Openly carrying sidearm causes concerns

[Scotteq]

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.

12 minutes is a violation? OOOOH!!! Let's call the Supreme Court!!! <quiver quiver, quake quake>

Pfffft - Minor Inconvenience at most.

They have every right to talk to him to ascertain whether or not an actionable act was committed. Bu giving them a hard time and evading their questions, he only extended the interview far beyond what it could have.



And once again - The officers were polite and professional the entire time.

 

[NoStateofMind]

And once again - The officers were polite and professional the entire time.

Okay but he was an asshole cause he didn't oblige them right? I personally think they were both cordial in the interaction.

 

[Scotteq]

Okay but he was an asshole cause he didn't oblige them right? I personally think they were both cordial in the interaction.

Unhelpful - By not answering any questions he only prolonged the interview

 

[xj0hnx]

Given the extant facts, they sure as hell could have committed a crime,

The facts are they were legally carrying in a place that open carry is legal, and doesn't require a license to do unless you are in a vehicle.

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.

Wrong. Someone's identify is not necessary to determine if a crime is taking place. In this case, walking while open carrying in a place where open carry is legal, 404 crime not found. The extent of their "investigation" could be as little as pulling up, seeing that it's just two guys walking, legally open carrying, not causing any problems, or stopping them, informing them they received a call from a citizen. Neither one of those changes the fact that they were not legally obligated to show the police identification unless the police were going to issue them a summons, which they didn't.

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.

What fact? That they were open carrying somewhere where open carry is legal? WOW, Johnnie Cochran look out!!!!

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

And yet you haven't displayed that you have a clue what Maine law is? You wouldn't know Maine law if it punched you in the nose, and shat on your chest.

Start here ...

http://www.mainelegislature.org/legis/statutes/

 

[Zebo]

Well you can't say they were legally carrying. They *could* have been felons or other denied persons. But without ID who knows?

 

[Scotteq]

What fact? That they were open carrying somewhere where open carry is legal? WOW, Johnnie Cochran look out!!!!

Without ID, how can you know they're actually Maine residents? If they're not Maine Residents, then a Firearms violation has clearly taken place.

Who knows! - They could really be from New Jersey or Texas.

 

[xj0hnx]

Well you can't say they were legally carrying. They *could* have been felons or other denied persons. But without ID who knows?

True, but so could anybody walking down the street. Some posters here want to use someone carrying a firearm, where it's legal to carry, as an excuse to be detained and ID'ed, but they would have a coronary if the same was said about someone passing out flyers for a democrat rally.

 

[KK]

Without ID, how can you know they're actually Maine residents? If they're not Maine Residents, then a Firearms violation has clearly taken place.

Who knows! - They could really be from New Jersey or Texas.

Without ID, they could be illegal aliens and subjected to deportation. Oh wait, libtards are only for illegals not having to show id. Us americans don't have that right.

 

[Perknose]

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

Well, would you care to back that up with a bet?

I'd prefer $400, but $100 minimum, to be held by and winner to be determined by a mutually agreed upon third party.

Again, those two could well have committed a crime, and once the officers received the complaint it was their DUTY to investigate whether they had or not. Such an investigation could only begin with them furnishing their ID's to the officers.

Do we have a bet, or are YOU just another gutless blowhard like xJohnx?

 

[Perknose]

And yet you haven't displayed that you have a clue what Maine law is? You wouldn't know Maine law if it punched you in the nose, and shat on your chest.

Continuing with the out of hand personal attacks but apparently unwilling to put your money where your scatologically filthy and out of control attack mouth is?

ARE YOU GOING TO BACK UP YOUR BIG MOUTH OR NOT?

What I have repeatedly maintained is 100% correct and you are apparently not bright enough to see why.

MINIMUM $100, MUTUALLY AGREED UPON THIRD PARTY TO DETERMINE THE OUTCOME.

Man up or expose yourself.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

This reminds me of a video of a random "border inspection" checkpoint in Arizona or New Mexico, about 50 miles inland from the border, where a guy videotaped himself being stopped and asked for identification. He kept saying, "Am I being detained? Am I free to go?" Reason being last I checked, a national ID card is not required and being stopped to "check your papers" is not a valid reason to keep someone from going about their business.

Sounds like the same guy from that video to be honest. Anyways he did nothing wrong other then to assert his rights. Cops investigating a "call" does not mean that the individual being questioned should bend over and forfeit his/her rights.

