Openly carrying sidearm causes concerns

[xj0hnx]

THE POLICE WERE INVESTIGATING A COMPLAINT



Hint: If your neighbors call the cops about your stereo. A device which is perfectly legal, incidentally. The police are damned well going to go to your house and talk to you about it. AREN'T THEY?

Not unless it is past 10PM. Before that it's perfectly fine to listen to a stereo at higher volume, and no cops would bother me about it. And if I am cranking up my stereo past 10PM than guess what? I would be committing a crime. You don't seem to grasp that simply having a firearm on you is not a crime. They should have ticketed the person that called in the false report. Just because you call the cops and cry about something, doesn't mean that whoever you are calling about is committing a crime.

yall is sayin people need to be seen committing a crime before anyone can question them. I didn't actually see OJ Simpson murder 2 people, therefore we can't question him. We didn't see him do anything. Sorry bro, 4th amendment or something :ninja:

A car rolls up in front of your house. It's full of mexicans wearing sun glasses and bandanas and they're all holding guns. You call the police to say a bunch of mexicans who may be illegal are outside your house and they all have guns!!!
"Sorry sir but they're not actually breaking any laws. It's legal to carry a gun, it's legal to be mexican, it's legal to own a car, they're still on the street or sidewalk. We can't come check it out unless they start shooting at you."

Grasping.

 

[matt0611]

yall is sayin people need to be seen committing a crime before anyone can question them. I didn't actually see OJ Simpson murder 2 people, therefore we can't question him. We didn't see him do anything. Sorry bro, 4th amendment or something :ninja:

A car rolls up in front of your house. It's full of mexicans wearing sun glasses and bandanas and they're all holding guns. You call the police to say a bunch of mexicans who may be illegal are outside your house and they all have guns!!!
"Sorry sir but they're not actually breaking any laws. It's legal to carry a gun, it's legal to be mexican, it's legal to own a car, they're still on the street or sidewalk. We can't come check it out unless they start shooting at you."

No one even claimed they witnessed him committing a crime, nor was there any evidence or reasonable suspicion that he was.

Someone was CONCERNED about someone carrying a gun and wanted the police to investigate. They did not witness any crime. They investigated, and from what I can tell he was peacefully going about his business with his gun holstered at his side.

The police have the right to investigate and to talk to him but if he doesn't want to give his name or show his ID he should be free not to.

 

[Triumph]

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.

 

[Scotteq]

Not unless it is past 10PM. Before that it's perfectly fine to listen to a stereo at higher volume, and no cops would bother me about it. And if I am cranking up my stereo past 10PM than guess what? I would be committing a crime. You don't seem to grasp that simply having a firearm on you is not a crime. They should have ticketed the person that called in the false report.

Don't like the stereo? How about the Dog? Or any number of other bull the neighbors can complain about? Not to mention that the police are going to take a firearm complaint *much* mroe seriously.


And even if the complaint was false: How can the cops know whether or not it was a crime if they aren't allowed to investigate. They can't.

 

[Scotteq]

No one even claimed they witnessed him committing a crime, nor was there any evidence or reasonable suspicion that he was.

Someone was CONCERNED about someone carrying a gun and wanted the police to investigate. They did not witness any crime. They investigated, and from what I can tell he was peacefully going about his business with his gun holstered at his side.

The police have the right to investigate and to talk to him but if he doesn't want to give his name or show his ID he should be free not to.

And ultimately, this guy didn't give those things.

But how much do you guys want to bet that if he was a little more polite and showed his ID, the police would have let him go a *hell* of a lot quicker than they did?



And thank you for confirming that the Police very well can come talk to (you) in response to a complaint. xJohnx apparently has a problem with that.

 

[xj0hnx]

Don't like the stereo? How about the Dog? Or any number of other bull the neighbors can complain about? Not to mention that the police are going to take a firearm complaint *much* mroe seriously.

