Standing up for your rights...or being a prick?

[JWG223]

I think that if he had handed his DL over, they would have run it and he would have been on his way and there would be no friction. Maybe, maybe not, but that is MY suspicion. He could have possibly found common ground with the officer during the ordeal via some small-talk, and made a positive impression which could serve to further him in life in some way, later. Instead he chose to "by the book" it.

Did he make a senseless negative impression, or did he in some small way, that if we ALL joined in on would make a difference, stand up for his rights?

Thoughts?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=T1fAu3uBUIM

 

[3fifty7]

I think he went out of his way to be a prick hints the video.
He was totally correct in his position but a prick nonetheless!

 

[JWG223]

I think he went out of his way to be a prick hints the video.
He was totally correct in his position but a prick nonetheless!

That's kindof how I felt. He could have given up some ground (let the officer violate his rights and run his DL), but capitalized on the moment and made a + acqointance instead of a negative one (Lets see him talk his way out of a speeding-ticket with that guy or his supervisor...).

Dunno, divided on the issue, but probably would have "gone along to get along", myself, as it wasn't like it is going to harm me in any way to submit to having my DL run.

 

[AustinBR]

I agree that he was being a jerk the whole time, but he was trying to prove a point...I would say it worked

 

[JWG223]

I agree that he was being a jerk the whole time, but he was trying to prove a point...I would say it worked

Again I agree...but at what cost to himself, and to what real gain? Did he win a battle to lose a war?

 

[Sugarbug]

He was within his rights.

However, imo, if the officer isn't trampling your rights (asking for your ID is not an invasion of privacy...) I'd much rather let the officer and I leave the confrontation without a sour taste in our mouths. Answer his questions and both of you can just go on your way. And maybe if you present our community well enough it might start changing any prejudices the officer has towards people open carrying/concealed carrying.

Too many of these guys are just waiting for the confrontation to begin rattling off memorized lines.

 

[Vermiform]

Again I agree...but at what cost to himself, and to what real gain? Did he win a battle to lose a war?

This ^

He did not educate that officer (if that was his intention). He made an enemy for himself and anyone else that chooses to carry the way he does. That officer is now looking at other ways to make him pay big if he or any other "open carry" guy crosses his path again.

 

[Guitarmaster]

I could be wrong, but if the officer is called out due to complaints of a man carrying a firearm, he is required to investigate, which would entail making sure he is not a felon in possession of a firearm right? Wouldn't that be cause to see some ID?

 

[JWG223]

I could be wrong, but if the officer is called out due to complaints of a man carrying a firearm, he is required to investigate, which would entail making sure he is not a felon in possession of a firearm right? Wouldn't that be cause to see some ID?

The man was within his rights, however, the officer could have possibly called him on disturbing the peace, definition #2:
(2) Addressing any offensive, derisive, or annoying words to any other person who is lawfully in any street, or other public place; or call him by any offensive or derisive name, or make any noise or exclamation in his presence and hearing with the intent to deride, offend, or annoy him, or to prevent him from pursuing his lawful business, occupation, or duty; or
http://law.justia.com/codes/louisiana/2006/146/78253.html

It's a long shot, but it just might hold up. I would say his demeanor was "heckling"...

There is such a bulk of "law" out there, that if you TRULY know it, you can hang yourself, others, the whole damn room with it, depending on which text you use. Kindof like religion. I just try not to **** in anyone's cheerios, and so far, they avoid mine for the most part.

 

[themcfarland]

Just the fact that there was a complaint and this guy had a gun, I wonder is that PC for the stop?? I have always wondered that.. I guess it depends on description given.

I also do not think there was any violations of his rights but asking for his ID, when asked we are compelled to provide it.

 

[MOTOR51]

That is the problem. If you ID the guy then the OC crowd screams that he violated his rights. If you don't ID the guy and he is a felon and goes down the street and murders,robs,etc then the other half is pissed you didn't do enough investigating. I would like to know who would be ok with the LEO getting a call of a guy with a gun walking down the street and he just drives by,The guy with the gun then robs someone in your family. This is why I have an issue with the MEM style of doing things. This guy did nothing to further the OC movement. The officer went to roll call and told all his coworkers about the ass hat that was OCing and now that is in their minds when they contact the next one.

 

[MOTOR51]

The man was within his rights, however, the officer could have possibly called him on disturbing the peace, definition #2:
(2) Addressing any offensive, derisive, or annoying words to any other person who is lawfully in any street, or other public place; or call him by any offensive or derisive name, or make any noise or exclamation in his presence and hearing with the intent to deride, offend, or annoy him, or to prevent him from pursuing his lawful business, occupation, or duty; or
http://law.justia.com/codes/louisiana/2006/146/78253.html

It's a long shot, but it just might hold up. I would say his demeanor was "heckling"...