 

[KK]

Well, would you care to back that up with a bet?

I'd prefer $400, but $100 minimum, to be held by and winner to be determined by a mutually agreed upon third party.

Again, those two could well have committed a crime, and once the officers received the complaint it was their DUTY to investigate whether they had or not. Such an investigation could only begin with them furnishing their ID's to the officers.

Do we have a bet, or are YOU just another gutless blowhard like xJohnx?

Betting is illegal online in america. Does the owner of this board know this? I don't think he'd be too happy.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

Without ID, how can you know they're actually Maine residents? If they're not Maine Residents, then a Firearms violation has clearly taken place.

Who knows! - They could really be from New Jersey or Texas.

Changing Maine's law to accommodate their investigate is/was not his job as a citizen.

If it was legal to not have to show id at the time to a police officer in Maine then he had all the LEGAL right to not provide one for them and they had no right force him to hand one over just to make their lives easier.

 

[Scotteq]

Changing Maine's law to accommodate their investigate is/was not his job as a citizen.

If it was legal to not have to show id at the time to a police officer in Maine then he had all the LEGAL right to not provide one for them and they had no right force him to hand one over just to make their lives easier.

*sigh*

I didn't say he doesn't have a right to refuse ID or their questions


I said - Because there was a complaint, the Police have the right, duty, and obligation to investigate and conduct an interview in order to determine whether or not there was any wrongdoing. And that, by choosing to withhold any answers or ID and thereby hindering the Officer's efforts at making that determination, our Open Carrier only made the interview longer than it needed to be.

Harassment and Violations of civil rights - Not Found

 

[spidey07]

Betting is illegal online in america. Does the owner of this board know this? I don't think he'd be too happy.

A bet between parties with no intermediary take is perfectly legal.

The more you know.

 

[KK]

A bet between parties with no intermediary take is perfectly legal.

The more you know.

Damn :biggrin:

 

[DucatiMonster696]

*sigh*

I didn't say he doesn't have a right to refuse ID or their questions


I said - Because there was a complaint, the Police have the right, duty, and obligation to interview him in order to determine whether or not there was any wrongdoing.

Great that's their job. He on the other hand has a right to assert his own legal rights as an individual and to expect that THEY abide by the law as well.

And that, by choosing to withhold any answers or ID, our Open Carrier only made the interview longer than it needed to be.

This is completely irrelevant and frankly not even an valid argument against this guy exercising his rights, abiding by the law and expecting the cops to behave in the same manner.

Harassment and Violations of civil rights - Not Found

Of course not because the individual in the video stood up for his rights (mainly because he understood and vigorously stood up for his rights) and refused to be run over by the cops who stopped him over someone "being afraid".

 

[Perknose]

Betting is illegal online in america. Does the owner of this board know this? I don't think he'd be too happy.

A bet between parties with no intermediary take is perfectly legal.

The more you know.

Personal responsibility, KK. Man up. You called my assertion dribble.

Do we have a bet, or are you all hat and no cattle?

 

[OutHouse]

Well if you have so many relatives in the police you should realize that cops can question people even if a crime hasn't been committed. Not sure how you missed that one.

the part you are leaving out is the person does not have to answer. and cops can not walk up to you and demand your papers for no reason.

 

[KK]

Personal responsibility, KK. Man up. You called my assertion dribble.

Do we have a bet, or are you all hat and no cattle?

I still call your assertion dribble. But you must be the bigger man as you're willing to put your wallet where you mouth is. kudos to you. You get the gold star for today.

 

[xj0hnx]

Continuing with the out of hand personal attacks but apparently unwilling to put your money where your scatologically filthy and out of control attack mouth is?

ARE YOU GOING TO BACK UP YOUR BIG MOUTH OR NOT?

What I have repeatedly maintained is 100&#37; correct and you are apparently not bright enough to see why.

MINIMUM $100, MUTUALLY AGREED UPON THIRD PARTY TO DETERMINE THE OUTCOME.

Man up or expose yourself.

What are you continuing to babble on about little boy? Seriously, what the hell are you even talking about? There's nothing to bet on, you haven't produced a single fact in this entire thread, only your ill informed opinion, and no matter how many times you keep repeating your stupid crap about some bet it's not going to change anything. Facts and reality back up what I have said.

