Openly carrying sidearm causes concerns

[Venix]

Listen to the recording again - The female officer clearly stated - Politely, and multiple times - the police received a complaint. Therefore there was reason to talk to the guy. All they were doing is attempting to follow up on that complaint.

A "complaint" isn't reasonable suspicion. And even if they had reasonable suspicion they had no authority to compel him to talk or to provide written identification.

After he refused to answer their questions their only legal option was to allow him to leave, or to temporarily detain him while they spoke to witnesses if they believed a crime was being committed.

And if 12 minutes amounts to "unlawful detention", then there's a whole *hell* of a lot of illegal traffic stops.

No, "unlawful detention" amounts to "unlawful detention" regardless of the amount of time it takes. If it had been 2 minutes or 2 hours it still would have been unlawful.

So the only "issue" here is that you guys dislike the length of the conversation. My response to that is as above: Boo~Fucking~Hoo. Go buy a tampon.

No. The issue--as has been stated countless times by numerous people--is that the police unlawfully detained him, unlawfully demanded written identification, and then unlawfully attempted to coerce him to comply with their unlawful demand. The amount of time he was detained is a secondary concern.

You continue to conflate "talking" with "detaining." The initial police contact--approaching him and asking him about his firearm--was perfectly legal. The police can freely engage in conversation with anyone about any topic at any time. The problem is that they refused to allow him to leave, despite having no reasonable articulable suspicion that a crime was in progress. That is illegal.

 

[dabuddha]

1) Detaining can be considered imprisoning under the law. You need to learn this. By stating they are making an investigation and asking him questions they are "detaining" him by legal definition under the law.

That is true but I don't think they ever said he was not free to go. They just didn't answer his question when he asked it. Unless I just didn't hear it (heard the recording few days back lol)

2) No they do NOT have every right to talk with him per rules of investigation UNLESS they can articulate reasonable suspicion of a crime. Period. End of story. This is where you are FLAT OUT WRONG. Go read the wiki I posted and look this up. This is where you are making an ass out of yourself for not understanding this simple premise. Without cause of suspicion of a crime, and a complaint is NOT a crime, they have no reason to question him at all.

Of course they have the right to talk to him. Just like I have the right to talk to you.

3) See point 2, they should not have stopped him to talk to him without reasonable suspicion of a crime in the first place. See the court cases where people have won suits against cops doing this shit.

As it has been stated about a billion times before, they had complaints about the guy. We do NOT know the details of the complaint so we can NOT say one way or the other whether they had reasonable suspicion.

EDIT: For the women that are getting so worked up over this and think the guy went through a horrible ordeal, I have to say I really pity you. You are the reason why our country is in the shitty condition it is in now. You're the kind of retards that would think this douche bag is justified in suing the police.

 

[Perknose]

My assertion:

Because of Maine state law germane to the facts of this situation, the officers needed to exclude the possibility that a valid Maine law had been broken by these two here.

In order to exclude this possibility, the very first thing they needed to do was see some ID.

For the purposes of my assertion, I am even willing to stipulate that both gun carriers were American citizens and legal residents of Maine.

I am now making my offer to everyone. Singly or grouped together, come up with a minimum of $100 to bet me that my assertion, as strictly defined above, is incorrect.

The money will be held by a mutually agreed upon third party.

The winner of the bet will be determined by a mutually agreed upon third party.

Anyone game?

 

[KK]

My assertion:



I am now making my offer to everyone. Singly or grouped together, come up with a minimum of $100 to bet me that my assertion, as strictly defined above, is incorrect.

The money will be held by a mutually agreed upon third party.

The winner of the bet will be determined by a mutually agreed upon third party.

Anyone game?

No, now lets see what you got.

 

[Corn]

Are you really that dimwitted, or are you simply this dishonest?

Again:

My bet is an OPEN CHALLENGE which would be determined by an objective third party you would have to OK!

What about all this being the opposite of hiding don't you understand?