There is such a bulk of "law" out there, that if you TRULY know it, you can hang yourself, others, the whole damn room with it, depending on which text you use. Kindof like religion. I just try not to **** in anyone's cheerios, and so far, they avoid mine for the most part.

I have seen this course of action taken

 

[Scott.Thornton]

It would be a lot easier if concealed carry was just legal across the board for everyone. If open carry is legal there shouldn't be any precident to be stopped or questioned PERIOD. I can dang near guarantee that anyone that was out trying to break the law in any form or another wouldn't be open carrying anyway. The fact the someone is open carrying should be proof enough of their good will due to the fact they aren't hiding anything. At that same point the law is the law and if I understand not having to provide ID, just the same as a lot of us will not do a ftf sale if someone says a bill of sale is required for the sale since it is going above and beyond the law. Prick yes, understand anyway Yep.

 

[JWG223]

Just the fact that there was a complaint and this guy had a gun, I wonder is that PC for the stop?? I have always wondered that.. I guess it depends on description given.

I also do not think there was any violations of his rights but asking for his ID, when asked we are compelled to provide it.

Okay...lets say a man with a firearm is called in an officers refuse to respond and he shoots someone down in cold blood and robs a store...what then? "The police didn't come, here is the 911 call, CNN reports..."

Then it's "DAMN THE POPO!!!" all over the internet, blah blah blah.

I agree, I don't think the man was being abused at all by his weapon being temporarily removed from his person and his ID being requested. I mean, technically yes, he was, but really?

 

[Spare201]

I O.C. while I walk my dog. I had a cop in a cruiser pull up next to me one time and I waived at him. He apparently got a call about "a guy in the neighborhood with a gun". I talked with him for a few minutes, he seemed like a real cool guy. Since I was in my neighborhood I pointed out where I live. There is a school nearby so I would expect them to investigate anything going on in the area. Honestly I wouldn't have thought twice if he asked to see my liscence because of the proximity to a school. In the end LEO doesn't want ******** anymore than you do. If he says they got a call, he has to investigate to clear the call. Honestly I really don't care if LEOs want to see my ID or not. Most of the time they could care less. A lot of times they will tell me I have a nice gun.

 

[JWG223]

I O.C. while I walk my dog. I had a cop in a cruiser pull up next to me one time and I waived at him. He apparently got a call about "a guy in the neighborhood with a gun". I talked with him for a few minutes, he seemed like a real cool guy. Since I was in my neighborhood I pointed out where I live. There is a school nearby so I would expect them to investigate anything going on in the area. Honestly I wouldn't have thought twice if he asked to see my liscence because of the proximity to a school. In the end LEO doesn't want ******** anymore than you do. If he says they got a call, he has to investigate to clear the call. Honestly I really don't care if LEOs want to see my ID or not. Most of the time they could care less. A lot of times they will tell me I have a nice gun.

I've been pulled over randomly before for things, as well. One time it was an officer in south texas who wanted a better look at my car, and to tell me the tail-light was out.

One time I was out shooting at my Dad's house (shotgun, legal) near a golf course (again, legal distance/location), and the officer was very cool. Struck up a conversation and he wanted to rent my Dad's facility for a social function in the future. Never happened, but it sure did improve relations that it was offered.

I dunno, I just failed to see how the man was truly being harmed, and feel that the man in the video did some real damage to himself in the future, possibly. As well as all of his ilk.

 

[MOTOR51]

Okay...lets say a man with a firearm is called in an officers refuse to respond and he shoots someone down in cold blood and robs a store...what then? "The police didn't come, here is the 911 call, CNN reports..."

Then it's "DAMN THE POPO!!!" all over the internet, blah blah blah.

I agree, I don't think the man was being abused at all by his weapon being temporarily removed from his person and his ID being requested. I mean, technically yes, he was, but really?

That's the point I was trying to make. All LEO have dealt with the street side lawyer. He would have been on his way a lot faster if he would have given the ID so the officer could confirm he was not a felon ,and the officer would have had a better impression of OCers. If the first contact you have with police is with an officer who is not professional that can give you that impression about all LEO. This is a two way street and now that LEO has that impression of OCers.

 

[oleheat]

Who knows?


I'm convinced this issue and the people going around doing it create more drama PSI on internet gun forums then they do in real life anyway, so.....

 

[MOTOR51]

Who knows?


I'm convinced this issue and the people going around doing it create more drama PSI on internet gun forums then they do in real life anyway, so.....

Damn it, you are probably right

 

[Scott.Thornton]

Who knows?


I'm convinced this issue and the people going around doing it create more drama PSI on internet gun forums then they do in real life anyway, so.....

True. Until it gains traction mainstream then we are already behind.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2