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

page: 9
41
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 11:45 AM
link   
reply to post by fourthmeal
 


The problem I have with open carry is all it takes to do it is have the ability to stuff the gun in your belt without shooting off your nuts...

At lease with a CCW a person has gone through some kind of process to get it. This typically means a safety/proficient class and is checked to not have anything in their records preventing them from getting one.

In my experience dealing with cops they find my CCW as a good thing and are much more relaxed with me then if they were talking to me with a gun in my belt and I refuse to answer a single question under "contact" rights.

I'm in no way against open carry, but as I said I just do not see a purpose for it that CCW would not do much better and that is truely focued on defense and not just "testing" your rights...




posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 12:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
If I had a 'license' to use an illegal substance and stood on the street using it, would you expect a cop to ignore me, or see if I actually did have a 'license'?

How can the idiot not reasonably expect to be questioned, in a country where people shoot people en masse? I appreciate the guys right to carry, but a little common sense would help also. Seems to me he is doing it to be purposely antagonistic. No one can seriously expect to openly carry, legal or not, and not be questioned.

It's not illegal to be naked in the street where I live, but if people call and complain the cops will make them cover up.

edit on 6/25/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)


In most states with OC, you don't need a lisence to do so. So, what you're saying is this, in a state where everyone is allowed to use that substance, they should be randomly stopping those using it anyway.



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 01:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by WhatAreThey

My standards are obviously just higher than yours.





... within the realms of that questioning being warranted in the first place.

The guy was not formally questioned. The cop asked him his name.



"Formally questioned"?

The man obviously felt like he couldn't just leave, going on about his day. He was being detained from his daily activities against his will by the questioning of the officer. The police officer was temporarily denying the man, through his assumed authority, the ability to leave the situation so that the officer could investigate the complain. This is detainment, and it was not justified for reasons of open-carry.



And we don't know the situation from the other side. What did the guy with the camera look like? How was he acting beforehand? I have stopped and talked to people walking down the road in front of my house many times... if they look like they might be out looking for trouble, I stop and ask "Can I help you?"


He obviously wasn't doing anything to give the officers probable cause to arrest him, or he would have been. He was detained.



Again, there was no force used, no official detainment, no arrest, no charges. All the cop did was talk to him and ask his name.


"Formally questioned", "official detainment" ... Split hairs much?



It's not illegal until it becomes harassment, which was what was clearly happening to the man in the video. He wasn't just asking a question, but asking to see the man's ID. Over, and over.

That is harassment to you? Then get ready to be harassed a lot in life.


It doesn't matter what it is to me. It matters what is written in the state statutes where you reside. In the State the man was in (Maine), we can find that Harassment may be defined as (Title 5, Ch. 337, Part 12, Section 4651. DEFINITIONS):

Harassment:

B. Three or more acts that are made with the intent to deter the free exercise or enjoyment of any rights or privileges secured by the Constitution of Maine or the United States Constitution".

Simply put: the police officer made three or more demands that the man show him his ID, preventing him from being secure in his person and belongings under the 4th Amendment, all while he had no suspicion of a felony nor other illegal activity and completely ignoring case law in regards to open-carry.



Harassment is following someone every time they drive within jurisdiction, waiting to catch a wobble. Harassment is questioning someone every day for a month trying to find something, anything, to arrest them on. I saw harassment when I was younger... got news for ya, this ain't it.


You are wrong, and hopefully you know why at this point.



If a common citizen did this to a mailman, for example, it would be a federal offense.

Title and code, please? Where is it illegal to ask a mailman for their ID?


It is a felony to harass a mailman.


False right out of the gate. There exist no federally mandated police investigatory guidelines that blanket every jurisdiction.

You are aware there are laws other than Federal? Most jurisdictions (around here anyway) require that any complaint be investigated. It makes sense to at least listen to a complaint. That doesn't mean every complaint results in an arrest; most probably don't. It's just a way to make sure that armchair lawyers don't bankrupt the city because a call was ignored.


"Most Jurisdictions". Sure, most complaints don't get investigated unless they relate to a crime, statute, or local ordinance.


Such an outcry over asking for ID... it makes me wonder what the outcry would be if he had been ignored and found out later he was mentally ill and meaning to kill someone. According to what I have read so far, you would still blame the cop, only this time for not checking.


