TexasCHLforum.com

ran across this video on a car website i frequent. was just curious of everyones thoughts. my first thought was this guy was just being a jerk and i personally would never argue to the point this guy did with a LEO. I also am not at all familiar with the cases he brought up. In the end i gather that this wasn't a valid stop? fyi this supposedly occured in maine which allows open carry.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... fdEbe7e9GE" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I don't mind activism when it is directly related to politics. People should be involved in local political processes. I do mind activism when it is just some guy with a huge chip on his shoulder looking for trouble. This guy could have simply shown the cop his ID and been on his way in 2 minutes. Instead, he turned it into a confrontation which he recorded. I suspect that he turned it into a confrontation just so that he could record it and post it on youtube. In other words, it was a stunt.

Reasonable people might ask, "to what end?" Here's my take........ He actually did a disservice to the open carry movement. If he thinks his stunt convinced anyone who is against open carry to change their minds, he's delusional. What he has done is A) preach to the already convinced choir; and B) confirm to anyone who might have been sitting on the 2nd Amendment fence that gun owners are a bunch of irresponsible rabble rousers who probably shouldn't be trusted with their guns. People might be wrong about (B), but they do have opinions, we help them to form those opinions by our behaviors, and they vote accordingly! Open carry advocates are already going to vote politicians into office whose views are consistent with their own. But fence sitters should be convinced to vote with us, not against us, and these types of aggressive, in-your-face, gotcha tactics play perfectly into the hands of those who would ban the free expression of our rights, and they convince fence sitters to vote against our interests. In short, the guy who shot this video is a complete moron.

Here would have been a MUCH better approach: Friendly, cooperative, and on his way......and videotape that instead. Then, the fence-sitters might say, "gee-whiz, that guy was pretty reasonable. Maybe these gun folks aren't so bad after all."

I'm not against open carry. If anyone here searches my posts on the matter, I've said repeatedly that the best possible scenario is Constitutional Carry, like what Arizona has. But there are responsible and irresponsible ways to be an advocate for it, and the idiot in this video did more damage than good to the cause.

That's my 2¢.

My short version of this is he was more than likely 'trolling' for a cop. This means he was wandering around, making sure everyone saw his gun, enough so to raise suspicion of something not being kosher, and when confronted he knew 'all' of the cases to reference. Will bet he is either a law student or an Internet lawyer.

One word comes to my mind: idiot!

I commend the police officer's response to an otherwise idiot person. I say sadly because apparently he was right,but he did all gun owners a disservice with his approach to it. In my experience only guilty people are guilty of Failure to I.D. Everyone else just simply I.D.'s themselves because they have nothing to hide. This guy is fortunate he wasn't arrested. I would imagine the fact that a call came in to dispatch would have/should have given this officer enough P.C. to detain this man for identification purposes alone let alone for refusing to I.D.

There are times we're bound by a criminal code of conduct and others a moral code and a civil code. I don't know if he violated the criminal code in that state but he sure violated the other two. A jerk with a gun, how nice!

harrycallahan wrote:In my experience only guilty people are guilty of Failure to I.D. Everyone else just simply I.D.'s themselves because they have nothing to hide. This guy is fortunate he wasn't arrested. I would imagine the fact that a call came in to dispatch would have/should have given this officer enough P.C. to detain this man for identification purposes alone let alone for refusing to I. D.

Sounds like you're just fine with "papers please". Since you've got nothing to hide, I assume you're just fine with searching your car while they're at it. How 'bout your house too, while they are searching.

In states that allow unlicensed open carry, open carrying in and of itself is not RAS and does not justify a detention or request for identification, any more than someone walking into a shopping mall or MCDonalds justifies detention or demand for ID.

I cannot view the video right now, so I cannot speak to this individual. But I am well aware of dozens of similar open carry encounters where the end result has been to change police procedure in many localities. You may not like their activism, but it has made substantial changes at the local level when state law supports unlicensed open carry.

