Openly carrying sidearm causes concerns

[Texashiker]

Gun != Newspaper. Carrying Gun!= Posting online. Carrying a Gun != Voting.

Rights are rights.

The police/government can not pick and choose which rights to harass the citizens about.

If the police harass the citizens over a firearm, whats next? Are we going to be harassed when we go to vote? Are the police going to be standing at the voting booth asking us which party we are going to be voting for?

Harassment on any level should not be tolerated.

 

[fskimospy]

This is beyond stupid and it's a waste of police resources. People used to do this in San Diego sometimes, and it's just incredibly douchey.

The cops would be negligent if they didn't respond to reports of a guy walking around showing a gun. I mean can you imagine the shitstorm that would happen if some guy shot some people and you found out later that cops had reports of a guy with a gun and did nothing?

So instead, this jackass gets to feel cool and like he's fighting The Man, and we get to have fewer cops out there looking for real criminals.

 

[HAL9000]

Rights are rights.

The police/government can not pick and choose which rights to harass the citizens about.

If one of those rights is carrying a deadly weapon in public that panics another citizen then absolutely they can.

Also if one of those rights is something that not everyone has the right to do then they absolutely should check you are not committing a crime.

If the police harass the citizens over a firearm, whats next? Are we going to be harassed when we go to vote? Are the police going to be standing there asking us which party we are going to be voting for?

Are you being deliberately stupid? You can't see the difference between carrying a deadly weapon and voting. How one might be a crime and the other isn't.

 

[dabuddha]

Rights are rights.

The police/government can not pick and choose which rights to harass the citizens about.

If the police harass the citizens over a firearm, whats next? Are we going to be harassed when we go to vote?

The person was not being harassed. He was being asked a simple question. His refusal to answer the simple question was plain stupid and retarded. It's not like they were demanding a DNA sample from him or his fingerprints.

 

[fskimospy]

Rights are rights.

The police/government can not pick and choose which rights to harass the citizens about.

If the police harass the citizens over a firearm, whats next? Are we going to be harassed when we go to vote? Are the police going to be standing there asking us which party we are going to be voting for?

Actually, they can.

Do you know how rights in America work? They aren't absolute.

 

[matt0611]

I agree with this statement ( /shocked )

You have a right to carry. The police have the right to check on you.

These guys were being assholes to the cops.

The cops have the right to investigate but if all that person is doing is open-carrying a weapon the cop DOES NOT have the right to hold / detain that person simply for exercising his right.

That was the whole point of what that guy did. Sure, he could have just showed his ID, then the police would have have checked and made sure he no warrants or any bail restrictions etc but he shouldn't HAVE to do that.

It was probably a lot more stressful and inconvenient for the guy to protest it than to just give in and "show his papers" to the police, simply for peacefully being in a public with a weapon holstered at his side. But he protested because its wrong for the police to hold people against their will if they're not suspected of a crime. I applaud him for that.

In the end, he won, he stood strong and walked away peacefully without giving them his ID information, which he is perfectly in his right to do.
This is why our country is so much better than police states like the UK, IMO.

 

[HAL9000]

The cops have the right to investigate but if all that person is doing is open-carrying a weapon the cop DOES NOT have the right to hold detain that person simply for exercising his right.

That was the whole point of what that guy did. Sure, he could have just showed his ID, then the police would have have checked and made sure he no warrants or any bail restrictions etc but he shouldn't HAVE to do that.

It was probably a lot more stressful and inconvenient for the guy to protest it than to just give in and "show his papers" to the police, simply for peacefully being in a public with a weapon holstered at his side. But he protested because its wrong for the police to hold people against their will if they're not suspected of a crime. I applaud him for that.

They point is that they had had reports and they were checking if he was committing a crime, they suspected he may have been and needed to check.

 

[Broheim]

This guy is being a prick, Police are trying to do their jobs and he's being deliberately obtuse to waste their time and his own, he should have shown his ID, most people would just do it instead of being a dick.

this.

 

[Scotteq]

Rights are rights.

The police/government can not pick and choose which rights to harass the citizens about.

If the police harass the citizens over a firearm, whats next? Are we going to be harassed when we go to vote? Are the police going to be standing at the voting booth asking us which party we are going to be voting for?

Harassment on any level should not be tolerated.

I disagree that any 'rights' were being somehow violated. All the guys had to do is show their ID (and/or permit, if required). Takes 2 minutes. Valid ID/Permit? "You are free to go, Sir."