Not only was a "stop and ID" detainment not warranted, but it was rude to stop the man for no reason, and harassment is considered a crime. The cop turns out to be a rude and bothersome criminal once you add up all of his actions. You just need to get it through your "bow down to authority" attitude that the police officer had no more of a right to do what he did than any other citizen. It was harassment through and through. I would not appreciate anybody doing that to me, and I'm sure you wouldn't either.

As far as your last comment: I don't think that anyone who isn't doing anything illegal or clearly about to do something illegal should be investigated on a "just-in-case" basis. Your ideas are just preemptive for thought police.



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 05:55 PM
link   
reply to post by WhatAreThey

The man obviously felt like he couldn't just leave, going on about his day.

Oh, yeah... I must have missed the cell bars and handcuffs... no, wait...

Come to think of it, your perspective has some benefits. I was detained today by four red lights. I committed no crime! I wasn't allowed to go about my business! I want a lawyer!



He obviously wasn't doing anything to give the officers probable cause to arrest him, or he would have been.

So, you would have been OK with this whole thing if he had been arrested?

Police have the right as part of their job to investigate. Technically, the guy was impeding an investigation if you want to take it that far... but these cops showed... common sense!


"Formally questioned", "official detainment" ... Split hairs much?

Now there's a pot calling the kettle black...



Harassment:

B. Three or more acts that are made with the intent to deter the free exercise or enjoyment of any rights or privileges secured by the Constitution of Maine or the United States Constitution".

The officer performed one act: questioning the man to ascertain his status and intent.

Thank you for proving my point... unless you want to count the twenty or so steps he took approaching him as twenty or so individual acts. Or maybe we could count each word in his request as a separate act. Better yet, each syllable! Wow, that's probably a few hundred acts... can we get the cop a life sentence here?


Each stop is considered a separate act.

Split hairs much?


It is a felony to harass a mailman.

And of course asking a mailman for his ID is definitely harassment if it takes more than three syllables or you walk more than three steps to do it, or any combination of the above.


Sure, most complaints don't get investigated unless they relate to a crime, statute, or local ordinance.

False. Just flat out false. Complaints are always investigated. I have been investigated without a charge being made. It wasn't harassment; it happened once in a while. A guy I grew up with was stopped over 40 times in one month without being charged. He won a harassment suit.

The only time a complaint is not investigated is when it is apparent the complainant is trying to harass someone. Typically that is also investigated... and results in legal charges.


The cop turns out to be a rude and bothersome criminal once you add up all of his actions.

Oh, so you convicted him then? I had no idea I was speaking to a judge...


You just need to get it through your "bow down to authority" attitude that the police officer had no more of a right to do what he did than any other citizen.

Firstly, I bow to no man. I think the fact I still won't accept your personal interpretation of how you think the law should work speaks to that.

Secondly, now you say he's rude... and that I can accept. It's your opinion. It's only this warped interpretation that makes him a criminal after he takes three steps toward someone unless he arrests them that I cannot agree with.


As far as your last comment: I don't think that anyone who isn't doing anything illegal or clearly about to do something illegal should be investigated on a "just-in-case" basis. Your ideas are just preemptive for thought police.

Ah, so all this is your opinion after all.

I would give you credit for finally admitting that, but it would take more than three characters. I wouldn't want to be charged with harassment.


TheRedneck



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 11:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by WhatAreThey

The man obviously felt like he couldn't just leave, going on about his day.

Oh, yeah... I must have missed the cell bars and handcuffs... no, wait...

Come to think of it, your perspective has some benefits. I was detained today by four red lights. I committed no crime! I wasn't allowed to go about my business! I want a lawyer!



Driving is a privilege, and so can be regulated, restricted, and what have you. You agree to abide by the regulations set forth when you accept the privilege. This is in stark contrast to the right to bear arms, which shall not be infringed. It is important to understand that this right is expressed as reserved in the constitution of the United States, the founding document of the country. Frankly, the weak stance you take on this right, and your acceptance of wrongful detainment - even simple questioning - is disgusting, demonstrably Un-American and, I think, would make those who thought about and wrote the document sick to their very innards to see how limp and spineless attitudes have grown regarding individual rights.


He obviously wasn't doing anything to give the officers probable cause to arrest him, or he would have been.
So, you would have been OK with this whole thing if he had been arrested?


If he were committing a crime in the presence of the officer, or had aroused probable cause that was warranted and not against case law then I would have no problem with it.



Police have the right as part of their job to investigate. Technically, the guy was impeding an investigation if you want to take it that far... but these cops showed... common sense!


