:00 AM
link   
Ill go ahead and throw in the whole jose guerena issue that happened here in tucson,the ex marine who was over-killed in his home when swat raided his home and were allegedly fired upon by an assault rifle,that story was trashed when it was discovered that the rifle was on safety without one in the chamber.He was well within his rights to have had the firearm in his possession.The swat stated that they told him multiple times to put the weapon down,but in the video the shooting starts about 5 seconds after they enter,hardly enough time for these actions to have happened.The swat officers completely disregarded this mans second ammendment rights and shot him to death,then lied about the events.Its difficult to have any trust into law enforcement after things like this.This isnt judge dredd,police officers are on a major power trip and apparently no laws are above them..



posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 03:20 AM
link   
reply to post by VicDiaz89
 


I don't know how this has anything to do with the current topic, but I'll play ball. When swat hits a house they are doing it from intel received from another bureau , whether it be narcotics, warrants, anti crime task force or whatever the case may be. The failure in my opinion is on whomever accquired the intel falsely... If I've been briefed that I'm going into a home where there are armed violent felons, I'm going to take the appropriate mindset before entry.

The job of an entry team is to dominate the room, when they went in and saw a guy with a semi auto rifle , on some level it reaffirms the intel they've been given , at that point in all honestly I'm not saying anything to the guy Im going to reduce that threat and continue mission because I don't know if his buddy is around the corner waiting for me.

As bad as it's going to sound , it was a good shoot based on the intel given to the swat officers. It is also however a MASSIVE intelligence failure , and my heart goes out to the family of that Marine , being a prior service Marine myself... I would be sick to death with remorse after the fact and I'd be mad as hell at whomever gave that bad intel because in all honesty it looks like they took the CI at his word (which you don't do) and didnt actually do an investigation. It's piss poor policework and a tragedy that could have been avoided.

To play devils advocate somewhat, some may say "what was that Marine doing in his livingroom with that weapon?" , I'm betting a little bit of trauma enduced ptsd , he percieved a threat and tried to protect his family maybe? We'll never know.

Semper Fidelis



posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 03:33 AM
link   
reply to post by EyesWideShut
 


i understand your point.What im trying to get across is that shooting a man just for having a firearm in his possession is wrong,he never fired the gun,but they lied about it,then they said he pointed the firearm,im willing to bet they lied about that too.Im saying whats the point of exercising your 2nd ammendment when law enforcement completely disregards it.He didnt know the swat was there,for all we know he couldve thought he was about to fall victim to a criminal home invasion which is a HUGE problem here in tucson.It kind of nullifies your rights to bear arms when police officers are so quick to kill you..Even our local police sgt and other officials said this could all have been avoided had they just pulled him over on his way to or from work,but these immature bastards decided to do it the dangerous way.



posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 03:46 AM
link   
reply to post by VicDiaz89
 


I see where you're coming from too, It's a shame things are the way that they are , there is a growing change in the way police are being trained to deal with their citizens and I don't think it's for the better... I'll leave my feelings on that for another time.



posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 03:51 AM
link   
reply to post by VicDiaz89
 


I don't mean to butt-in on your ongoing discussion with EyesWideShut, but I believe my comment about responsibility lying on the shoulders of the policy makers comes into play.

If you look up the large thread created regarding the said events, you will see that I was very active in there and VERY quick to slam the police. After extensive review of and confirmation that the video was indeed the raid in-question, my assessment changed. The police pulling rear security broke windows and tossed in a flashbang. At least 3 officers can be heard yelling "Police, Police, Police" as well as "We're coming in" and "Search Warrant" multiple times before the entry team breached the front door. As for the officers' accounts of that day, I could not affirmatively confirm nor deny their statements with our given evidence.

