Open carry encounter w police done right

[rhettro]

Oops didn't see that this was already started. Sorry. very cool officer though.

 

[BayouDeputy]

That officer did an outstanding job. One thing to keep in mind too, There are a LOT of LEOs that do not know that La is an open carry state. I was one of them until I joined this site. That, unfortunately, is not something that they touch on in the academy (at least they didnt in the one I went to). If you come across a leo that is ignorant of this fact, be cool with them, let them do their job and then calmly talk with them when the opportunity presents itself.

 

[Hitman]

That officer did an outstanding job. One thing to keep in mind too, There are a LOT of LEOs that do not know that La is an open carry state. I was one of them until I joined this site. That, unfortunately, is not something that they touch on in the academy (at least they didnt in the one I went to). If you come across a leo that is ignorant of this fact, be cool with them, let them do their job and then calmly talk with them when the opportunity presents itself.

I think its worth understanding too that the HIGH majority of LEO's we encounter are MEN. Men just like us.

What is one thing us MEN really dislike? Being criticized and/or corrected 'on the spot'. NONE of us like it, face it. It's especially not likely to happen from Civilian to Officer 'On the Spot' of some form of OC encounter. LEO is not there to make friends and LEARN from YOU. He's there to follow protocol by following up on the job assigned to him and if everything pans out send you on your way.

You have all right to simply say that OC is legal if an Officer is questioning you and seems to not know that it is legal.

However you should keep your words SHORT and RESPECTFUL.
NOT – I know my rights, I don’t consent to this search! This is a Terry Violation!

Nothing wrong with planting the seed of information, but you don't need to cover it with dirt, pound it flat, water it and then attempt to pour Miracle grow on it, set up artificial sunlight and then camp out and watch it grow.

An encounter is NOT the place to attempt to educate. Want to educate folks LEO and Civilian alike about OC Awareness? Join LOCAL and participate in non-abrasive measures in doing so.

Most Officers I'm sure would leave that situation saying, "What the heck was that guy talking about?" and then attempt to follow up with his COC in finding out just what the heck you were talking about. At least I would hope so.

Still, always interesting how those who prepare for so much attention, look like idiots once it’s given to them. I mean what happen to all the rehearsal?

 

[brfd557]

Man that was a whole bunch of awesomeness!!

 

[twokids]

+1 for the cop. That is the type of professionalism that all law enforcement officers should strive for.

+1000

 

[Just A Number]

My first impression is that the kid was a little douche looking for trouble, and the officer handled the situation very professionally.

Upon further reflection, this kid (and those like him), are really taking one for the team. I can't say I advocate the behavior, and it may not be the best way of going about changing mindsets. However, I am starting to give a little more respect to these people who seem sincere in their desire to exercise, and thus preserve, our 2d amendment rights.

Also, I think the officer was actually wrong in at least one sense. Knowing that the firearm looks like a fully automatic firearm is not reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed. Did he have a reasonable suspicion that it was fully auto AND that the kid didn't have the proper paperwork on him?

I have no problem at all with the initial contact and asking "what you guys up to?" But when the kid answers "I'm just taking a walk and exercising my 2d amendment rights", that should have been the end of it. Depending on the answer to the question, the officer can evaluate if there's potential trouble and/or reason to question further, and in this case it really is obvious that it was not. And as I said above, he really had no reason to inspect the firearm.

Your assumption that he had "no reason" to inspect is incorrect. He was called there to investigate a report of an automatic weapon. Seizures are allowed during investigations and so long as the investigation is not unduly protracted, there generally isn't a civil rights violation. Open carry flagrancy just make things harder for all legal gun owners. In California they "protested" their way into having OC revoked.
The enemy of gun owners aren't individual officers, it's gun owners that make us all look bad and the politicians that capitalize on it.

Let me ask this for those who don't think LE should respond to these things. Two hunters walking down a road headed to the woods with shotguns over their shoulders generally doesn't generate a 911 call because their OC is consistent with their environment. A guy strolling around the mall with an AK over his shoulder is not situationallly appropriate and deserves at least a check because the police are required to investigate calls. So nobody should have called 911 if they saw the guy walking into the Auroura theater? If someone did, should dispatch have said, "its open carry, we aren't sending anyone". Should a responding officer said "oh well, looks like a nice 2nd Amendment advocate out for a stroll, I'm going back to the coffee shop" and not even bothered?

The police have a duty to respond and confirm that this isn't some guy out to go all postal on the soccer moms they are scaring. OC folks need to remember that yes they are scaring people and no that doesn't make those people right but it does make them call the police. Police who mostly would prefer not to have to bother you over something so silly. Just who are the OC folks who walk around with long guns trying to "educate?" I very much support everyone being armed all the time but this method of "education" just reeks of "look at me."