To file complaint about a barking dog here you have to call it in, the owner is sent a letter stating that if their dog isn't quieted down they can possibly get a ticket, if their dog continues to bark it is on the complainer to acquire evidence, either video, or audio and submit it to the proper authorities, and then they will ticket the owner.

And even if the complaint was false: How can the cops know whether or not it was a crime if they aren't allowed to investigate. They can't.

They DID "investigate". They arrived at the location, and saw no crime was being committed.

 

[xj0hnx]

And thank you for confirming that the Police very well can come talk to (you) in response to a complaint. xJohnx apparently has a problem with that.

Where did I say I have a problem with them talking to him? I have a problem with them detaining him for no reason. He wasn't committing a crime, so there's no reason to harass and detain him.

 

[Scotteq]

They DID "investigate". They arrived at the location, and saw no crime was being committed.

Riiight - Must be nice to live in Cloud KooKoo Land, where the Police can't even talk to you until they actually witness a crime. 🙄


Even as a Gun Owner, I gotta tell ya some of the bullshit you guys come up with is just ridiculous.

 

[brandonb]

Is disturbing the peace a crime in that area? Considering at least one person called in to complain about the guy.

Someone wearing a gun on their belt is not disturbing the peace for crying out loud... People call the cops and the city for everything they do because they are a bunch of whiny pussies.

When I was remodeling my mothers house, my next door neighbhor (who I grew up next) called the city inspector/permit department every day at first to harrass me. I don't know why she'd do that as a remodeled/better house would raise her property value, but I don't know what goes through peoples minds. Maybe she wanted the best house on the block, not sure. Didn't care to ask.

The city inspector would show up and I'd be forced to show them the city permits for building/reconstruction, which they know I pulled, but they had to verify we were not building outside the scope of my existing permits. After about the 12th time, I asked them why we have to continue the nonsense and they said they "Recieved a complaint that someone may be building without a permit so we have a duty to the tax payer to follow up on that complaint" knowing very well she was harrassing me through proxy. After awhile, I got them to admit it was her even though I already knew from common sense... I followed up with the city manager asking what I could do. They said I should file a complaint in city hall and have the issue brought up before the city council. Coincidently, the mayor of the city was the person across the street from the house that I grew up with, and the mayor and the chick next door were buddy buddy. Yeah right, I told that to the city manager and they told me to call the police and file a trespassing order against her.

I did, and it stopped.

The point being... People like to be whiny bitches and run to the city/police for everything they find as unacceptable, even if it is or not.

 

[xj0hnx]

Riiight - Must be nice to live in Cloud KooKoo Land, where the Police can't even talk to you until they actually witness a crime. 🙄

That's right, KooKoo land where you are innocent until proven guilty, crazy us here in KooKoo land.

Even as a Gun Owner, I gotta tell ya some of the bullshit you guys come up with is just ridiculous.

So it's ridiculous for the police to actually leave citizens who aren't committing any crime alone?

 

[Scotteq]

Where did I say I have a problem with them talking to him? I have a problem with them detaining him for no reason. He wasn't committing a crime, so there's no reason to harass and detain him.

You clearly DO have a problem - Since you've repeatedly gone after me for saying the cops had the right to speak to him.


I'm saying he was spoken to for so long precisely Because he gave the patrol a hard time. A little politeness and cooperation would have gotten him released straight away.

 

[Scotteq]

That's right, KooKoo land where you are innocent until proven guilty, crazy us here in KooKoo land.


So it's ridiculous for the police to actually leave citizens who aren't committing any crime alone?

(1) It's ridiculous to expect the police to NOT investigate. But apparently you guys in Texas have too much Sand in your collective Vaginas to understand that simple concept.

(2) He was never arrested. His innocence was determined on site. And he was let go.

(3) If he wasn't such a Jackass about it, the police would have let him go sooner. But then he wouldn't have gotten his recording to post on YouTube.

 

[xj0hnx]

You clearly DO have a problem - Since you've repeatedly gone after me for saying the cops had the right to speak to him.


I'm saying he was spoken to for so long precisely Because he gave the patrol a hard time. A little politeness and cooperation would have gotten him released straight away.