Ultimately, the cops showed that they waste tax-payer dollars and impede on individual rights by harassing free men with demands for ID. Where is the common sense again?




The officer performed one act: questioning the man to ascertain his status and intent.

Thank you for proving my point... unless you want to count the twenty or so steps he took approaching him as twenty or so individual acts. Or maybe we could count each word in his request as a separate act. Better yet, each syllable! Wow, that's probably a few hundred acts... can we get the cop a life sentence here?



You are intellectually ridiculous enough to believe this harassment statute requires tree distinctly separate acts to constitute harassment and that a repeated (even 50 or 100 times apparently) act doesn't apply to harassment. You are not able to process the meaning of "three or more acts". I'm not here to give reading comprehension lessons.



The only time a complaint is not investigated is when it is apparent the complainant is trying to harass someone. Typically that is also investigated... and results in legal charges.


If that's what you really want to believe, you keep doing it. You make the police sound like a very efficient and helpful force.

And, I'll just group these together for a single response:


It is a felony to harass a mailman.
And of course asking a mailman for his ID is definitely harassment if it takes more than three syllables or you walk more than three steps to do it, or any combination of the above.

Oh, so you convicted him then? I had no idea I was speaking to a judge...

I think the fact I still won't accept your personal interpretation of how you think the law should work speaks to that.

It's only this warped interpretation that makes him a criminal after he takes three steps toward someone unless he arrests them that I cannot agree with.

Ah, so all this is your opinion after all.

I would give you credit for finally admitting that, but it would take more than three characters. I wouldn't want to be charged with harassment.


I see you enjoy putting a lot of fallacious "filler" in your arguments.



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 11:52 PM
link   
reply to post by WhatAreThey

Driving is a privilege

Actually, that was sarcasm designed to show just how silly your argument is. There is no right to not be questioned; there is no right to not be investigated; there is no right to not be delayed. There are laws against harassment (which by your own research means three, not one, three incidents), there are laws against unlawful arrest, there are laws against illegal detention (which typically is defined as more than 24 hours)... but no law, anywhere in the US, against asking someone what they are doing.

You are trying to project your anger at police onto the law. It doesn't work that way.


If he were committing a crime in the presence of the officer, or had aroused probable cause that was warranted and not against case law then I would have no problem with it.

Now you get to define "warranted"... based your previous legal 'definitions', it might mean "blue" for all I know.

The fact remains that you apparently expect the officer to sit in his car and read magazines until a criminal jumps in front of him and commits a crime.


Ultimately, the cops showed that they waste tax-payer dollars and impede on individual rights by harassing free men with demands for ID.

Exactly how much more did it cost taxpayers for him to walk across the street and talk to the guy? He is going to get paid for every hour on duty regardless of what he is doing during that time. He cost taxpayers exactly ZERO dollars by his actions.


You are intellectually ridiculous enough to believe this harassment statute requires tree distinctly separate acts to constitute harassment and that a repeated (even 50 or 100 times apparently) act doesn't apply to harassment. You are not able to process the meaning of "three or more acts". I'm not here to give reading comprehension lessons.

I sincerely hope you are not here for that; I don't think you would be very good at it. By your definition, a police car that turned their sirens on three times in an attempt to pull a driver over who did not press a charge would be guilty of harassment. I assure you they are not.


If that's what you really want to believe, you keep doing it. You make the police sound like a very efficient and helpful force.

It's what I know.

And I would like to set the record straight on something you seem to like to repeat: I am not a fan of police. I believe there are far too many instances of abuse of power happening across the country. I believe that police who commit violent crimes should be subject to harsher punishment than others because of their peculiar position of power. I believe tasers should be outlawed for police to have, or at least that repeated or unnecessary use of them should be treated as attempted murder. I believe that any laws against simply owning or bearing a firearm openly are unconstitutional and any legislative or judicial official who supports such should be removed and barred from office.

But I also believe that there are police who do not fit those situations above. I am reasonable enough to realize that the police do have a difficult job to do, that they are human beings and citizens like anyone else, with the exact same rights, and that because of all this they deserve a certain amount of respect until and unless they show otherwise through their actions.

I also believe that they are not psychic. If they see someone with a gun, they are understandably concerned about safety, both their own and others'. When the officer approached, he did not know if the guy was just exercising his right, was a felon trying to conceal his identity, was mentally unstable with a stolen gun, etc., etc., etc. He asked to see the gun, a ploy to find out if the guy might have intentions of shooting him and disarm him temporarily if possible. He then asked who the guy was, so he could ascertain there was no danger to others. The guy became confrontational, and thus extended the talk. The chief (or whoever that was) probably either recognized the guy as a known legal vulture looking for a lawsuit or realized by his actions what he was up to and made the call to stop the questioning.