 

[CPA]

You could prove what, exactly?

There is no need to have a gun visible to all and sundry, it's just macho nonsense.

There's that slippery slope again.

Thanks for telling us what's needed and what's not.

 

[Texashiker]

The person was not being harassed.

He was being asked a simple question.

Was the person breaking the law? Yes/No?

I am going to guess that he was not breaking the law.

Then there was no reason for the police to even ask him a question.

I disagree that any 'rights' were being somehow violated. All the guys had to do is show their ID (and/or permit, if required). Takes 2 minutes. Valid ID/Permit? "You are free to go, Sir."

Do you show your id when you go to church, or buy a newspaper, or visit CCN.com, or watch the evening news?

 

[umbrella39]

You'ld like to see that, wouldn't you?

He's got a necklace made out of them... that's all.

 

[dabuddha]

If a permit is required to openly carry in Maine, then the cops should have the right to verify that a person carrying has a valid permit. If the language isn't already in the permit agreement, then it should be added.

 

[dabuddha]

He was being asked a simple question.

Was the person breaking the law? Yes/No?

I am going to guess that he was not breaking the law.

Then there was no reason for the police to even ask him a question.

He was disturbing the peace?

 

[CPA]

This guy is annoying. The cops are just doing their job and he is being a prick about them verifying who he is. Even if he has a legal right to open carry.

maybe the cops should have known the law. Why are they asking for verification if they knew he was legally carrying?

 

[umbrella39]

Do the cops stop you and ask you questions when you buy a newspaper?

Do the cops show up at your house when you post something on the internet dealing with politics?

Do the cops stop and question you when you vote?

But for some reason the right to carry a firearm is demonized?




Things are different over here, we have whats called "rights".

Wow, great analogies. Now I know why Jesus wasn't born in Texas.

 

[dabuddha]

maybe the cops should have known the law. Why are they asking for verification if they knew he was legally carrying?

How did they know he was legally carrying? I think I missed that part.

 

[fskimospy]

Was the person breaking the law? Yes/No?

I am going to guess that he was not breaking the law.

Then there was no reason for the police to even ask him a question.

Do you show your id when you go to church, or buy a newspaper, or visit CCN.com, or watch the evening news?

Do you have even the slightest idea how police operate? The police can, and do, ask people questions for any reason they feel like, no violation of the law required.

Going to church, buying a newspaper, and watching the evening news do not render you capable of injuring or killing large numbers of people. Contrary to popular belief, your rights in America are no absolute, and the cops can most certainly question you if they think it is appropriate. What would have been far LESS appropriate would have been for the cops to do nothing, and ignore reports of a man walking around with a gun. That would have been irresponsible policing.

 

[HAL9000]

It's like being pulled over by the police and when they ask for your licence and registration saying "No I don't have to!, NO!" It's something a petulant child would do, this guy should grow up and just show the ID.

 

[Texashiker]

Do you have even the slightest idea how police operate?

My dad is an ex-police officer.

My brother is a current sheriffs deputy with around 12 or 13 years of service.

We have arguments all the time about the line between ensuring the safety of the public, and the rights of the people.

 

[HAL9000]

My dad is an ex-police officer.

My brother is a current sheriffs deputy with around 12 or 13 years of service.

We have arguments all the time about the line between ensuring the safety of the public, and the rights of the people.

As them to watch the video and see if they think he's being a prick.

Police deserve more respect than they are given and making their job deliberately more difficult is a pathetic thing to do.

 

[fskimospy]

My dad is an ex-police officer.

My brother is a current sheriffs deputy with around 12 or 13 years of service.

We have arguments all the time about the line between ensuring the safety of the public, and the rights of the people.

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.

 

[Texashiker]

As them to watch the video and see if they think he's being a prick.

I can already tell you what they think - most police think people having rights is stupid. More or less, the general public should be servants to the police and the public should do whatever we are told.

From talking to my brother and dad about stuff like what happened to the guy in the video, they would see no problem with what the police did.

 

[HAL9000]

I can already tell you what they think - most police think people having rights is stupid. More or less, the general public should be servants to the police and the public should do whatever we are told.

You actually can't tell what I think at all then.

What I think is that people who waste police time are morons.

 

[Texashiker]

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.

Just because they can, does not make it right.

Personally, I dont think the cops should have the authority to stop and question anyone without some kind of reason. "Just because" is not a reason.

What I think is that people who waste police time are morons.

Your putting the police on a higher level then the average citizen.

Police who waste the time of citizens are morons.