Police officers are now being trained on how to deal with open carry activists

[joboo]

Ok this is a first... Somebody buy this officer a drink. Especially at 4:15 onwards


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xf7vNfeuDzI

[Nomoss]

Where are they? For its not like that here.

[TheNocturnalEgyptian]

Open Carry - Eugene Oregon



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svdQd5GPXl8&feature=youtu.be



It is a very interesting exchange. The cops here are quite polite and try a number of social arguments (not legal arguments) to see if the open-carry individual is making trouble or just out for a walk. It honestly looks like the cops learned something here - they had the impression that ANYONE who open carries is trying to make trouble for cops....and a few minutes later they're letting him go. I don't think they even inspect his gun, even though he states the reason he prefers to open carry is so he can be L&L.

Come on, admit it - if all cops were like this, society would be better than it is now.



(I'm too tired to take the hard line today...someone else do it, lol)

[Cebu_4_2]

(I'm too tired to take the hard line today...someone else do it, lol)
Okay...

Woo WOO!

[iOWNme]

Ok this is a first... Somebody buy this officer a drink. Especially at 4:15 onwards


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xf7vNfeuDzI

Another ignorant Cop who 'plays nice' while he subverts his oath and turns lawful citizens into 'possible criminals'.

Whats the difference between a Cop that unlawfully stops you for open carry and he is nice about it, compared to a Cop that unlawfully stops you and is a dick about it?

[BrewTech]

Another ignorant Cop who 'plays nice' while he subverts his oath and turns lawful citizens into 'possible criminals'.

Whats the difference between a Cop that unlawfully stops you for open carry and he is nice about it, compared to a Cop that unlawfully stops you and is a dick about it?

That's kind of what I was thinking. Guilty until proven innocent. I don't see cops going around stopping other cops to make sure their firearms are compliant with policy.

I'm still seeing an "us vs. them" mentality that I would like to see gone.

[palani]

Note the point where he tells the "subject" to raise both his arms horizontally. The "subject" does so. Had he failed to do so I suspect serious bumps would appear upon subject.

Just a thought ... but when asked to do something to show that the orifficer has authority ... repeat his command as if it were your own thought and then go ahead and do it ... as in

Orifficer ... "Raise both your arms like this".
You ... "Would you mind if I went ahead and raised my arms?"
then just do it

[joboo]

Another ignorant Cop who 'plays nice' while he subverts his oath and turns lawful citizens into 'possible criminals'.

Whats the difference between a Cop that unlawfully stops you for open carry and he is nice about it, compared to a Cop that unlawfully stops you and is a dick about it?

I suppose the difference is it looks like buddy is open carrying a full auto machine gun.

Until that is permitted in that state, I suppose there's going to be questions with the latest rash of goofballs running around shooting up public places. Unfortunately everyone is destined to suffer the lowest common denominators of society. That will never change.

[Horn]

LOL @ "Stop with the Rules"...

What a joker...!

[joboo]

The other end of the spectrum is everyone being allowed to carry loaded full auto anything hanging out walking down the street, however I've seen enough poor handling of loaded weapons that I'm glad only one bullet came out instead of 4 or 5.

The sad fact is there's too many tards in society that can't properly handle the scenario.

Gun safety for some people (the walk and chew gum type) amounts to saying "oops" a lot.

[Dogman]

The other end of the spectrum is everyone being allowed to carry loaded full auto anything hanging out walking down the street, however I've seen enough poor handling of loaded weapons that I'm glad only one bullet came out instead of 4 or 5.

The sad fact is there's too many tards in society that can't properly handle the scenario.

Gun safety for some people (the walk and chew gum type) amounts to saying "oops" a lot.

This sort of fits, in my lifetime I have witnessed people that can not and should not handle a screwdriver without being a danger.
There are people in this world that should never ever think about handling them, more so with a firearm.

[Horn]

Gun safety for some people (the walk and chew gum type) amounts to saying "oops" a lot.

Accidental Natural Selection?

[joboo]

Accidental Natural Selection?

Looking at it that way, I suppose the inherent flaw with rifles is that it's more difficult to point them at yourself when holding them. ;D

[joboo]

This sort of fits, in my lifetime I have witnessed people that can not and should not handle a screwdriver without being a danger.
There are people in this world that should never ever think about handling them, more so with a firearm.

I'm a huge fan of relaxed gun laws but full auto open carry for anyone walking around the streets is particularly insane. There's just no reason for it except during times of full on war. If someone feels the need to have that walking around town, they are not right in the head.

