Openly carrying sidearm causes concerns

[xj0hnx]

What right don't I like? Why don't you go search my post history and see what I think about the second amendment. Hahaha, what an idiot. What I took exception with was Spidey saying that there needs to be more open carry so people like it more. Ridiculous.

If more people carried it would indeed be less of an event, and less people would get their panties in a twist over it.

Open carry is legal in many many places in the United States, yet I am not aware of a single municipality of any significant size where the average citizen openly carries a firearm.

Which doesn't prove your opinion.

Dude, you're getting owned by about 5 different people in this thread, don't you think you might want to cut your losses? You've been reduced to cowering in the corner mindlessly repeating 'if the guy didn't commit a crime the cops shouldn't talk to him', something that is not only manifestly untrue, but manifestly stupid. (it would be impossible to investigate large numbers of crimes if they followed your master plan)

Haha, "owned" LOLOLOL. Sorry buddy, people's opinion that the police were right despite laws saying otherwise, when in the end even THEY backed off, is definitely not "owned" LOL. You are such a sad little progressive, you and Perky make a cute couple.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Hey man, go find that town then! Live the dream!

LOL when you find it let me know!

 

[Scotteq]

He should be stopped for ... not doing anything wrong?

It is a LEGAL FACT that the Police are REQUIRED to act on Citizen complaints.


That you absolutely refuse to accept this fact is mind bogglingly STUPID

 

[KK]

They sure as hell could have been committing a crime under Maine law, and the only way those officers could have detemined whether they were was to investigate, which would start with them presenting their ID.

This isn't my opinion, nor is it "uneducated dribble." In fact, if anyone is spewing "uneducated dribble" it would be you. My 'opinion', as you call it, is backed by Maine law.

I'm not here to educate you on Maine law. Please educate yourself. Just . . . educate yourself.

Those two officers not only had the right, but the duty to politely but firmly investigate this situation.

I don't know what anyone can say to this dribble.

 

[fskimospy]

If more people carried it would indeed be less of an event, and less people would get their panties in a twist over it.



Which doesn't prove your opinion.



Haha, "owned" LOLOLOL. Sorry buddy, people's opinion that the police were right, when in the end even THEY backed off, is definitely not "owned" LOL. You are such a sad little progressive, you and Perky make a cute couple.

The fact that no place in the entire country has large numbers of open carrying people is pretty good evidence that people don't want large numbers of open carrying people.

As for the guy, of course they backed off, he wasn't doing anything wrong. You seem to think 'backed off after talking to the guy' is the same thing as 'should never have talked to him to begin with'. I actually think you know the difference, but your only hope is trying to conflate the two. There's no way after having this concept explained to you so repeatedly and painstakingly that you've missed it.

(by the way, you can always tell just how badly an argument is going for someone when they start putting in lots of LOLOLOLOLs.)

 

[fskimospy]

LOL when you find it let me know!

Trust me, you won't catch me within a country mile of any place like that.

 

[Perknose]

You are such a sad little progressive, you and Perky make a cute couple.

Still haven't educated yourself, and still with the flailing ad hominems, I see.

And still wrong.

 

[spidey07]

Of course, people should change their lives to suit your ultra right wing tastes.

Almost no one WANTS to openly carry pistols around town with them. I sure as hell know that if I were in a town where everyone were carrying guns around on their waist, I'd find a better town to live in.

Funny. I'D move to such a state. Granted guys like this don't help the cause but education and not having an irrational fear of seeing a weapon on hip go a long way.

 

[xj0hnx]

It is a LEGAL FACT that the Police are REQUIRED to act on Citizen complaints.


That you absolutely refuse to accept this fact is mind bogglingly STUPID

Where did I "absolutely refuse" to accept that police had to act on citizens complaints? Have you really been reduced to making shit up now? Sure they are required to respond, but being required to respond doesn't mean that they even have to stop the guy, and if they do stop him, it doesn't mean they have to detain him any longer than is necessary to make sure he isn't doing anything. Unfortunately for your argument, him legally open carrying, in a state that is not a stop and identify state means there's no probable cause for them to detain him.