I just want to take your money as a kind of stupidity tax.

He's not going to take your bet, so why continue to press the issue? Either you are right, or he is right. He's provided his argument, I'd like to see your's.

 

[xj0hnx]

As it has been stated about a billion times before, they had complaints about the guy. We do NOT know the details of the complaint so we can NOT say one way or the other whether they had reasonable suspicion.

Considering the conversation was fairly civil between them start to finish, it's pretty darn safe to assume that there was no complaint that he was acting up, or brandishing, and the female officer even states that they received a call that someone was wearing a firearm.

 

[xj0hnx]

No, now lets see what you got.

He's got nothing as usual, that's why he's hiding behind a "bet".

 

[dabuddha]

Considering the conversation was fairly civil between them start to finish, it's pretty darn safe to assume that there was no complaint that he was acting up, or brandishing, and the female officer even states that they received a call that someone was wearing a firearm.

Not at all

 

[xj0hnx]

Not at all

Actually yes, 100%. You'd have to be reaching much further than thought humanly possible to think that cops are going to show up at a call of a guy brandishing a firearm, or acting like a crazy person and have the contact, and final outcome they did.

 

[dabuddha]

Actually yes, 100%. You'd have to be reaching much further than thought humanly possible to think that cops are going to show up at a call of a guy brandishing a firearm, or acting like a crazy person and have the contact, and final outcome they did.

Apparently you don't understand what the word assume means. Especially ironic since you used the word yourself Can you reword what you said cause I'm having trouble making heads or tails of what your point is.

 

[xj0hnx]

Apparently you don't understand what the word assume means. Especially ironic since you used the word yourself Can you reword what you said cause I'm having trouble making heads or tails of what your point is.

Why am I not surprised, it's based on logic, something that seems to be lacking in your posts.

 

[dabuddha]

Why am I not surprised, it's based on logic, something that seems to be lacking in your posts.

It's based on some foreign language apparently since logic is a word that you've never heard of. Maybe when you learn some proper grammar and how to construct a proper sentence, you can talk with the big boys Till then, live on in your sad little delusional world.

 

[xj0hnx]

It's based on some foreign language apparently since logic is a word that you've never heard of. Maybe when you learn some proper grammar and how to construct a proper sentence, you can talk with the big boys Till then, live on in your sad little delusional world.

Are you going to try address what was said, or just continue to piddle on yourself? I know, I know, it's disheartening when your stupid belief has it's foundation destroyed so you have to run to diversion, but come on now, you can do it.

 

[dabuddha]

Are you going to try address what was said, or just continue to piddle on yourself? I know, I know, it's disheartening when your stupid belief has it's foundation destroyed so you have to run to diversion, but come on now, you can do it.

If you actually learned how to read, I was unable to comprehend what you wrote and I asked you to clarify it. I'd love to address what you're saying if it wasn't the ramblings of a half-wit! It could be that it's late in the afternoon but I'm not getting what you're trying to convey here:

Actually yes, 100%. You'd have to be reaching much further than thought humanly possible to think that cops are going to show up at a call of a guy brandishing a firearm, or acting like a crazy person and have the contact, and final outcome they did.

 

[Zebo]

My assertion:



I am now making my offer to everyone. Singly or grouped together, come up with a minimum of $100 to bet me that my assertion, as strictly defined above, is incorrect.

The money will be held by a mutually agreed upon third party.

The winner of the bet will be determined by a mutually agreed upon third party.

Anyone game?

Seems obvious: check if they are a prohibited person or not. That's the problem with limiting a right. All it does is harasses law abiding people and does nothing to stop real criminals... As if they care about concealed law carry laws they do carry.