Fuck that, that's how we got to this sorry state. The cops could have just as easily, approached him, asked him what he was doing, and then been on their way as soon as they realized there was no reason to stop him, but they chose to continues to harass him for knowing, and exercising his rights.

 

[xj0hnx]

(1) It's ridiculous to expect the police to NOT investigate. But apparently you guys in Texas have too much Sand in your collective Vaginas to understand that simple concept.

They did investigate dummy.

(2) He was never arrested. His innocence was determined on site. And he was let go.

After being detained while they tried to make him forfeit his rights.

(3) If he wasn't such a Jackass about it, the police would have let him go sooner. But then he wouldn't have gotten his recording to post on YouTube.

Or, the police could have just let him go since he wasn't committing any crime. I guess you people in New Jersey have to much sand in your collective vaginas to leave people that are doing something you don't approve of alone.

 

[Scotteq]

Fuck that, that's how we got to this sorry state. The cops could have just as easily, approached him, asked him what he was doing, and then been on their way as soon as they realized there was no reason to stop him, but they chose to continues to harass him for knowing, and exercising his rights.

The COMPLAINT was the reason to stop him.

Being a Jackass to the Patrolmen was the reason he was spoken to for so long.


Not hard to understand. AT ALL.

 

[xj0hnx]

The COMPLAINT was the reason to stop him.

Being a Jackass to the Patrolmen was the reason he was spoken to for so long.


Not hard to understand. AT ALL.

Right, they approached him, found no crime, not hard to understand. AT ALL.

 

[Scotteq]

They did investigate dummy.



After being detained while they tried to make him forfeit his rights.

Riiiiight - Asking for ID somehow means "Forfeiting Rights" 🙄 🙄


You sir, have been hanging out with Senseamp and Jhhnn for far, far too long.

Right, they approached him, found no crime, not hard to understand. AT ALL.

Nope - Not hard to understand at all. Except you skipped the part in the middle where the Innocent Man acted like a Jackass to a couple of Patrol Officers, and recorded the conversation as evidence of his troll~bait. And because of the Innocent Man's Jack~Ass~hattery, said Innocent Man was spoken to for FAR longer than necessary.

 

[xj0hnx]

Riiiiight - Asking for ID somehow means "Forfeiting Rights" 🙄 🙄


You sir, have been hanging out with Senseamp and Jhhnn for far, far too long.

Detaining him for no reason is. I hate to break it to you, but carrying a firearm isn't a reason for cops to stop you, and run your ID. I'd never hang out with such riffraff.

Nope - Not hard to understand at all. Except you skipped the part in the middle where the Innocent Man acted like a Jackass to a couple of Patrol Officers, and recorded the conversation as evidence of his troll~bait.

Irrelevant. Not wanting to give law enforcement your ID when you aren't doing anything wrong is not a crime either.

 

[Scotteq]

Detaining him for no reason is. I hate to break it to you, but carrying a firearm isn't a reason for cops to stop you, and run your ID. I'd never hang out with such riffraff.

*sigh*


THE COMPLAINT was the reason the cops stopped him. Not carrying.

And again - If the Innocent guy didn't act like such a Jackass, he would have been free a hell of a lot faster.

Irrelevant. Not wanting to give law enforcement your ID when you aren't doing anything wrong is not a crime either.

But it damned sure *is* a reason for the Police to question you longer to ascertain why you are being so evasive.

 

[HumblePie]

You clearly DO have a problem - Since you've repeatedly gone after me for saying the cops had the right to speak to him.


I'm saying he was spoken to for so long precisely Because he gave the patrol a hard time. A little politeness and cooperation would have gotten him released straight away.

Scotteq, I think what people are trying to say is this.

The guy was within his right to open carry. He was not doing anything wrong. Other citizens are within their right to call in "complaints" to the police. It is the police's job/duty to ascertain the validity of those calls. So they show up and "investigate" which means they look at what is going on. The visual inspection should have been enough for them to determine no actual crime was being committed. It should have ended there.

