A positive news story for once, THE WAY COPS OUGHT TO BE (rare behavior)

[Golden]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ET2MnWP4YFw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ET2MnWP4YFw
Uploaded by mainemike52 on Jul 22, 2011
IF ONLY ALL COPS WERE LIKE THIS MAN. HAT'S OFF TO HIM

Oceanside Police Officer Matt Lyons is receiving well-deserved praise throughout the internet for the way he handled an incident involving a man openly carrying a gun.

As we reported before, it is legal to open carry a firearm in California as long as it is not loaded.

But we've also seen that some California officers are prone to force a citizen down on their knees at gunpoint.

Lyons, who spent 22 years in the United States Marine Corps, proved that he could manage professional courtesy while ensuring the gun wasn't loaded.

He also didn't have a problem being recorded throughout the procedure.

[iOWNme]

This has been posted before here.....And i will say the same thing here:

FUCK THIS COMMUNIST GOON.

This is the type of Cop that thinks he knows the Law.

"This is not a 3rd world nation" - Umm apparently it is, since you are detaining me, restricting my Liberty and verbally accosting me. All with NO CRIME COMMITTED, NO DUE PROCESS AND NO VICTIM.

Im fairly certain this would be considered an infringement. Fucking oath breaker.

[solid]

This is the type of Cop that thinks he knows the Law.

"This is not a 3rd world nation" - Umm apparently it is, since you are detaining me, restricting my Liberty and verbally accosting me. [B][COLOR=red]All with NO CRIME COMMITTED, NO DUE PROCESS AND NO VICTIM.

I'm still trying to find out if that was a detention or not. A legal one. I'm sure it could be articulated to be a legal detention (on paper), but for it to be a true detention by nature there has to be something about that situation that justifies the officer investigating a possible crime has been committed, or being committed. I'm not sure open carry qualifies for that. Same as a guy walking down the street with a golf club. Is he going to break windows or is he going golfing? Not enough there for a detention, imo.

[solid]

This was not a detention. By law, everyone is required to carry identification with them. If you are detained, you have to show ID, and if you don't have an ID, the cop can take you downtown to identify you, fingerprints, etc. The cop can hold you until you are identified.

Now this guy wouldn't tell the officer his name, and even told the officer he had no ID. That was a mistake, but the officer overlooked it.

The problem I have, with this cop, is that most folks are not as smart as the guy stopped. The officer's demanding nature, would cause a lot of people to assume they were detained, and by that assumption....would answer any/all the officer's questions. If it ever went to court, this is what would be argued, whether the person felt detained by the cop's mannerisms.

A consensual contact should be consensual. People must feel like they have a choice to talk to the police. A simple, "sir can I talk to you for a minute?" is generally enough. Many times I've just told folks "you are not being detained, I just have a couple of questions if you'd like to help us out."

My advise to anyone, whenever dealing with the police. For any reason, you need to know if you are being detained. Politely ask, everytime. "Sir, am I being detained?"

[Bildo]

This was not a detention. By law, everyone is required to carry identification with them. If you are detained, you have to show ID, and if you don't have an ID, the cop can take you downtown to identify you, fingerprints, etc. The cop can hold you until you are identified.


I'd be very curious to see any state law that requires you to carry identification. Most states require you to identify yourself to LEO when requested, but none that I'm aware of require you to carry ID.

[midnight rambler]

By law, everyone is required to carry identification with them.

Yeah, show me the LAW, not some *statute*.

[solid]

I'd be very curious to see any state law that requires you to carry identification. Most states require you to identify yourself to LEO when requested, but none that I'm aware of require you to carry ID.

I should have worded that differently. When you get detained, you can not leave until LEO says so. That's a fact. In that process, LEO must be able to identify you (for warrants, etc.) This 99% of the time, means having an ID on you. If you don't have an ID to positively identify who you are, the officer either 1) has to take your word for it. 2) take you downtown to get fingerprinted. 3) Sometimes have family confirm who you are, situation depending.

Each situation is different, and there's gray area on how it's handled.