Nothing that happened in this instance was illegal: carrying the firearm, questioning a citizen, refusing to answer, asking three times, nothing. Your opinions, which are not borne out by either legal terminology nor common sense, are simply angry wishful thinking against someone you hate terribly for no other reason than the job they do.

Yes, you have made that hatred quite evident.


I see you enjoy putting a lot of fallacious "filler" in your arguments.

No, I just enjoy pointing out the fallacy of your statements, the contradictions in your arguments, and the silliness of your conclusions. Call it a personality defect.

TheRedneck



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 12:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by interupt42
reply to post by gimme_some_truth
 


If the guy is walking around with a gun in the open for no reason,


I don't recall this man stating his reasons for having a gun...Do you? So, really, you can't fairly speculate as to what his reasons were...He was within his legal rights and THAT is what matters.

He was within his rights, the cops determined he was within his rights, during his detainment and he was free to leave because he was completely within his rights....

You seem to think he did something wrong... He didn't...


Vote TRUTH_2012
edit on 28-6-2012 by gimme_some_truth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 08:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by gimme_some_truth

Originally posted by interupt42
reply to post by gimme_some_truth
 


If the guy is walking around with a gun in the open for no reason,


I don't recall this man stating his reasons for having a gun...Do you? So, really, you can't fairly speculate as to what his reasons were...He was within his legal rights and THAT is what matters.


I didn't speculate notice the IF in my statement.

"If the guy is walking around with a gun in the open for no reason, then he is seeking attention and bad attention at that. "




Originally posted by gimme_some_truth
He was within his rights, the cops determined he was within his rights, during his detainment and he was free to leave because he was completely within his rights....

You seem to think he did something wrong... He didn't...




I didn't say that he did anything wrong nor did he not have the right to carry the gun.

"He might have the right to do it (for now), but he is surely providing the politicians ammo to eventually take that right away."



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 09:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shark_Feeder

Originally posted by interupt42
reply to post by gimme_some_truth
 


If the guy is walking around with a gun in the open for no reason, then he is seeking attention and bad attention at that. He might have the right to do it (for now), but he is surely providing the politicians ammo to eventually take that right away.

Enough guys like the one in the video start doing things like that, it won't be long before congress will happily step in and legislating new laws to protect us.



So by your logic... all of those ohh so offensive "stand up comedians" I see on TV everyday are only an excuse to remove my 1st ammendment right? You know how offensive they can be afterall.


Are you trying to say the the gov't has never tried to restrict or restrict the boundaries of freedom of speech?

Comedians is a bad analogy. Try, the gov't using Racist KKK members opinions, Hateful or controversial speeches, and bogus excuses to try an restrict freedom of speech.



Google’s founder Sergey Brin
"Imagine my astonishment when the newest threat to free speech has come from none other but the United States. Two bills currently making their way through congress -- SOPA and PIPA -- give the U.S. government and copyright holders extraordinary powers including the ability to hijack DNS and censor search results (and this is even without so much as a proper court trial)"

www.washingtonpost.com...







Originally posted by Shark_Feeder

Exercising our rights is an excuse to remove them?.



No, exercising our right is not a VALID excuse to remove them, but that doesn't mean they won't use it to get there agenda passed. I'm not saying not to carry your gun nor exercise your rights, But try to use commonsense along with it.

IF the guy did it just to prove that he could and numerous others start to follow in pursuit. Do you not think that those in gov't that are trying to strip you of your right to carry a gun will not use that as an example of how dangerous it is to have that many people in public with weapons. Not to mention the one idiot who accidentally or purposely shoots someone in error.

Basically , Just carry your gun and don't wave it in public to bring unwanted attention .


Originally posted by Shark_Feeder
WTH did you go to school?

Nice touch with the attempted personal attack. , makes you sound smarter



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by WhatAreThey

Driving is a privilege

Now you get to define "warranted"... based your previous legal 'definitions', it might mean "blue" for all I know.


A word in a statute means exactly what it means in the definition section referenced by that statute. Then again, you seem perfectly comfortable conjuring up your own definitions to support your stance.



The fact remains that you apparently expect the officer to sit in his car and read magazines until a criminal jumps in front of him and commits a crime.


