Cops Attempt to Detain a guy with a gun, Supervisor comes in ..Can i have my gun back Sir ? .. Yup !

page: 5
41
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 10:57 AM
link   
reply to post by WhatAreThey

Giving credit to a cop for NOT lying. That's great.

So you don't give credit for someone doing the right thing?


God forbid someone is aware of their rights and takes a stand against a so-called authority figure attempting to trample on them.

God forbid someone actually treat a cop like a person. They are, you know. Sometimes they are bad persons, but they are persons.


That is absurd. If you valued yourself or your own life, you would enforce YOUR OWN rights when they needed to be enforced. I sincerely hope people don't teach their daughters to comply with rape because the time to enforce her rights are in court!

Was this guy's life in danger? Did he think the cop was going to hit him in the head and run off with his gun?

If the cop was using physical force illegally, that would be a different story. If the cop was attempting to rape someone, that would be a different story. But in any case, are you able to take down a cop who is armed, trained, experienced, and has backup? The incident is going before a judge at some point anyway, and I would think it wiser to give the cop your name and, if you feel you have a case, go to a lawyer once you are finished.

A wise man picks his fights. A fool looks for fights.


Did you know that the Indiana governor just recently signed a bill into law giving private citizens the right to use deadly force against police officers by putting them in the same legal standing as private citizens when performing crimes?

Yes, and I support that. But do you equate asking for ID without suspicion on a par with breaking into a house and raping someone?



Calling the cops to investigate an innocent person who is exercising his rights to open-carry is along the same lanes of someone calling the cops on an innocent black man just because they are scared of black people. It's wrong on many levels

Agreed!

But you appear to think the guy should have shot the cop for asking for his ID! What exactly did you want the cop to do? Ignore the call? Quit his job? Cry and beg for forgiveness? Arrest himself? What?

The very fact that once his supervisor arrived and took the responsibility of the decision he was happy to comply says he was not doing this to harass... he was doing his job!

The guy with the camera, the guy you are praising, was making that job harder on purpose. We have a word for people like that around here, which I will not repeat in polite company.

TheRedneck




posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 10:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by WhatAreThey
Are you judging the validity of individual rights which are guaranteed by our constitution just because not a lot of people exercise them? As an American, that is a piss-poor attitude to have.


Why do you all keep thinking I'm not for the guys rights? For one thing I have never seen a single open carry in Portland, I have not seen anyone open carry outside of a purpose like hunting/fishing or going to a range since forever...

A guy walking down the street with an open gun will draw attention, I'm sure that was his purpose. The rest of us that do carry we do it concealed so as not to draw attention and to keep the carry for the main purpose of protection. It would be hard to convince me he had the same goal, so then what was his goal?

I guess one could say he was hunting, hunting for a legal fight and it turned out that the cops handled it well even though the gun guy was over bearing and extremely uncooperative which leads me to believe it was all planned to be filmed. I'm for the guys rights all the way I just disagree with his true motives.



posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 11:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero
All I'm saying is I find the gun guys main purpose was to engage the cops on his rights and film it.


Well it was the police who choose to engage him...not the other way around. Also...you don't find it disturbing that "law enforcement officers" seem to be completely ignorant of the laws they are here to enforce? That bothers me in many ways.



posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 11:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
But you appear to think the guy should have shot the cop for asking for his ID! What exactly did you want the cop to do? Ignore the call? Quit his job? Cry and beg for forgiveness? Arrest himself? What?


He could have simply informed his department "No crime is being committed here...I'm moving on with my day."



posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 11:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Shark_Feeder

Before or after he ascertained that fact?

Because that is exactly what he was trying to determine until his supervisor made the call.

TheRedneck



posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 11:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shark_Feeder

Originally posted by Xtrozero
All I'm saying is I find the gun guys main purpose was to engage the cops on his rights and film it.


Also...you don't find it disturbing that "law enforcement officers" seem to be completely ignorant of the laws they are here to enforce?


Or the legal limits of their duties, which is to enforce the laws, not make the laws up as they see fit, and not to babysit.

