Openly carrying sidearm causes concerns

[dabuddha]

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.

That part you people keep leaving out is the officers received complaints about the guy walking around with a gun.

 

[Scotteq]

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.

Hint - The Police are equally obligated to do a field investigation/interview on *ANYONE* they receive a complaint about. This is the law, and the fact that you decide to ignore it is YOUR problem.

 

[matt0611]

That part you people keep leaving out is the officers received complaints about the guy walking around with a gun.

So? Once they saw he wasn't doing anything illegal and went to talk to him and see he was just a guy open-carrying peacefully with his gun at his side, minding his own business that should have been the end of it.

Someone concerned because a guy is open-carrying is not a good enough reason to detain him or make him stop and demand he identify himself.

And he didn't have to, as the video proves, the police know this and let him go.

I feel like this thread is just arguing in circles over and over lol. We could go back in forth over and over but I'll just decide to stop here I guess.
I think everyone in this thread knows where each other stand by now.

 

[xj0hnx]

Hint - The Police are equally obligated to do a field investigation/interview on *ANYONE* they receive a complaint about. This is the law, and the fact that you decide to ignore it is YOUR problem.

Please post a link to the law stating that police MUST stop, detain, and attempt to ID someone because a neighbor calls the cops.

 

[Scotteq]

Please post a link to the law stating that police MUST stop, detain, and attempt to ID someone because a neighbor calls the cops.

How about you post one that says they Don't.

Someone called the cops. They're going to come investigate. It *is* that simple.

 

[dabuddha]

So? Once they saw he wasn't doing anything illegal and went to talk to him and see he was just a guy open-carrying peacefully with his gun at his side, minding his own business that should have been the end of it.

Someone concerned because a guy is open-carrying is not a good enough reason to detain him or make him stop and demand he identify himself.

And he didn't have to, as the video proves, the police know this and let him go.

I feel like this thread is just arguing in circles over and over lol. We could go back in forth over and over but I'll just decide to stop here I guess.
I think everyone in this thread knows where each other stand by now.

I guess you saw a video I haven't seen cause I have no idea how the retard was behaving. Someone reported him behaving suspiciously (probably was if he was walking around in circles waiting to pick a fight with cops). Plus he was packing a weapon. So they stop to talk to him. If he had shown his ID, everything would have been fine. The cops were in the right in asking to see his ID. He prolonged the whole thing himself by refusing to do so. The cops were respectful to him.

You're right, neither side will convince the other that they're right so it's kind of pointless to discuss it further.

 

[xj0hnx]

How about you post one that says they Don't.

Someone called the cops. They're going to come investigate. It *is* that simple.

Because I am saying it doesn't exist, kind of hard to post a link to something that doesn't exist. Now go ahead and post a link, I mean you JUST said that it's the law, so you must be familiar with the statute, heck, I even posted a link to the Maine legal statutes, you should be able to whip through there straight to the law that will clearly say taht the police must under force of law, stop, detain, and attempt to ID someone when a neighbor makes a call. Surely if you can't Perknose will be able to, hell he wants to bet money that it's the law.

 

[xj0hnx]

I guess you saw a video I haven't seen cause I have no idea how the retard was behaving. Someone reported him behaving suspiciously (probably was if he was walking around in circles waiting to pick a fight with cops). Plus he was packing a weapon. So they stop to talk to him. If he had shown his ID, everything would have been fine. The cops were in the right in asking to see his ID. He prolonged the whole thing himself by refusing to do so. The cops were respectful to him.

You're right, neither side will convince the other that they're right so it's kind of pointless to discuss it further.

No, they reported a man carrying a gun. Hate to break it to you, but in an open carry state that's neither suspicious, or illegal, and most certainly not grounds to be stopped by the police.

The very first thing the cop does is tell the guy he's "committing a crime", and he has to be identified, this is bullshit, and when they citizen stands up for his rights the cops back off because they knwo they are in the wrong pushing the issue.

 

[Scotteq]

I guess you saw a video I haven't seen cause I have no idea how the retard was behaving. Someone reported him behaving suspiciously (probably was if he was walking around in circles waiting to pick a fight with cops). Plus he was packing a weapon. So they stop to talk to him. If he had shown his ID, everything would have been fine. The cops were in the right in asking to see his ID. He prolonged the whole thing himself by refusing to do so. The cops were respectful to him.

You're right, neither side will convince the other that they're right so it's kind of pointless to discuss it further.

The link to the audio recording (YouTube) is in the original Post.

 

[Scotteq]

Because I am saying it doesn't exist, kind of hard to post a link to something that doesn't exist. Now go ahead and post a link, I mean you JUST said that it's the law, so you must be familiar with the statute, heck, I even posted a link to the Maine legal statutes, you should be able to whip through there straight to the law that will clearly say taht the police must under force of law, stop, detain, and attempt to ID someone when a neighbor makes a call. Surely if you can't Perknose will be able to, hell he wants to bet money that it's the law.

Then take his bet.

 

[xj0hnx]

Then take his bet.

I don't "bet" with frothing at the mouth idiots.

 

[nobodyknows]

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:



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.

You need to get off your high horse.