... and the fact remains that you apparently expect the officer to go bother and invade peoples' space on every 'complaint' and 'suspicious' (even if it is a lie).



Exactly how much more did it cost taxpayers for him to walk across the street and talk to the guy? He is going to get paid for every hour on duty regardless of what he is doing during that time. He cost taxpayers exactly ZERO dollars by his actions.


You can't see the forest for the trees.



I sincerely hope you are not here for that; I don't think you would be very good at it. By your definition, a police car that turned their sirens on three times in an attempt to pull a driver over who did not press a charge would be guilty of harassment. I assure you they are not.


Rhetoric, Hyperbole. Great material, otherwise.



I believe tasers should be outlawed for police to have, or at least that repeated or unnecessary use of them should be treated as attempted murder.


Three, right?



that they are human beings and citizens like anyone else, with the exact same rights, and that because of all this they deserve a certain amount of respect until and unless they show otherwise through their actions.


That's a topic of high debate, so I won't even touch it.



When the officer approached, he did not know if the guy was just exercising his right, was a felon trying to conceal his identity


The officer has no right nor legal precedence to "stop and check" if anyone is a felon without probable cause.



was mentally unstable


The officer has no right nor legal precedence to "stop and check" if anyone is mentally unstable.



with a stolen gun, etc., etc., etc.


The officer has no right nor legal precedence to "stop and check" if anyone is carrying stolen property, without probable cause.

You really don't understand the concept of reserving the right to be secure in your person and property, do you? Obviously you don't have a very high opinion of personal rights, and that extends to yourself and your own character, all the way down to your children.



He asked to see the gun, a ploy to find out if the guy might have intentions of shooting him


So then you agree that police should use deceit and trickery in lieu of legal precedence. It is your opinion that legal authority should use dishonesty and ploy in lieu of probably cause.



and disarm him


... and you agree that they should also use sheer possibility as reason for seizure of personal property...



Nothing that happened in this instance was illegal: carrying the firearm, questioning a citizen, refusing to answer, asking three times, nothing. Your opinions, which are not borne out by either legal terminology nor common sense, are simply angry wishful thinking against someone you hate terribly for no other reason than the job they do.


Yet, in your world, it is the police who are perfectly acceptable adopting the idea that mentally unstable people with stolen weapons are out to shoot them without probable cause.

I grow tired of this particular debate. It's beating a dead horse from both sides.

Anyway.

Thanks for the couple-day argument :-) You can post a response, but I assure you that I won't be reading it as I am deleting this thread from my favorites.

Nothing personal, of course.



posted on Jul, 1 2012 @ 11:46 AM
link   
Watch the whole thing....



straight up, all you apologist are the definition of sheep and are the perfect example of how mainstream society has been brain washed to have us "police" each other.

if you cant express your rights, what can you do? you are basically saying that you are fine having no rights at all.

and to The Redneck, "all complaints are investigated". Did you even watch the video I posted in response to your comment?

edit on 1-7-2012 by wrdwzrd because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ark005
The guys filming this seems like he set this up knowing how people and the police would react.
I would agree with the police on this one.
Someone walking down the street will scare people who aren't familiar with the laws will call it in. The police are required to respond any safety issue. But the officer acted as I would expect a decent person to act.
That being said the person filming seemed a little on the confrontational side, like he was trying to get a specific response from the officer. These types of people are as much a problem as the over zealous cops out there.
How many people walk outside with a gun and a camcorder for fun?
With his attitude I think both his gun and his camera should be taken away.


It's a cell phone. So he should lose his right to carry a cell phone with a video camera??
What if he happened to be walking down the street and saw a cop brutally hurting a citizen, and this same gentleman started video tape the incident, it would be okay for him to video tape that but not this incident?

I'm sure he was taping for his own safety and evidence if things were to escalate.

LASTLY, The 2nd Ammendment to the US Constitution states I have the right to keep and bear arms.

I'm sure this intelligent person was not walking around waving the gun in the air or pointing it at people.
So with that said you clearly are of the opinion that MY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT means jack crap because you're scared or unfamiliar with the law???

Your comment clearly shows that you think that is reason enough that this man should not be allowed to exercise his CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to keep and bear arms, or be in possession of a cell phone.

Give me a break Nancy, man up, this guy did NOTHING WRONG except exercising his God given rights.

To a lot of people now a days (including you and the detaining officer) exercising your rights, apparently isn't right at all.





top topics
 
41
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in

join