[Blink]

Overall, I gotta give it to the kid. He had the balls to confront the man head-on (which is a f*ck of a lot more than most would ever attempt). He stood his ground (the cop was on his game this day with the cameras rolling) and didn't freak out shouting or something else stupid and it all turned out the way it should. Granted, he should have known that the style (design) of his gun would take him into the world of "reasonable suspicion". I guess if you don't want to be stopped, make sure they can easily tell what type of gun you have..........

[slowbell]

Granted, he should have known that the style (design) of his gun would take him into the world of "reasonable suspicion". I guess if you don't want to be stopped, make sure they can easily tell what type of gun you have..........

This is important. The 'reasonable suspicion' was completely warranted, given the firearm type/style. Don't assume cops know more than you folks do about firearms. In fact, assume they know less....a lot less. They are trained with just a few types of firearms.

[Skirnir_]

The verifiability of said reasonable suspicion is flimsy at best: how does one determine whether a gun is semiauto or fully automatic?

[joboo]

The verifiability of said reasonable suspicion is flimsy at best: how does one determine whether a gun is semiauto or fully automatic?

I dunno, I'm pretty good at identifying various firearms at a glance. If that model was ever manufactured as select fire at any point, it's safe to say you're going to get asked about it eventually. "well...so is it select fire?" being the #1 question asked.

Especially if you're taking it for a walk around the neighborhood. "Hey everybody look at my excellent gun, but don't ever ask me a question about it"....seems a bit ridiculous.

[Skirnir_]

Whether the cops would have grounds to detain one indefinitely is purely academic; if Bubba becomes displeased, he will find a way to send one up the creek, his partner will cover for him, and the matter will be squashed if one is foolish enough to file a complaint.

[joboo]

Whether the cops would have grounds to detain one indefinitely is purely academic; if Bubba becomes displeased, he will find a way to send one up the creek, his partner will cover for him, and the matter will be squashed if one is foolish enough to file a complaint.

Thing is certain realities will always wind up at the same point no matter who is "in charge".

Toss out one regime, and the next one that rises up will end up doing the exact same thing because of the what the situation entails.

[Skirnir_]

Toss out one regime, and the next one that rises up will end up doing the exact same thing because of the what the situation entails.

Yes, because regimes seek power, and as power is a zero-sum game, it takes it from its victims.

[Horn]

This is important. The 'reasonable suspicion' was completely warranted, given the firearm type/style.

Lying about someone calling in of "suspected full auto weapons" being carried on the street was unwarranted.

This cop was not suspicious at all... ;) (yeah right) someone called on him to be "reasonably suspicious"... or so he stated...

At most every cop stop video there is some small "white" lie that is told up front of all the other niceties.

They're all guilty.

"Stop with the Rules" LOL

[joboo]

Yes, because regimes seek power, and as power is a zero-sum game, it takes it from its victims.

A certain percentage of any society will end up acting irresponsibly to those around them. It's built into the human equation. At what point does one draw the line of what is acceptable in public?

Earlier mp5's we're chambed in 308. Trying to accurately control that amount of power in sub machine gun would be interesting...most likely someone half a mile away is going to end up taking one for the team. Certain firearms are designed to kill everything in a wide pattern wherever they happen to be pointed.

[joboo]

Lying about someone calling in of "suspected full auto weapons" being carried on the street was unwarranted.

This cop was not suspicious at all... ;) (yeah right) someone called on him to be "reasonably suspicious"... or so he stated...

At most every cop stop video there is some small "white" lie that is told up front of all the other niceties.

They're all guilty.

"Stop with the Rules" LOL

Whether he lied or not is trivial. Open carry a full auto style sub machine gun? LOL....ok.

"Stop with the rules" is basically the cop telling the guy he already knows what the guy is going to say, I know I did (aka "the constitution says"), and that he's wasting everyone's time. He was on point.

Nobody in their right mind is ok with joe blow, and skeeter walking around with full auto assault weapons in public.

[Horn]

Nobody in their right mind is ok with joe blow, and skeeter walking around with full auto assault weapons in public.

Joe Blow and Skeeter Constitutionalist would need to give up all their rights to obtain full auto in the first place.

Lying isn't trivial.

Do you actually think the cop was checking to make sure if auto?

No, he was trying to hassle them to see if they started shit with him, so he could make life miserable.

The cop was a misery miser.

[JDRock]

have fun with that here in wyo.....more of us are packing than cops.

[iOWNme]

This is important. The 'reasonable suspicion' was completely warranted, given the firearm type/style. Don't assume cops know more than you folks do about firearms. In fact, assume they know less....a lot less. They are trained with just a few types of firearms.