I DID slam that particular tactical team with executing what is by-far-and-away the sloppiest entry I have ever seen, something which very well may have attributed to the very tragic ending to the police action. The fact that they fired something along the lines of 60-80 shots, hitting the suspect with less than 20% of those rounds only further illustrates the fact that the entry team was either poorly trained or woefully incapable; if not a combination of the both. Had they breached INTO the room and THROUGH the suspect, there is a chance that he would have either been restrained or injured less severely by fewer gunshots.

Getting back to my original point, while I was outraged at the piss-poor execution displayed, I came to terms with the fact that these men are doing their job. Having kicked in doors in an active combat zone for nearly the last decade, I can tell you it is not easy nor is it anything to be taken lightly, even with the highest caliber of training. The fact of the matter is that with our current drug policy, arrest policy, warrant policy and the laws in-place; more tragic instances like this will occur. The minute the federal and/or state governments stop telling the police to kick in the doors of simple drug offenders will be the minute this stops.

Like most clusterf***s in life, it usually starts with the suits.
edit on 13-7-2011 by ateuprto because: grammar
edit on 13-7-2011 by ateuprto because: mas gramatica



posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 04:04 AM
link   
reply to post by ateuprto
 


i actually didnt look into the discussions on this matter although i should have,bieng probably the only active ats member from tucson.I got too see the press conferences with police chiefs and sargeants and what not,plus all the coverage by my local news.I just think there needs to be a visible line on this matter.The man was killed for holding a firearm,that immediately violated his rights.Im not bashing all law enforcement,im just saying that the SOP needs to be fixed so that people dont die just for having a gun.



posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 04:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by paraclete1
The man complied with the officers instructions to back away from the scene, then the officer began to stalk him until back up was on the way.

He should have never approached to that point to begin with. You never approach an officer on a scene armed or not. When I have had to approach officers in the past who were in the process of doing their jobs, I always put my hands sort of out in front slightly raised so they know that I am not approaching them armed, or with the intent to cause them harm. I also wait until the officer appears to have a free second where they will not have to split their attention between two unknown individuals/situations. I take care of whatever business I have to, thank them, and get the hell out of there as quickly as humanly possible. I have never had an officer react negatively to me simply because I show them a certain level of common courtesy.

Because of the shift I work, as well as the location and my job, I have quite a few encounters with the police, and they always end up on a positive note. Again, this is simply by showing common courtesy, and at least enough respect to understand that police expect negative reactions from people, and never know what to expect from you.

I swear that some of you think that an officer can tell, just by looking, who is going to be that one guy who will pull out a weapon and shoot them, and they should have some innate ability to know whether or not you mean them harm.


Originally posted by paraclete1
If the officer was concerned with officer safety, the time to have asked for ID was when he approached the Traffic stop.

So you want him to take his attention away from the person he has pulled over to deal with a third party interloper? That is a good way for him to get shot in the back if the driver decides to pull out a weapon. For all he knows, and in this case he would have been correct, the two people know each other and are about to put him in danger so they can then flee.

Here is a classic example of what can happen when an officer has to split his attention, and the third party bystander ends up being hostile:



Originally posted by paraclete1
Any arguement about officer safety after the traffic stop was worthless since the officers attention was no longer divided.

Interfering with an officer during the course of his duty is a crime.



posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 04:15 AM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 


Very well put. The fact of the matter is that an officer is trained to deal with the what-ifs. He or she identifies a threat before it becomes active and seeks to neutralize it before the situation escalates. I often wonder if it's just the 15 minutes of fame these people are seeking. Why would you want to make this man's job harder than it already is?

I got off a 15 mph-over speeding ticket 4 months ago. The Virginia State Trooper approached my car, I immediately told him what kind of sidearm I had in the car, where it was and its current status before he could even get a word out. He placed his right hand on top of his sidearm and disengaged the holster's lock. He asked me to get out of the car, placed me in cuffs and calmly explained that he was doing this for his own safety. I said "no worries." He checked the handgun, called back the serial to HQ and took the cuffs off when the gun came back clean. I was then able to present him with my registration and proof of purchase which happened to be accompanying it that day. He was grateful for my calm and for helping him do his job. I told him "you've got enough crap to worry about out here, no problem trooper _____." He proceeded to chat with me for 2 minutes about my service and said "I think my radar was acting up, take care."