By the way, maybe you all might want to start open carrying a lot more because if it is not the norm the right will be taken away from you. Where I am from they have made it illegal to purchase a bullet proof vest and using deadly force to defend ourselves no matter the circumstance is a criminal offence. We have lost the basic human right to defend our lives in Canada.



posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 11:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by Shark_Feeder

Before or after he ascertained that fact?

Because that is exactly what he was trying to determine until his supervisor made the call.

TheRedneck


Are you even aware that citizens of this country are innocent until proven guilty? Someone calling the cops to make my day hell does not make me a felon...nor is carrying a weapon evidence of any crime.

The police cannot assume anyone they encounter is a violent criminal. That is the way the law works...or was intended to work.



posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 11:21 AM
link   
In a lot of states here there are open carry laws. The problem is that neither the public nor the police receive enough education on the matter and we end up with incidents like this or worse. My opinion is good for this man for exercising his right; but it would have been much easier if he would have just given the officer his ID for verification. This was an obvious intentional incident by that of the man with the camera and firearm for what purpose I am not sure.

Police are not perfect and they do not always know the law to a T, but when you challenge them in the manner this man did it can get ugly. If I were to walk down the street with my .45 on my hip or my AK on my back, which is legal here, I would not have a problem if an officer stopped and asked me to show my ID. It is their job to protect the public. Now if cops came up guns charged ready to arrest/kill me then we would have a problem.

I bet if he just handed him his ID, told him he was legal and cooperated the supervisor would never had to get involved at all. I choose not to open carry as I see it as dangerous due to the lack of education into the law. I know the police in my town but the surrounding county and state police would jump all over some one open carrying around here I think.



posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 11:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shark_Feeder

Well it was the police who choose to engage him...not the other way around. Also...you don't find it disturbing that "law enforcement officers" seem to be completely ignorant of the laws they are here to enforce? That bothers me in many ways.


So what do you think his purpose was to open carry in Portland?

Well it was most likely a good lesson to the young cop... The cop engaged him because he was called to the scene. I guess you can start to bash the local citizen too since they are completely ignorant of the laws. As I said before, open carry is so unusual it draws attention, since the vast majority of the time open carry means some bad guy just did something or is about to do something....The cop investigated it and ran into an aggressive, totally uncooperative person. Being totally uncooperative the cops still saw him well within his rights base on state laws and gave his gun back and moved along.

i.e. nothing to see here folks move along...was the end result....

I also love how you all feel the need to debate by using the extreme...as in " completely ignorant of the laws. If the cop was completely ignorant then he would have arrested the guy... The cop asked him what was his name, then just his first name for conversation then let it drop. The end result was the situation was checked out and everyone went their own way....great...freedom at work...




edit on 25-6-2012 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shark_Feeder
He could have simply informed his department "No crime is being committed here...I'm moving on with my day."


That was the end result, wasn't it? I guess he needed to make that decision 100 yards away with binoculars in your opinion...lol

BTW a cop walking up to a person and talking to him is not limiting anyones freedom....did the cop do anything else than that?


edit on 25-6-2012 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 11:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by dainoyfb
Or the legal limits of their duties, which is to enforce the laws, not make the laws up as they see fit, and not to babysit.

By the way, maybe you all might want to start open carrying a lot more


How does a cop determine everything is ok? He talks to them...and that is what he did. What law did he make up?

Why would I open carry? I would not be able to go into a single business other than maybe a gun store, and if I walked into a gun store with a loaded gun on my hip and acted to the store clerk in the same manner as this guy did with the cop I would bet the store clerk would remove the safety strap off his own gun...hehe

99 times out of 100 an open carry down the street is a bad man...ok yes I'm profiling and for good reason...





edit on 25-6-2012 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 11:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ryanssuperman
I'm all of civilian rights, however, in Canada, the police are allowed to request identification regardless of if they suspect you of a crime. I think this is a safe practice ... and doesn't infringe on our rights.


Who stared this post?!!

Absolutely 100% untrue!! In Canada demanding identification from someone if there is no evidence of their involvement in a crime is legally defined as unreasonable search and seizure. I've won this battle against the RCMP in court before it even went to litigation. Read your Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is short and simple. Learn your rights so they are not taken away from you so easily.



posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 11:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Germanicus
Only in America.