I'll not criticize a man for exercising his rights in a lawful fashion, even if I would personally handle it differently. Rights unexercised are rights lost.

BTW, I do NOT assume the guy was walking around trolling for LEO interaction. I personally open carried in everyday life hundreds of times. I had LEO interaction less than a handful of times. But when those did occur, I also record the encounter. If I have an LEO interaction this afternoon, I'll record that as well. The only way to rebut who said what to whom when an LEO testifies is to have hard evidence. It is simple common sense, not looking for YouTube glory.

ETA please excuse the typos - difficult from my phone -- cleaned them up.

Jumping Frog wrote:BTW, I do NOT assume the guy was walking around trolling for LEO interaction.

Maybe so, but unless he's a lawyer, it seems unlikely he could quote so many legal precedents without being prepared.

The police received a call regarding a man with a gun. They must respond to that call and, upon arriving, determine his intentions. If they didn't respond and something bad happened, they'd be roasted over the coals.

The officer removed the man's gun for his (the officer's) own safety. If I had been the responding officer, I'd have likely done the same thing until I determined he wasn't a threat. After all, the officer doesn't know him.

This guy was just trolling for a confrontation he could put on YouTube. The police appeared to be professional and polite in the video. I agree with TAM that this doesn't further the cause of open carry in any way. The way to do that would be to answer the officer's questions politely so he can determine, as quickly as possible, your threat level and then you can move on with your life having made a positive impression upon law enforcement. Can you imagine what cops would think of us if we acted this way every time we were stopped? The best tactic is to be polite. If you feel your rights were violated, the place to contest that is not on the side of the street and with a YouTube video, but with a complaint to the department.

For whatever reason he carries a gun that is his choice. He knew his rights and he stood his ground. If people don't like someone walking around with a gun then they need to talk to their state reps and the cops need to respect his rights.
ON the other side I see no reason not to give your DL and end the whole thing

Jumping Frog wrote:

harrycallahan wrote:In my experience only guilty people are guilty of Failure to I.D. Everyone else just simply I.D.'s themselves because they have nothing to hide. This guy is fortunate he wasn't arrested. I would imagine the fact that a call came in to dispatch would have/should have given this officer enough P.C. to detain this man for identification purposes alone let alone for refusing to I. D.

Sounds like you're just fine with "papers please". Since you've got nothing to hide, I assume you're just fine with searching your car while they're at it. How 'bout your house too, while they are at it.

In states that allow unlicensed open carry, an open carrying in and of itself is not RAS and does not justify a detention or request for identification, any more than someone walking into a shopping mall or MCDonalds justifies detention or demand for ID.

I can view the video right now, so I cannot speak to this individual. But I am well aware of dozens of similar open carry encounters where the end result has been to change police procedure in many localities. You may not like their activism, but it has made substantial changes at the local level when state law supports unlicensed open carry.

I'll not criticize a man for exercising his rights in a lawful fashion, even if I would personally handle it differently. Rights I unexercised are rights lost.

BTW, I do NOT assume the guy was walking around trolling for LEO interaction. I personally open carried in everyday life hundreds of times. I had LEO interaction less than a handful of times. But when those did occur, I also record the encounter. If I have an LEO interaction this afternoon, I'll record that as well. The only way to rebut who said what to whom when an LEO testifies is to have hard evidence. It is sImple common sense, not looking for YouTube glory.

ETA please excuse the typos - difficult from my phone.

I am for treating my rights with respect as well as others. I have NO PROBLEM giving my name if asked by a LEO. Why? I have nothing to hide. If you think he wasn't trolling while out with a concealed camera, a plain view firearm and loaded with case law then clearly WE disagree.

Kythas wrote:The police received a call regarding a man with a gun. They must respond to that call and, upon arriving, determine his intentions. If they didn't respond and something bad happened, they'd be roasted over the coals.