 

[freegeeks]

watched a bunch of youtube videos about open carry

it's frightening to see how many cops don't know anything about open carry laws

I'm a so called European liberal tree hugging hippy but jesus if people are just excercising their rights then it is their right. I'm going to California in a few weeks on holidays, if I see someone with a gun in a holster I know now that it is actually legal

 

[brandonb]

watched a bunch of youtube videos about open carry

it's frightening to see how many cops don't know anything about open carry laws

I'm a so called European liberal tree hugging hippy but jesus if people are just excercising their rights then it is their right. I'm going to in California in a few weeks on holidays, if I see someone with a gun in a holster I know now that it is actually legal

In Minnesota which allows you to carry openly, over the last 5-7 years in which people could easily obtain permits, I've only seen 1 person carry openly, and he was dressed like a detective so I couldn't tell if it was law enforcement or not. Chances of you seeing it are next to nothing. But I'd be interested in hearing about it if you do.

 

[xj0hnx]

If you actually learned how to read, I was unable to comprehend what you wrote and I asked you to clarify it. I'd love to address what you're saying if it wasn't the ramblings of a half-wit! It could be that it's late in the afternoon but I'm not getting what you're trying to convey here:

If you can't comprehend that simple statement then I feel sorry for you, there isn't any easier way to explain it to you. Funny that you can't understand a couple simple sentences and call me a "half-wit".

 

[spidey07]

watched a bunch of youtube videos about open carry

it's frightening to see how many cops don't know anything about open carry laws

I'm a so called European liberal tree hugging hippy but jesus if people are just excercising their rights then it is their right. I'm going to California in a few weeks on holidays, if I see someone with a gun in a holster I know now that it is actually legal

Heh, as long as it is unloaded it is. Careful! He may throw it at you.
:biggrin:

 

[freegeeks]

Heh, as long as it is unloaded it is. Careful! He may throw it at you.
:biggrin:

yeah, I read about the legal aspect
I don't understand why some cops don't understand the basics on this, the same for asking ID
There are plenty of youtube videos where police officers outright lie!!!

for me it's not about running around with a gun or not, there is plenty of debate about this but these guys are supposed to know about the law

 

[HumblePie]

yeah, I read about the legal aspect
I don't understand why some cops don't understand the basics on this, the same for asking ID
There are plenty of youtube videos where police officers outright lie!!!

for me it's not about running around with a gun or not, there is plenty of debate about this but these guys are supposed to know about the law

Cops are not legally required to tell the truth. Cops are not your friend. They are not going to help you when they are questioning or want something from you. They will lie to get what they want.

This video has been linked before, but I feel it is still something everyone should watch.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik click at the end for part 2

Basically a cop stating that you should NEVER TALK TO COPS! They can and will lie and cheat to get the information they want. It is up to the individual to protect their rights. That is why we have the 5th amendment. Exercising your right is not being a dick or a scumbag or a douche or whatever other disrespectful adjective you want to use.

The cops know full well what the law is. They know what they are doing is breaking the law and know that they can do so and get away with it. This is why many places are trying to push for making it illegal to take recordings (audio or video) of cops while on the job. It shows how bad and extreme some cops will go. I am not stating all cops are like this, but there are plenty out there.

 

[Perknose]

I don't understand why some cops don't understand the basics on this,

[...]

...these guys are supposed to know about the law

I spent 14 years as a PI. I had to deal with a ton of cops who were wrong or unsure about basis aspects of the law, often in quite startling ways.

These were the days before camera phones, too. It was never a good idea to argue with them past the first polite and deferential attempt.

Two things I learned in the field:

The law is what the cop on the scene says it is.

In his courtroom, the law is what the JP or District Judge says it is.

The third thing? There is no such thing as "justice." Every single lawyer I worked for would tell you this upfront, or admit it if asked.

Oh, the fourth thing? All lawyers and law firms are slow pay. What are you gonna' do, sue them?

 

[Zebo]

100% correct IME perk. although basic math may help in counting to 4...


to point 3...dad told me... "it's not about who's wrong or right, it's about who's got the money to prove they're right"

This was after I was sued for over 100k from a former employer for stealing so called "sources and methods" and going on my own..