[midnight rambler]

the officer...has to take your word for it.

Yeah, and everyone knows that those who use FRNs are liars.

[Awoke]

As far as infringement goes, I don't see it. As far as harassment goes, I don't see it. As far as I am concerned, the cop really wasn't asking for much, when he asked for ID, in the sense that "Jeremy" could have been some psychopath that was two blocks away from a daycare shooting spree.

If the state of Cali has rules saying that you need a licence to carry, how can Jeremy prove that he has a licence to carry without showing the licence accompanied with some ID?

Not that I am a NWO-pig enabler, but common sense IMO would dictate that the guy should be able to show who he is, instead of saying "no" and walking away as Charles mansions younger more psychopathic brother.

Kind of rushing this post, so I will expand tomorrow.

[solid]

As far as infringement goes, I don't see it. As far as harassment goes, I don't see it..

It's funny because I see both. I see this cop being out of line here.

We've ruled out this was not a detention. Yet, this cop, by his mannerisms is treating this as a detention. He's demanding answers to his questions. He's not asking questions, he's demanding them. This screams unlawful detention to me.

This is one of the biggest problems with LE, imo. A consentual contact is just talking to folks, there's no detention. Too many cops expect people to just answer anything they ask. Would you go up to a stranger and demand their name, and address, or any other personal info? No. You can go up and strike up a conversation with them, yes. This is what cops need to do. Respect consentual contact. Talk to folks. That's how you bridge the gap between people and cops. Normal day to day interactions.

[Awoke]

Wow Solid, that is really strange. I knew we were on opposite ends as far as Police go, but this really blows my mind. I thought you and I would agree on this one.

You know, my wife and I and a lot of my friends are gun owners and operators (All types including handguns) which I won't say is "rare" in Canada, but we're definitely a minority. We all feel that we should have the right to carry, either open or concealed, but in Canada you are looking at federal time if caught carrying.

As much as I think we should be able to carry, I also feel that an "officer of the peace" is obligated to approach me and ensure that I meet all the "requirements" to carry. IMO the job of cops is to serve and protect the people. IMO there would be nothing wrong with a cop walking up to me, asking me if I had a "permit" or whatever, and can I verify that I am the person named on the permit with some ID? In fact I would expect it. IMO he wouldn't be doing his job if he didn't verify that.

But this is all based on an imaginary Canada, where people were allowed to carry after passing a gun safety and responsibility course, and being issued a permit.

Hmmm. I find it really surprising that we are seeing this in opposition. Normally I am berating you for defending NWO pigs and their brutality.

[solid]

As much as I think we should be able to carry, I also feel that an "officer of the peace" is obligated to approach me and ensure that I meet all the "requirements" to carry. IMO the job of cops is to serve and protect the people. IMO there would be nothing wrong with a cop walking up to me, asking me if I had a "permit" or whatever, and can I verify that I am the person named on the permit with some ID? In fact I would expect it. IMO he wouldn't be doing his job if he didn't verify that.

I do see your point Awoke. In CA here, we do have open carry laws...however, to be honest, I don't know much about them. They really aren't taught to your average LE (they should). Nobody really open carry's here. If someone does, it's just going to scare other people around them, the cops will get called, etc. Then, I agree with you, when the cops are called, they have to at least investigate it.

The only issue I have is with consensual contact in this situation. From personal experience, when people know they are not automatically in trouble, they are much more willing to work with you. I've found, if you introduce yourself, ask them if they can help you by answering a few questions. Tell them they are not being detained. People relax more.

Cops have to cover their asses too. This is where responsible people who open carry can help. They most likely know every detail of that right more than the cops do, so why not keep things civil so everyone walks away happy.

Perhaps, it's just the attitude of this cop that rubs me the wrong way. In the end though,the cop did the right thing by respecting this man's rights.

[EE_]

I've found no law requiring citizens to carry an ID.
I personally don't carry identification, hardly ever.