Not necessarily. If know of many instances where the MWAG call came in. The officer drove past, saw an ordinary looking citizen with a handgun properly holstered walking his dog. Drove on, nothing going on here. No need to stop and get into "determining intentions".

Realize in open carry states that you simply don't see bad guys walking around with holstered handguns. If you are a gangbanger, you are probably already in the system, under parole or under firearms disability. They'd got their gun shoved in their waistband or in their pocket, ready to jettison if the "po-po" are coming. These guys don't wear a belt holster in the open.

harrycallahan wrote:I am for treating my rights with respect as well as others. I have NO PROBLEM giving my name if asked by a LEO. Why? I have nothing to hide. If you think he wasn't trolling while out with a concealed camera, a plain view firearm and loaded with case law then clearly WE disagree.

Clearly we do.

I have a camera on me right now while I sit in McDonalds with my coffee, and am quite familiar with the legal rights discussed. I am not trolling for anything. Neither was I trolling when I open carried in a different state, but I was prepared.

Again, rights not exercised are rights lost.

Mike1951 wrote:

Jumping Frog wrote:BTW, I do NOT assume the guy was walking around trolling for LEO interaction.

Maybe so, but unless he's a lawyer, it seems unlikely he could quote so many legal precedents without being prepared.

I'v met this guy. I can just about guarantee he OCs 365 days/yr. he's certainly passionate about OC and defending his rights, but I don't think it's reasonable to equate that to trolling.

I think normalizing OC as a second amendment strategy has its place. I also think that standing up for your rights against unlawful search/detention has its place. Combining the two on the side of the road isn't always the best PR strategy, though.

Keith B wrote: My short version of this is he was more than likely 'trolling' for a cop. This means he was wandering around, making sure everyone saw his gun, enough so to raise suspicion of something not being kosher, and when confronted he knew 'all' of the cases to reference. Will bet he is either a law student or an Internet lawyer.

thanks.

I quite commonly carry a camera with me, and it's almost as ready to use as my carry gun.

The video didn't start until after the (probably illegal) stop, which indicates to me that the victim wasn't trolling for a stop or the video would have been running.

I think the stop was illegal, the disarming was illegal, and the supervisor's quick return of the victim's gun and release of him pretty much confirms that.

In a state where is open carry is legal, this kind of stop should not have happened, which brings up the possibility that the victim was indeed trolling, but maybe it was due to prior illegal stops by the police in just such circumstances, and we all know that it often takes such a video to get the police to change procedures that are a common practice, as the officer stated.

I don't care if you are a LEO, if you have no reason to ask me for ID, then it is quite likely you will not see any. If I am legally carrying my gun, then you removing it from my person is illegal search and seizure, and if you point it at me it had risen to at least disorderly conduct and probably more.

This is not Nazi Germany, you do not have a right to see my papers whenever you want to, you do not get to know my first name so we can talk on a personal basis and get snippy when I won't provide it, you do not get to stop me when I am legally where I am just because someone got all nervous when they saw my legally carried gun, you do not get to act like I am a felon in possession just because I am in possession, and just because I am in possession doesn't mean you get to check to see if I am a felon.

Nope, it's a warning video, and we should all heed its message.

It may be viewed as bad PR for the victim to video this illegal stop, search, and seizure, but where else? When he gets to the police station? Then the response will be "Yes sir, here's your gun, be a little more careful in the future and the officer has been informed."

If the officer had reason to stop him, the supervisor would not have let him go. If the officer had reason to seize his gun, then the supervisor would not have returned it. If the officer was right, the video would not be a warning.

It's a warning.

Portland is the one "big" city in Maine, and has the most anti-gun culture within the Police department of any municipality in Maine. I *think* the current police chief was hired out of, god help me, Los Angeles. On the other hand, he did clue in to some extent after his arrival that he wasn't in Compton any more.

Used to be, OC in Portland was a guarantee of a very bad day. Now, I think the situation is considerably better. It didn't come about purely by sidewalk confrontations like this; BUT they do have their place in the arsenal.