 

[Hitman]

To add to Just a Numbers point;


THIS;

IS NOT THIS;

 

[Knave]

^^^^
THAT

I think the long gun, makin-my-pernt OC'ers either don't realize or don't care that they need to project a well-kept, friendly, professional, I've-got-a-good-head-on-my-shoulders-and-don't-you-like-me-so-much-you-wish-I-was-your-neighbor sort of demeanor to the general public if they want the general public to start being more rational and accepting of open carry. Leave the bleeding heart, chip on the shoulder demonstrations to the bleeding hearts with chips on their shoulders. The gun community is better than that stuff IMO. I think this goes for dealings with police as well. These guys need to read "How to Win Friends and Influence People" or something, because when a gun guy can't see the obvious chance to find common ground and make friends with the police then God help us.

Engaging in silly, attention seeking behavior will make you lose support with regular folks (and police most likely) no matter what the issue is. And losing their support gives politicians a way to curry favor with those same folks at your expense.

Even if people might rationally agree with some of what a person has to say, they can be so disgusted by his antics that they distance themselves from the whole movement. PETA never seems to learn that lesson, and even the Chick Fil A shenanigans earlier this month were a good example IMO.

 

[honestlou]

Your assumption that he had "no reason" to inspect is incorrect. He was called there to investigate a report of an automatic weapon. Seizures are allowed during investigations and so long as the investigation is not unduly protracted, there generally isn't a civil rights violation. Open carry flagrancy just make things harder for all legal gun owners. In California they "protested" their way into having OC revoked.
The enemy of gun owners aren't individual officers, it's gun owners that make us all look bad and the politicians that capitalize on it.

Let me ask this for those who don't think LE should respond to these things. Two hunters walking down a road headed to the woods with shotguns over their shoulders generally doesn't generate a 911 call because their OC is consistent with their environment. A guy strolling around the mall with an AK over his shoulder is not situationallly appropriate and deserves at least a check because the police are required to investigate calls. So nobody should have called 911 if they saw the guy walking into the Auroura theater? If someone did, should dispatch have said, "its open carry, we aren't sending anyone". Should a responding officer said "oh well, looks like a nice 2nd Amendment advocate out for a stroll, I'm going back to the coffee shop" and not even bothered?

The police have a duty to respond and confirm that this isn't some guy out to go all postal on the soccer moms they are scaring. OC folks need to remember that yes they are scaring people and no that doesn't make those people right but it does make them call the police. Police who mostly would prefer not to have to bother you over something so silly. Just who are the OC folks who walk around with long guns trying to "educate?" I very much support everyone being armed all the time but this method of "education" just reeks of "look at me."

I never said that LE should not respond. They got a call of someone carrying what looked like a fully automatic weapon. But that doesn't really matter--the call could have been simply 'a man with a gun'. They still need to respond to the call. My point about that is that carrying an automatic weapon is not a crime, so unless he had some reason to believe the weapon was full auto AND that the guy didn't have proper paperwork, he did not have a valid basis to inspect the weapon. He had every right and duty to initially question the guy, but legally it should have stopped after the first question and answer.

Having said that, I'm certainly not bashing the LEO-- I think he did a great job of remaining calm and rational--as he should--but as we know is not always the case. And I also said in my post that I don't necessarily agree with the tactic. But I do have a little respect for the guys that want to do it. It's not my choice, and I wouldn't suggest it to anyone, but the reality is that it's legal, and they should be able to do it, and that's their point.

Maybe, just maybe, guys walking with long arms make simple open carry of a handgun look innocent in comparison. We all know that there have been, and are, jurisdictions where a person could get severely hassled even for the handgun.

 

[Just A Number]

"...so unless he had some reason to believe the weapon was full auto AND that the guy didn't have proper paperwork, he did not have a valid basis to inspect the weapon."

You're assumption is incorrect. How do you propose he investigate that the item which looked like an MP5 is not in fact an automatic weapon without inspecting it? Once he found that it was not an automatic weapon he handed it back (and didn't ask for the now not required NFA paperwork). You continue to say that he didn't have any authority to inspect the weapon, when in fact he did as it visually appeared to be an MP5. He was well within the reasonable suspicion zone at that point. Your added argument about needing to suspect that he didn't have NFA paperwork on him carries no water. Had he discovered, upon inspection, that it was an NFA gun THEN the NFA paperwork would have come into play and not before.

All of which still doesn't mitigate the fact that these two were attention seeking tubes that are making us all look bad.