What exactly was the complaint the police recieved? That two people were open carrying guns? Well guess what? That's a perfectly legal thing to do so there was no need for the police to waste their valuable time investigating the complaint.

Not knowing exactly what the complaint was nobody can say for sure if the police had any right to detain them. Especially considering what the Constitution and Bill of rights says.

Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

The way I read that, the states really have no business trying to regulate firearms and/or their transportation nby private individuals.

 

[dabuddha]

The link to the audio recording (YouTube) is in the original Post.

Oh yeah I heard the audio clip. I'm just referring to his seeming to know how the perp was behaving before the cops came.

 

[dabuddha]

No, they reported a man carrying a gun. Hate to break it to you, but in an open carry state that's neither suspicious, or illegal, and most certainly not grounds to be stopped by the police.

The very first thing the cop does is tell the guy he's "committing a crime", and he has to be identified, this is bullshit, and when they citizen stands up for his rights the cops back off because they knwo they are in the wrong pushing the issue.

So you heard exactly what the person reported? Point being, you're assuming a bit too much. The person reporting it could have easily said "I see a man walking around with a gun and he's acting strange. He's walking around in circles and keeps thrusting his gun that's on his hip towards people." Or who knows.

 

[Scotteq]

Oh yeah I heard the audio clip. I'm just referring to his seeming to know how the perp was behaving before the cops came.

Ah - That's simple: He doesn't know. He's making it up.

 

[thraashman]

Hint - The Police are equally obligated to do a field investigation/interview on *ANYONE* they receive a complaint about. This is the law, and the fact that you decide to ignore it is YOUR problem.

There's a reason the term is "gun nut" and not "gun reasonible individual". The ones that are reasonible don't act like this guy or the people on this forum and we don't hear much from. The ones that are gun nuts are the ones arguing in favor of this jackass and many of are the same who also argued in favor of the pharmacist who executed a 14 year old boy.

 

[xj0hnx]

Oh yeah I heard the audio clip. I'm just referring to his seeming to know how the perp was behaving before the cops came.

The contents of the call a pretty much laid out throughout the video, a caller called because they were carrying guns. The first cop jumps straight into trying to intimidate the guy into believing he is committing some crime to get him to show ID to prove his innocence, when in fact carrying a firearm is perfectly legal, and Maine is not a Stop and Identify state. This is pretty obvious since the video ends with the guy leaving and not showing any ID.

 

[xj0hnx]

There's a reason the term is "gun nut" and not "gun reasonible individual". The ones that are reasonible don't act like this guy or the people on this forum and we don't hear much from. The ones that are gun nuts are the ones arguing in favor of this jackass and many of are the same who also argued in favor of the pharmacist who executed a 14 year old boy.

Blah, blah, blah, we know, you hate guns and people that carry them, next.

 

[IBMer]

I am sure that this guy probably called it in himself just to catch this on tape.

 

[xj0hnx]

So you heard exactly what the person reported? Point being, you're assuming a bit too much. The person reporting it could have easily said "I see a man walking around with a gun and he's acting strange. He's walking around in circles and keeps thrusting his gun that's on his hip towards people." Or who knows.

If it had they would have arrested him for failure to comply, it's pretty obvious that they had no indication that he was "acting crazy", and basically the female officer says as much. I know you and the other zealots want really, really, really badly for there to have been a crime so the evil gun carrier could be arrested, but ...there wasn't.

 

[xj0hnx]

Ah - That's simple: He doesn't know. He's making it up.

You should go back and listen to the cops responses, and how they change.

 

[Scotteq]

There's a reason the term is "gun nut" and not "gun reasonible individual". The ones that are reasonible don't act like this guy or the people on this forum and we don't hear much from. The ones that are gun nuts are the ones arguing in favor of this jackass and many of are the same who also argued in favor of the pharmacist who executed a 14 year old boy.

Clear

- It just boggles the mind that people actually believe the Police are somehow unable to investigate a report to determine whether or not a law/statute was broken.

 

[dabuddha]

If it had they would have arrested him for failure to comply, it's pretty obvious that they had no indication that he was "acting crazy", and basically the female officer says as much. I know you and the other zealots want really, really, really badly for there to have been a crime so the evil gun carrier could be arrested, but ...there wasn't.

Again, assuming as usual. You know what they say about assumptions

 

[xj0hnx]

Clear

- It just boggles the mind that people actually believe the Police are somehow unable to investigate a report to determine whether or not a law/statute was broken.

You are being disingenuous now. No one anywhere has said they can't investigate a complaint, but the fact is carrying a handgun is not a crime, is not good enough for suspicion of a crime, as proved by the police letting the guy go.

 

[Scotteq]

You should go back and listen to the cops responses, and how they change.

I did listen - 4 times


The Police never said he committed a crime. Just that they were investigating a complaint.

The Kid *immediately* started with the "...am I accused of something.." routine.

It's not the police's "fault" they got a complaint. They were simply doing their jobs, and it'a absolutely ridiculous to presume wrongdoing on either side.

You are being disingenuous now. No one anywhere has said they can't investigate a complaint, but the fact is carrying a handgun is not a crime, is not good enough for suspicion of a crime, as proved by the police letting the guy go.

Then what is your problem?