Did I feel like a major league A-hole cuffed on the side of I-95? Sure. Did I mind sacrificing so little to help this trooper out? Not at all, and it ended up paying off. Probably saved a trip to court and a couple hundred dollars.

Give and take amigos. Pick your fights.



posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 04:26 AM
link   
Cops get nervous when they see men acting freely. They are used to us acting like the good little slaves we've been conditioned to be.



posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 04:28 AM
link   
reply to post by ateuprto
 


I have had the same thing happen. I was pulled over for speeding and had my paperwork in the armrest between the driver and passenger side seats. I told the officer I was going to have to open it up to get my stuff out. I think I might have thought I had a knife in there or something at the time(I forget now), but he stepped back, unlocked his holster, put his hand on his gun, and ended up thanking me in the end.

Anyway, it’s all common courtesy, and understanding that they have no idea what to expect from you, or if you are going to be that one guy that pulls something on them in an attempt to get away.



posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 04:39 AM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 


You've got that right, it's certainly not a one-way thing. LEO's are human beings. Be rational and polite to them, they generally will do the same for you. Shocking!

There was a "part-timer" supply Sgt. at one of our FOBs who worked as a SC state trooper when he was home. He was a training Sgt. at their training academy and had some videos on his laptop that they show recruits. I watched as Trooper after Trooper approached cars calmly and politely only to be shot through the window from a concealed pistol on the lap of the driver. Troopers getting surrounded and ambushed. Things that they hammer into new guys so that they don't make the same mistake.

Some people won't respect it until one of these troopers, deputies or officers is the one to step up and willingly take a bullet for them. Petty laws get us all down, LEO's included. As long as they are in-place (ultimately the responsibility of us, the griping public), LEO's have to make do with their orders, same as the rest of the government payroll. I'd rather a cop get back home in one piece and raise his children at the sacrifice of my convenience than bury him or her 6 feet deep.
edit on 13-7-2011 by ateuprto because: grammar



posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 05:12 AM
link   
So what was the purpose of the video? I guess I'm missing the point.



posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 06:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by EyesWideShut
I've worn a uniform in the past and understand the need for "Officer Safety".


There are other professions that are much more dangerous than law enforcement that are paid even worse and they get along without expecting to be "safe" 100% of the time, and their job is NOT to protect the community by putting themselves in harms way. If you don't want to be in harms way, don't be a cop... or continue being an idiotic whiner.



Having someone you don't know videotape you raises alarms in anyone for the simple fact that it isn't a common occurance, having someone you don't know with a pistol videotaping you should make you pretty damn concerned.


I can't think of a single entry-level corporate job offering minimum wage that isn't 100% video taped.



posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 07:01 AM
link   
What an idiot this man is. He actually thinks driving while on a phone should be legal?

Ridiculous. Shows how far people can be brainwashed in the cult of freedom. I suppose he thinks drivers should have the freedom to run over pedestrians too



posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 07:23 AM
link   
Well I can see both sides.

The guy should have just stood across the street at the start and filmed.... no need to approach the cop whilst he was dealing with something else.


BUT

It's also nice to see someone who knows their rights dealing with a situation like this, he remained calm and handled himself well....not at all like a gangster.

The cops were trying, as they often do, to lie to him and tell him he was wrong and didn't know the law.

If they were just honest and said "what you did was reckless and stupid and you may get yourself shot one day" I think that would have been better all round.

The guy is clearly antagonistic and was just trying to provoke and annoy the police, but at the same time, He's also highlighting some issues and giving the police a tatse of their own medicine.





new topics

top topics



 
65
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join