 

[xj0hnx]

*sigh*

I didn't say he doesn't have a right to refuse ID or their questions


I said - Because there was a complaint, the Police have the right, duty, and obligation to investigate and conduct an interview in order to determine whether or not there was any wrongdoing. And that, by choosing to withhold any answers or ID and thereby hindering the Officer's efforts at making that determination, our Open Carrier only made the interview longer than it needed to be.

Harassment and Violations of civil rights - Not Found

How are they any more obligated to conduct an interview of those two guys that are doing nothing illegal than they are to conduct an interview with anyone else walking down the same street doing nothing illegal? Here's a hint, they aren't. Why is it so fucking hard for you to grasp the concept that simply having a firearm in a place where open carry is legal does NOT give them probable cause, and just because some ignorant lady called the cops to report them doing nothing illegal doesn't either.

 

[Perknose]

I still call your assertion dribble. But you must be the bigger man as you're willing to put your wallet where you mouth is. kudos to you. You get the gold star for today.

Just wanted to see whether you had the courage of your convictions. If you really believed you were correct, you could make some fast cash.

But it turns out you have no backbone.

Pathetic!

KK's Answer In Translation:

I, KK, am a spineless, weasel troll with zero personal integrity, unwilling to back my accusations with any real life consequence but lacking the decency or self-regard to shut the fuck up.

When challenged, at first I will try to claim that betting would be illegal.

When spidey, of all people, abruptly informs me that I can't weasel out that way, I will instead continue to flap my worthless, gutless trap, for I have no honor and less common sense.

You have exposed yourself for the inconsequential little troll that you are.

 

[Perknose]

What are you continuing to babble on about little boy? Seriously, what the hell are you even talking about? There's nothing to bet on, you haven't produced a single fact in this entire thread, only your ill informed opinion, and no matter how many times you keep repeating your stupid crap about some bet it's not going to change anything. Facts and reality back up what I have said.

Yes there IS, and I have outlined my challenge to you REPEATEDLY, so stop pretending otherwise, it's transparently dishonest of you to do so.

Here it is, again:

Again, those two could well have committed a crime, and once the officers received the complaint it was their DUTY to investigate whether they had or not. Such an investigation could only begin with them furnishing their ID's to the officers.

This is my contention, which I am challenging you to a bet of a minimum of $100 (I would prefer $500) that I can PROVE is the case under applicable Maine state law, not just to my satisfaction, but to be ruled on by an objective THIRD PARTY TO WHICH WE BOTH AGREE.

Can't get fairer or more defined than that.

Since you have "facts and reality" on your side, this should be a slam dunk for you, but apparently you lack the courage of your convictions.

Of course, you could just be poor! On welfare? Unemployable due to poor life decisions? Mommy won't spot you the hundred?

Ok, round up the dough from all the other posters here who steadfastly agree with you. Man up for once in real life, ya big pussy! : P

No more excuses, no more deflections, no more hollow words, just do it, act.

 

[xj0hnx]

Yes there IS, and I have outlined my challenge to you REPEATEDLY, so stop pretending otherwise, it's transparently dishonest of you to do so.

No, you have been foaming at the mouth, spraying spittle all over yourself.

Here it is, for the first time because I was too busy foaming at the mouth:



This is my contention, which I am challenging you to a bet of a minimum of $100 (I would prefer $500) that I can PROVE is the case under applicable Maine state law, not just to my satisfaction, but to be ruled on by an objective THIRD PARTY TO WHICH WE BOTH AGREE.

Can't get fairer or more defined than that.

Since you have "facts and reality" on your side, this should be a slam dunk for you, but apparently you lack the courage of your convictions.

Of course, you could just be poor! On welfare? Unemployable due to poor life decisions? Mommy won't spot you the hundred?

Ok, round up the dough from all the other posters here who steadfastly agree with you. Man up for once in real life, ya big pussy! : P

No more excuses, no more deflections, no more hollow words, just do it, act.

Why don't you just do it instead of trying to be a little drama queen. No one thinks your "cool" or anything because you want make some stupid "bet".

Maine is not a stop and Identify state, I posted a link to the legislation you need to correct you false assumptions. Facts are against you and you are trying to hide behind your stupid bet, why you "man up" for once in your life and just debate the topic like a normal person instead of a dipshit?

If you weren't so blinded by idiocy you might be able to comprehend that just because some lady called the police because they were open carrying, that doesn't give the police any probable cause to stop, and search them because open carry is legal. What you are trying to prove is that if the lady called the police, and complained that two black guys were walking down the street, the police would have probable cause to stop and harass them because they were black. It is extremely amusing watching you argue for this.