 

[Knave]

My point about that is that carrying an automatic weapon is not a crime, so unless he had some reason to believe the weapon was full auto AND that the guy didn't have proper paperwork, he did not have a valid basis to inspect the weapon. He had every right and duty to initially question the guy, but legally it should have stopped after the first question and answer.

Thing is, police have historically been given a certain amount of latitude (i.e. "acting in good faith") when it comes to the practical application of academic topics.

For example, I'm going to outline perfectly legal behaviors (as far as I know), and if you would I'd like for you to tell me at what step of the way you personally feel the police should be reasonably suspicious that the person's seemingly legal behaviors may be indicative that the person either has or will soon perform some illegal act.

- A man is carrying a rifle slung over his shoulder, walking down the street
- He's wearing all black from head to toe with covered arms and legs in warm weather
- He is also mumbling to himself and making crazy, sneering faces at onlookers
- He responds with gibberish and curses when a passerby asks "Are you okay?"
- Now he stops and stands around on a sidewalk outside of a childrens' birthday party business

I don't know that there's a hard and fast answer, but at some point before the end the police (IMO) sure as hell should be reasonably suspicious and should fully investigate this person's behavior. And fully investigate has to mean more than just taking his word for it when they ask "Sir, are you legally allowed to own that gun?"

 

[Ar15>Ak47]

What do you guys think about this?

http://www.worldstarhiphop.com/videos/video.php?v=wshh9uupF06WWu97tcLT

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Abh3vol.firemen]

i dont see a problem with an officer checking out somebody oc a handgun if the person is doing something strange.i get upset when all i'm doing is pushing a cart at the store buying food or a restaurant eating and i have to stop what i'm doing,go outside,be disarmed,i.d ran for what? legaly carrying a weapon gives probable cause? thats like getting pulled over in your vehicle just to see if you can legaly drive.isnt that against the law?i use this example because a vehicle can be one hell of a weapon.and why doesnt the person who called leo get informed on the legality of oc?that would help spread the word and the over worked,underpaid, and underappreciated officer can focus on something more serious.

 

[Armnhammer]

i dont see a problem with an officer checking out somebody oc a handgun if the person is doing something strange.i get upset when all i'm doing is pushing a cart at the store buying food or a restaurant eating and i have to stop what i'm doing,go outside,be disarmed,i.d ran for what? legaly carrying a weapon gives probable cause? thats like getting pulled over in your vehicle just to see if you can legaly drive.isnt that against the law?i use this example because a vehicle can be one hell of a weapon.and why doesnt the person who called leo get informed on the legality of oc?that would help spread the word and the over worked,underpaid, and underappreciated officer can focus on something more serious.

+1

 

[RedStickChick]

He did great! Wouldn't it be nice of all officers were as knowledgeable and professional as he was about firearms. I have never been pulled over while carrying so I can't say that I have had a bad encounter but I dread the day. My luck I would be stopped by some rookie or anti-2A officer.

I agree. He stayed cool and was incredibly knowledgable. Props to him.

The kid on the other hand kind of came off as a tool, wanting to get caught on purpose.

 

[honestlou]

Thing is, police have historically been given a certain amount of latitude (i.e. "acting in good faith") when it comes to the practical application of academic topics.

For example, I'm going to outline perfectly legal behaviors (as far as I know), and if you would I'd like for you to tell me at what step of the way you personally feel the police should be reasonably suspicious that the person's seemingly legal behaviors may be indicative that the person either has or will soon perform some illegal act.

- A man is carrying a rifle slung over his shoulder, walking down the street
- He's wearing all black from head to toe with covered arms and legs in warm weather
- He is also mumbling to himself and making crazy, sneering faces at onlookers
- He responds with gibberish and curses when a passerby asks "Are you okay?"
- Now he stops and stands around on a sidewalk outside of a childrens' birthday party business

I don't know that there's a hard and fast answer, but at some point before the end the police (IMO) sure as hell should be reasonably suspicious and should fully investigate this person's behavior. And fully investigate has to mean more than just taking his word for it when they ask "Sir, are you legally allowed to own that gun?"

You Raise an interesting point, but if you read your scenario carefully you will see that the things that should raise concern are the individuals actions and responses-- not just the existence of the firearm. Certainly the firearm deserves attention, but the most important elements there are the same in the absence of the firearm.

What if in your scenario there was no visible weapon? Should the guy be ignored?

I have no problem with a visible gun prompting more observation. If that observation shows something odd- improper or abnormal clothing for the circumstances, or other unsocial behavior, then certainly questions are in order.

Mumbling and cursing others is quite different than a polite "I'm just out exercising my 2d amendment rights". Did anyone viewing that not know that kid was harmless from his first response? The officer knew it too.