"excuse me sir, someone called and complained that you weren't committing any crime"

"I'm not"

"Ok, thank you for you time"

 

[xj0hnx]

Still haven't educated yourself, and still with the flailing ad hominems, I see.

And still wrong.

Considering you haven't post a single fact yet ...what is your point again?

 

[NoStateofMind]

xJohnx, they (most) are only saying that police have a duty to investigate what is reported. Again this does NOT mean they have to produce identification (as long as no crime had been committed) or answer any questions. Otherwise police would be of no effect IMO. It is on the citizen to make his rights known and to relay to the Police that he is aware of what they are. After that there isn't much else to it.

I'm trying to understand your point in which you state they have no right to investigate but I find that hard to buy into. Can you help me out? They can do whatever they want within the law. They can ask you what you ate for dinner last Thursday but that doesn't mean you have to answer such frivolous questions. Giving identification would have ended it faster but you and I both know where that leads.

 

[fskimospy]

Funny. I'D move to such a state. Granted guys like this don't help the cause but education and not having an irrational fear of seeing a weapon on hip go a long way.

I think it's pretty clear from your behavior on this board that nobody should take what you would do as a blueprint for life choices.

 

[Scotteq]

"excuse me sir, someone called and complained that you weren't committing any crime"

"I'm not"

"Ok, thank you for you time"

TROLLOLOLOLOLL!!!

Troll Troll Troll Your Boat!


Dude - Stop it. You're just being ridiculous now.

 

[xj0hnx]

The fact that no place in the entire country has large numbers of open carrying people is pretty good evidence that people don't want large numbers of open carrying people.

As for the guy, of course they backed off, he wasn't doing anything wrong. You seem to think 'backed off after talking to the guy' is the same thing as 'should never have talked to him to begin with'. I actually think you know the difference, but your only hope is trying to conflate the two. There's no way after having this concept explained to you so repeatedly and painstakingly that you've missed it.

(by the way, you can always tell just how badly an argument is going for someone when they start putting in lots of LOLOLOLOLs.)

I never said they shouldn't talk to the guy if they wanted to, I said they didn't even need to because he wasn't breaking any law and some random person calling the cops because she is too ignorant to know that it's perfectly legal to openly carry a firearm doesn't magically make him doing something wrong, and give them the right to detain him. You can hold you breath until your blue in the face, but the facts aren't going to change.

LOLOLOLOLOLOL

 

[Scotteq]

xJohnx, they (most) are only saying that police have a duty to investigate what is reported. Again this does NOT mean they have to produce identification (as long as no crime had been committed) or answer any questions. Otherwise police would be of no effect IMO. It is on the citizen to make his rights known and to relay to the Police that he is aware of what they are. After that there isn't much else to it.

There's no "Understanding" - He's Trolling. Period.

 

[xj0hnx]

TROLLOLOLOLOLL!!!

Troll Troll Troll Your Boat!


Dude - Stop it. You're just being ridiculous now.

You've been being ridiculous for quite some time now.

 

[xj0hnx]

There's no "Understanding" - He's Trolling. Period.

Now you've moved on to me "trolling", how many diversions from your fail are you going to attempt?

I'm sorry reality, the law, and facts don't jive with your opinion, but in the end even the police knew they didn't have a reason to harass the guy.

 

[Scotteq]

I never said they shouldn't talk to the guy if they wanted to, I said they didn't even need to because he wasn't breaking any law and some random person calling the cops because she is too ignorant to know that it's perfectly legal to openly carry a firearm doesn't magically make him doing something wrong, and give them the right to detain him. You can hold you breath until your blue in the face, but the facts aren't going to change.