Since the 2nd Amendment makes NO DISTINCTION between armaments, please explain to me how this is completely warranted because of the firearm 'style'? Please remove your biased opinions from your reply. I want FACTS.

Cant you see this is the crap that is used to regulate ALL firearms?

[iOWNme]

The verifiability of said reasonable suspicion is flimsy at best: how does one determine whether a gun is semiauto or fully automatic?

One minds his own fucking business.

ANY firearm can be converted to fully auto. So now we must let Government inspect al of our arms, just to be sure, right?

[iOWNme]

Nobody in their right mind is ok with joe blow, and skeeter walking around with full auto assault weapons in public.

I am.

Who is a bigger threat, joe blow with a full auto machine gun, or an entire corrupted out of control authoritarian COMMUNIST Government who seeks to rob your private property, steal your childrens mind and innocence, and regulate/license/tax every single aspect of your life?

I'll battle it out with the lone gunman, EVERYTIME.

[Skirnir_]

One minds his own fucking business.

ANY firearm can be converted to fully auto. So now we must let Government inspect al of our arms, just to be sure, right?

That is the logic that might be used to 'detain' an open carrier indefinitely. One may be released when the guy files the form to file the form to request a cop to test-fire the gun whenever they damn well feel like it. Whether it would be one day or ten years, no one knows.

[slowbell]

Since the 2nd Amendment makes NO DISTINCTION between armaments, please explain to me how this is completely warranted because of the firearm 'style'? Please remove your biased opinions from your reply. I want FACTS.

Cant you see this is the crap that is used to regulate ALL firearms?

There's a reason why it's termed 'reasonable' suspicion, and not factual suspicion. The term reasonable must be included in your assessment. It may be reasonable to open carry a high powered rifle in some small town in the mountains, bear protection, etc. But is it also reasonable for Joe Blow to carry a rifle around a school scaring kids?

The reason why there's so many regulations is because people are idiots, and do not act within reason. People do what they think they can do, not what they should do, within reason. This is why all these regulations get passed through, using idiots as a prime example of why we should protect all folks from these idiots.

I'm not saying I agree with that, I'll leave my opinion out of it, just saying though...

[palani]

the 2nd Amendment makes NO DISTINCTION between armaments

You will miss the target every time if you don't know what you are shooting at.

It is COMMERCE that is being regulated rather than the firearm (in the 18th century context).

Post 1899 all weapons have been deemed to be entered into commerce. Make your own and be less regulated. Or even go to a replica blackpowder 6-shooter.

Quite often I believe that societies grievance with people who take others lives is based upon the revenue society is deprived of.

[Skirnir_]

Since the 2nd Amendment makes NO DISTINCTION between armaments, please explain to me how this is completely warranted because of the firearm 'style'? Please remove your biased opinions from your reply. I want FACTS.

Cant you see this is the crap that is used to regulate ALL firearms?

He seems to have confused facts with opinions, and thinks that 'just saying' excuses it. It may be best to ignore his antics.

[slowbell]

Sui,

Here's an example, non firearm related, about what is 'reasonable'. A while back, my car broke down and I pulled over to the side of the road to let it cool down. It just so happens, it was outside a schoolyard with a bunch of kids outside playing. A gentleman from the school, an administrator approached me with questions...because it was reasonable for him to be suspicious of me, to make sure I wasn't a kidnapper, etc. That was reasonable, suspicion.

Now, say a guy is exercising his open carry rights in a park, where people are relaxing and enjoying life. It's completely reasonable for a cop to strike up a friendly conversation to make sure 1) that you are mentally sane, and 2) you know and are exercising your constitutional rights.

A few harmless questions...just to make sure you are not THIS guy.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OLYVdiuXXDE

[Horn]

There's a reason why it's termed 'reasonable' suspicion, and not factual suspicion.

Because all cops know that it is unreasonable to suspect full auto weapons being carried in full view on U.S. streets.

The entire video is a degrading spoof on law, and the perp. is the cop.

[slowbell]

Because all cops know that it is unreasonable to suspect full auto weapons being carried in full view on U.S. streets.



Not all cops...ALL people. Common sense. It goes both ways...is it 'reasonable' for homeland security to march down our streets with fully auto weapons? Are they not exercising their constitutional rights? Don't you think we should have the right to question them?

They should really change the term 'reasonable suspicion' to 'common sense suspicion'.

[TheNocturnalEgyptian]

The verifiability of said reasonable suspicion is flimsy at best: how does one determine whether a gun is semiauto or fully automatic?