What a scary place. Thank god I live in a country where it is illegal to carry a weapon.


You're happy about being defenseless and living in a country where only the bad guys can defend themselves with deadly force? Wow.....

thank god my countrymen haven't become as deluded as you.



posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero
So what do you think his purpose was to open carry in Portland?

That is in no way my, your, or the government's business. I am always prepared to defend myself...hell I have been known to dual wield my pistols in certain places.


As I said before, open carry is so unusual it draws attention,

So does my hair color, and fashion sense...your point?


since the vast majority of the time open carry means some bad guy just did something or is about to do something.

Can you back this up with any facts, or statistics?


i.e. nothing to see here folks move along...was the end result....

Yes after the supervisor was brought in, because the responding officer attempted to detain him(BTW that is illegal without a 'legal' reason.)

Hmm...seems the officer was guilty of more illegal actions than this citizen was. Perhaps someone should have confiscated the officer's sidearm, and detained him. At least until his buddies sprung him.



posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
The guy was in a state where open carrying of a gun does not require a permit....


OK thanks, I was thinking you needed a permit to open carry in every state? So why don't more people openly carry?


Along with some of the reason others have mentioned - I don't open carry because it draws unwanted attention. I think about this scenario. If I was a deranged maniac about to commit some psychotic crime, and I see this guy with his camera and his gun on his hip, I am going to neutralize him first. For me concealed carry makes much more sense. It seems many of these open carry people do it hoping for a run in with cops and a chance to make a cool video showing how much they know about gun laws.



posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 11:46 AM
link   
AWESOME DUDE!

screw that cop! get him off the streets! he is the reason there is so much animosity towards the idiots in blue!



tryin to mess with someone PERFECTLY within the confines of the law. That officr is unbelievable
edit on 25-6-2012 by Gwampo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shark_Feeder

Are you even aware that citizens of this country are innocent until proven guilty? Someone calling the cops to make my day hell does not make me a felon...nor is carrying a weapon evidence of any crime.


True and the guy was not arrested or detained past the point of a few questions that he never answered and was still released...

I'm still failing to see where this guy's freedom was trampled all over...

BTW let's say you covered yourself in cows blood and decided to walk down the street begging for a cop to stop you and ask questions that you aggressively do not answer since it is perfectly legal to walk down the street wearing cows blood... Both this and open carry are unusable and both are legal, and maybe in both cases they warrant a couple of questions by a concerned cop who is called to the scene....maybe

AND maybe if you had a friend video tape the whole thing you had other motives than just to wear your unusual fashion for the day...


edit on 25-6-2012 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 11:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Xtrozero
 


He didn't just talk to him, he detained him. The car analogy is perfect here. Cars kill and injure more people than guns do but a cop doesn't need to detain a driver to determine if they have lawful intentions while driving, nor does a cop have the legal right to do so. The officer did not see the person carying the gun engaging in an illegal activity so he had no legal right to detain him. Whether you like it or not, what the police can legally do comes down to what is written law, not what you think is right or wrong.



posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 12:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by dainoyfb
He didn't just talk to him, he detained him.


Detainment is a very grey area here. They asked him questions that he didn't answer and when he ask to leave they let him walk away with no further actions. Initial legal approach is called "contact" where a cop may ask questions but the person is not obligated to answer or stay.

I'm sure if you try very hard you can everyday put cops into this situation where they border on illegal detaining even if it is for a few minutes....As many have said cops are human to and need to make quick decisions all the time dealing with the best and the worst (typically) that society offers in whether to "contact" and how far they need to go on to detaining...it's all black and white in print, but in practice one is subject to an unlimited number of scenarios.



edit on 25-6-2012 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 12:21 PM
link   
reply to post by WhatAreThey
 

I can see thier point. The bank is private property and you could have been part of a crime in the making.

I assume they just said OK and move on to the food place.
edit on 6/25/2012 by roadgravel because: typo





new topics
top topics
 
41
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join