LOLOLOLOLOLOL

The Facts are the the Police have a Right to interview him as a follow up to the Citizen's complaint.

The Fact that he was an ass (while not illegal) only served to cause the interview to run longer then necessary. If he was nice and answered a few simple questions, he could have been done on 2 minutes. But he didn't do that. So he got the extended version.

It's his own damned fault.

 

[Scotteq]

Now you've moved on to me "trolling", how many diversions from your fail are you going to attempt?

I'm sorry reality, the law, and facts don't jive with your opinion, but in the end even the police knew they didn't have a reason to harass the guy.

They didn't have a reason to Arrest or Cite him.


They damned well DID have a reason to interview him as a follow up to the complaint they received.

 

[xj0hnx]

The Facts are the the Police have a Right to interview him as a follow up to the Citizen's complaint.

The Fact that he was an ass (while not illegal) only served to cause the interview to run longer then necessary. If he was nice and answered a few simple questions, he could have been done on 2 minutes. But he didn't do that. So he got the extended version.

It's his own damned fault.

You opinion of him doesn't matter. He committed no crime, wasn't doing anything illegal either when the caller made the complaint, or when the cops arrived, he was not required to entertain their fishing expedition, and he didn't.

 

[Carmen813]

Can we all agree that everyone reading/posting here is ridiculous? I mean...think about what we're doing!

 

[xj0hnx]

They didn't have a reason to Arrest or Cite him.


They damned well DID have a reason to interview him as a follow up to the complaint they received.

Stop pretending I said they didn't have a right to talk to him, I've said many times that they did. Once they found he wasn't committing a crime they didn't have the right to detain him any longer.

 

[Scotteq]

Neither did the Police do anything wrong - They were following up on a complaint. Period.


Stop pretending they didn't have that right.

Once they found he wasn't committing a crime they didn't have the right to detain him any longer.

A Task that lasted 12 minutes because the guy wouldn't answer any questions, and instead gave the patrol officers a hard time until they gave up. Should have been a pleasant 2 minute convo.

 

[Perknose]

"excuse me sir, someone called and complained that you weren't committing any crime"

Given the extant facts, they sure as hell could have committed a crime, and once the police received the complaint and were moved to investigate, the only way for those officers to exclude that possibility was to POLITELY but firmly investigate, which can only begin with establishing their identities.

And NO, I am not talking about the remote possibility that those two could be illegal immigrants. I am talking about facts wildly germane to the situation.

I asked you several times to educate yourself on the applicable Maine law, but you obviously haven't.

You think you are right.

I know I am.

You've been busy flapping your gums, repeatedly hurling personal insults my way. Care to put your money where your mouth is?

I'd say $500, but I'll trifle with you for as little as $100, winner to be determined by a member of our mutual choice.

Well?

 

[Pulsar]

They already are right - They were polite and professional at all times, and they did let him go. He wasn't arrested, nor was he "Harassed". The police had clear cause (the complaint) to speak to him. Period. End of Discussion.





Just pointing out that you are complaining about "rights" that YOU don't even have in YOUR state. Kinda nice to know that you're pulling your arguments out of your ass, after all.

And no amount of rationalizing on your part is going to convince me that you would get away with the same stunt in TX. Until such time as the TX legislature decides to pass an Open Carry law, regardless of your posturing - You're complaining about police attention to a behavior which is 100% illegal where you live.

Scott, you are clearly and willfully ignoring the line between talking to someone, and HOLDING him while demanding to see his ID repeatedly after being told you have no legal reason to ask him for it.

It's a law. Black and white. Very clear. Yet you continue to ignore it and keep trying to fall back onto "they had a right to talk to him". Of course, several other people have already pointed this out to you and you have ignored them as well.

Asking him if there's a problem is one thing. Demanding his ID repeatedly, refusing to let him leave because he's not providing it.... that's different entirely and a clear violation of his rights. It's too bad you continue to ignore that to try to prove your point.