You can't tell from far away. A lot of rifles have a civilian issue semi-automatic and a military issue fully-automatic version. The reasonable suspicion is as you said - how CAN one visually tell the difference? Almost impossible...


The only way out of this situation is to argue that fully automatic weapons are protected by the 2nd amendment, therefore granting the cop no reasonable suspicion.

[joboo]

Joe Blow and Skeeter Constitutionalist would need to give up all their rights to obtain full auto in the first place.

Lying isn't trivial.

Do you actually think the cop was checking to make sure if auto?

No, he was trying to hassle them to see if they started shit with him, so he could make life miserable.

The cop was a misery miser.


I would take offense if you couldn't own one. That's would be an issue, but if you can own one, there's a time and place.

The guy didn't get busted for owning one, just open carrying it.

I personally would not want to live in a society with anyone walking around carrying full auto weapons.

You can, but I would call it loonyville USA.

Time and place...time and place. Common sense needs to be carried into the equation at some point. You can empty 10 rounds with a semi auto in under 5 seconds. Definitely adequate.

I think the problem is some people expect a fairy tale anarchist reality that will simply never exist. Pipe dream.

[Horn]

The guy didn't get busted for owning one, just open carrying it.

Which video are you talking about?

Nobody was (busted) arrested in the one I saw,

in the one I saw there was a policeman selling & harassing pedestrians into giving up their rights & owning full auto weapons.

[joboo]

Which video are you talking about?

Nobody was (busted) arrested in the one I saw,

in the one I saw there was a policeman selling & harassing pedestrians into giving up their rights & owning full auto weapons.

As in balls busted. I posted the video.

Anyhow forget guns, try walking around your local supermarket holding a machete.

Chances are you'll be confronted by staff long before the cops show up. The nerve of those oppressive power seeking store employees... /sarcasm

[Horn]

Anyhow forget guns, try walking around your local supermarket holding a machete.

You forgot where I'm located, here we have plain clothed security guards walking around with machetes everywhere.

The spooky thing is, they will come up close to you when walking at night (as if they are protecting) some maybe even seeking a small tip offering).

Typically they use them to cut the weeds at the curb though for extra jardinerio.

[Awoke]

when asked to do something to show that the orifficer has authority ... repeat his command as if it were your own thought and then go ahead and do it ... as in

Orifficer ... "Raise both your arms like this".
You ... "Would you mind if I went ahead and raised my arms?"
then just do it

Why?

[palani]

Why?
Should you blindly follow others orders then you give the appearance that you are under their direct control.

Think of the order as an offer to contract. The only way to honorably cancel that offer is to suggest a counter proposal. Now you make that counter proposal identical to what the policyman appears to be demanding and don't wait for his approval. Just do it.

What's the difference? You suggested it and YOU did it.

I did this for court appearances as well. When a hearing was ordered I would submit my paperwork to the clerk ordering the hearing to convene at the identical time suggested by "his honor". It was MY hearing rather than HIS.

[slowbell]

Should you blindly follow others orders then you give the appearance that you are under their direct control.

No. Your appearance doesn't matter. Either you are free to go...detained, or under arrest. That is all there is. Direct control, is just another word to scare folks.

Folks need to know their rights, and where they stand. Until they do, the cops will always have the advantage.

[palani]

Either you are free to go...detained, or under arrest. That is all there is.

If you are free to go then why not just turn your back and go? Why you hangin' around? That hangin' around is a benefit.

I choose to consider any word from the coppicemans' mouth as an offer requiring only consent to form the appearance of a contract (quasi-contract). [You will notice that I use contract in the non-common law sense.] What YOU do determines whether consent sets up the contract for you to later being fleeced.

[Awoke]

Well, just a reminder that the Palanese language has not worked successfully for Terry Nicholas Bouffard or Josh Novak. Add to that, their mentor "freeman" Robert Menard doesn't practice ANY of what he preaches, for fear of going to jail.

Just sayin. I still have never seen a single success story with any of this line of thinking. It's all talk afaic.

[palani]

Well, just a reminder that the Palanese language has not worked successfully for Terry Nicholas Bouffard or Josh Novak. I have no idea who these people are or what their circumstances are. As to what works and what doesn't work ... I have seen people actually win but they seem to not know what a win looks like. Many seem to think a win is accompanied by a large cash award. These people are clueless.


their mentor "freeman" Robert Menard doesn't practice ANY of what he preaches, for fear of going to jail. If I recall Menard's approach would seem to look for a commercial success or "getting something for nothing".