This is all I need to carry
http://www.mun2.tv/files/images/attachments/2007/05/cash-wad.jpg

I do understand you are required to carry a DL while driving or an ID to cross borders.

[SLV^GLD]

This is where responsible people who open carry can help. They most likely know every detail of that right more than the cops do, so why not keep things civil so everyone walks away happy.

Perhaps, it's just the attitude of this cop that rubs me the wrong way. In the end though,the cop did the right thing by respecting this man's rights.

The details of the RIGHT are limited and explicit in the notion that they are not to be infringed. Everything about this "consensual encounter" infringes this man's RIGHTS. The garbage you people are discussing surrounds licensed privilege obtained through groveling for permission to display the illusion of having and exercising rights. The thing about RIGHTS is that they can be waived by the rights holder which is precisely what you do when you obtain a license to carry.

[solid]

The details of the RIGHT are limited and explicit in the notion that they are not to be infringed. Everything about this "consensual encounter" infringes this man's RIGHTS. .

A consensual contact does NOT infringe on any rights. That's the whole point of it.

Watch this graphic scene. Cops must investigate open carry so this shit doesn't happen. Nothing wrong with asking a few questions to make sure someone's not a psychopath.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DHKhPittCyo&

[Awoke]

The details of the RIGHT are limited and explicit in the notion that they are not to be infringed. Everything about this "consensual encounter" infringes this man's RIGHTS. The garbage you people are discussing surrounds licensed privilege obtained through groveling for permission to display the illusion of having and exercising rights. The thing about RIGHTS is that they can be waived by the rights holder which is precisely what you do when you obtain a license to carry.


The entire time I was typing my post, I was considering all of the things you said in this post, truely.
In fact, my post was originally longer than what I actually submitted. I had a whole other section on how none of it should matter or be applicable anyways, because the right to bear arms shall not be infringed upon. That would include whether a person was carrying ID or not, or whether the person chose to go through the licencing process at all or not.

Make no mistakes that I am of the opinion that all people should have the right to carry, licence or not, permit or not, ID or not, law-abiding or criminal. The playing field is quite level when all people are equalized with arms. I support the right to bear arms whole heartedly.

Just wanted to be clear.

But on the flip side of that, my post was only in relation to people that are tyring to comply with state-enforced policies or laws. I was "just sayin". The Constitution trumps all, IMO.

[osoab]

I've found no law requiring citizens to carry an ID.
I personally don't carry identification, hardly ever.

This is all I need to carry
http://www.mun2.tv/files/images/attachments/2007/05/cash-wad.jpg

I do understand you are required to carry a DL while driving or an ID to cross borders.

Damned terrorists! ;D

[horseshoe3]

Most of you guys are acting like the cop has a right to check the guy's gun and the only debate should be his interaction with the citizen while doing it.

Let's pretend for a moment the the Cali law is legit and that you can only carry an unloaded gun. Do the cops have a "responsibility" to check everyone who is carrying to make sure they are unloaded?

Every car driving down the street MIGHT have a headlight out. Should the cops stop every car during the day time and do a headlight check "just to make sure" they are not breaking the law.

Every bedroom in every house MIGHT have someone getting raped. Should the cops do a sweep of every house "just to make sure" there are no rapes in progress?

Everyone open carrying in Ca. MIGHT have a loaded gun. Should the cops stop everyone and make them prove their gun is unloaded "just to make sure?"

Why is this case any different than the first two? The guy was minding his own business. The cop might wonder, but he has no right to ask, and even less to demand.

[Awoke]

You're right, Horseshoe3.

[iOWNme]

The only reason some here think this Cop was doing good, is because he happened to find a citizen who knows his Rights.

How do we know how this same Cop would have acted if say a gangster thug was open carrying? Ponder that.....

The mere fact that this Cop voluntarily chose to break the Peace that was already in existence, we can deduct that was just another power hungry ego costume that felt 'threatened' by one of the slaves who dared to open carry a weapon.

Its just this entire mentality of "I will be the one to tell you if you are allowed to carry this weapon", that really just rubs me the wrong way.