I still have never seen a single success story with any of this line of thinking. It's all talk afaic. I give no legal advice. My hints are more along the lawful line and are intended for discussion and amusement only. I suggest "what if" alternatives ... such as ... what if all those policymen involved in the empire state shootings had actually been trained to aim and shoot a weapon properly?

[iOWNme]

Folks need to know their rights, and where they stand. Until they do, the cops will always have the advantage.

So when you went through LEO training how many hours of Constitutional Law did you complete? How many hours of Rights v Privileges did you complete?


As if Cops know about Rights. SHEEESH. If they do, then they are even more to blame for their behavior.

[slowbell]

If you are free to go then why not just turn your back and go? Why you hangin' around? That hangin' around is a benefit.

I choose to consider any word from the coppicemans' mouth as an offer requiring only consent to form the appearance of a contract (quasi-contract). [You will notice that I use contract in the non-common law sense.] What YOU do determines whether consent sets up the contract for you to later being fleeced.

From my limited experience as a cop from the past, most people do not understand when they are free to go. In regards to a consensual contact, you can turn your back and go. Most people feel they have to talk to the police, when in fact, they don't a lot of the time. I think this is where ethics on the cop's part is very important, and many cops fail in this regard. It's very important when dealing with folks that they know and understand it's a consensual contact, not a detention. If reasonable suspicion determines a person to be detained, they need to know that too. It's all how the approach is made, and what the cop 'should' say. If a cop approaches in a friendly manner, and says "sir, my name is Joe cop, you are not being detained, but I was hoping I could talk to you for x reason.." etc. If you treat folks decent, and make sure they are comfortable and at ease, they are much more willing to help and have a conversation.

[palani]

If you treat folks decent, and make sure they are comfortable and at ease, they are much more willing to help and have a conversation.

A coppiceman has one goal and one goal only ... to find a crime and the criminal who committed it. There is no casual conversation. Facts are evil deeds and these are employees out diligently seeking facts.

One reason I carry a legal notice I had published 3 years ago ... an offer for anyone interested in becoming involved in my government to send me a copy of their oath and bond. My first action upon being offered "casual conversation" would be to pull this certified copy out, present it and ask why they didn't bother to communicate then.

That is not to say this should be an "in your face" action. I would be smiling the whole while.

[slowbell]

A coppiceman has one goal and one goal only ... to find a crime and the criminal who committed it.

Shouldn't be that way, a cop should be allowed to resolve disputes, in a peaceful manner. If cops have one goal to find a crime, it's because you created that situation....By 'you', I mean you, me, K-os, everyone...the public. You created these cops searching for crimes.

Allow me to explain...

True story, a cop responds to a domestic dispute between a man and wife. He shows up, the couple explain they had an argument, but it was resolved. The situation was peaceful. Cop, sees happy couple in their own home, says "OK, you folks have a great night.". Cop leaves. An hour later, man kills the wife. Now, what's the public's response? Oh the horror, how could the cop leave? These cops need to be accountable for doing nothing? Blame the cops for this aweful crime!

Then, the lawsuit finds the cops negligent, taxpayers pay millions.

Now, because of that incident, when the cops show up to a domestic dispute, they ask a lot of questions. They want to know if there is guns in the home, they want someone to leave, they stay until someone leaves. They search for ways, to cover their asses.

Apply this example to an open carry situation. Cop responds to call, Joe Shopkeeper is scared because someone out in the street, outside the shop, has a gun. Cop asks gun owner, finds it's a lawful open carry, respects the constitution. Explains to the shopkeeper it's his constitutional right to open carry. Cop leaves, peaceful scene.

Gun owner then shoots shopkeeper. How's the public YOU going to respond? Blame the cops.

It goes both ways. We need to hold cops accountable for their actions. We also, our lively hood depends upon it, our constitution depends upon it...we must, not hold Cops accountable for crimes others commit. It affects us all.

[Twisted Titan]

Whats the difference between a Cop that unlawfully stops you for open carry and he is nice about it, compared to a Cop that unlawfully stops you and is a dick about it?


The "nice cop" will shoot you in your chest facing him.......The" Bad Cop" will shoot you in the Back so you cant see when its coming.

Either way both are getting paid time off, a dimissal of charges and when enough time passes a promotion.

[palani]

a cop should be allowed to resolve disputes
I'll accept that your thoughts on this matter are intended to honestly explain why employees of the police department act as they do but ....

Nowhere in a coppicemans job description is arbitration to be found. Man (and woman) operate upon contracts at all times. Many of these (over 99%) are quasi-contracts which don't require a written memorial. A maxim of law is

Nemo debet immiscere se rei alienae ad se nihil pertinenti. No one should interfere in what no way concerns him.