But it is still within the prerogative of the police to fully investigate. No problem even if it is redundantly thorough. So they walk up to the individual in question, and ask "Hello sir, are you committing any crimes today?" Guy responds, "Nope." and then they should have responded, "Good day to you sir!" and left. That should have been the extent of the whole "investigation" of it all. No further investigation is warranted without cause of suspicion of a crime of which carrying a gun is NOT cause of suspicion.

but just to be more thorough the officers can ask, "Mind if we see some ID?" because asking, while a bit rude, is not that big of a deal. When the return answer is NO, they need to move along. The problem is cops do not like hearing that word in this day and age. The overreact to it and take as a challenge. At which point any further "investigation" is really harassment and the guy has a right to be uppity at that point. I would be too.

So in this regards the police once they crossed that line into harassment were in the wrong in this scenario. End of story. Yes, they realized it once the citizen explained it to them and left it as is, but I'm a bit upset at the fact that those officers had to be told how to do their job correctly by a citizen they were harassing. That shows minor incompetence to me. Being a LEO doesn't grant you the right to overstep your duties and harass people just because they said No to a request you made. Unfortunately, too many of them, just like in the OP's example, think that they do have the right to harass/detain people.

 

[thraashman]

Yeah but I think it kills less people per year than other tools not intended for killing.. like cars.

I think every gun nut should do something before trying this. Before arguing cars vs guns, gather some statistics. Specifically look up the number of people who regularly use guns vs the number of people who regularly use cars. Then look up the number of hours per year the average driver uses a card vs the number of hours per year the average gun owner uses a gun. Then figure out the total amount of time per year the population of the US uses guns vs the total amount of time per year the population of the US uses cars. Compare the likely much higher number of car deaths and car hours used to the smaller number of gun deaths and much lower gun use hours. If the proportion of gun deaths per hours used to car deaths per hours used is still lower, then I say you are welcome to this argument. Until then please don't use it as it is an invalid comparison.

 

[Scotteq]

Scotteq, I think what people are trying to say is this.

The guy was within his right to open carry. He was not doing anything wrong. Other citizens are within their right to call in "complaints" to the police. It is the police's job/duty to ascertain the validity of those calls. So they show up and "investigate" which means they look at what is going on. The visual inspection should have been enough for them to determine no actual crime was being committed. It should have ended there.

But it is still within the prerogative of the police to fully investigate. No problem even if it is redundantly thorough. So they walk up to the individual in question, and ask "Hello sir, are you committing any crimes today?" Guy responds, "Nope." and then they should have responded, "Good day to you sir!" and left. That should have been the extent of the whole "investigation" of it all. No further investigation is warranted without cause of suspicion of a crime of which carrying a gun is NOT cause of suspicion.

but just to be more thorough the officers can ask, "Mind if we see some ID?" because asking, while a bit rude, is not that big of a deal. When the return answer is NO, they need to move along. The problem is cops do not like hearing that word in this day and age. The overreact to it and take as a challenge. At which point any further "investigation" is really harassment and the guy has a right to be uppity at that point. I would be too.

So in this regards the police once they crossed that line into harassment were in the wrong in this scenario. End of story. Yes, they realized it once the citizen explained it to them and left it as is, but I'm a bit upset at the fact that those officers had to be told how to do their job correctly by a citizen they were harassing. That shows minor incompetence to me. Being a LEO doesn't grant you the right to overstep your duties and harass people just because they said No to a request you made. Unfortunately, too many of them, just like in the OP's example, think that they do have the right to harass/detain people.

I agree he was perfectly within his rights to carry.

I also agree (adamantly so) that the Police had every right to talk to him in response to the complaint they (apparently) received.

In light of those things - and the presence of a firearm - I do not feel the request for ID was out of bounds at all.

For the most part, what I see is a couple police officers trying to do their jobs and being voice recorded by an educated Troll. And I (strongly) opine that, had our carrier been more polite and just a little cooperative, what you guys are calling "harassment" never would have happened.


{edit} Maybe I'm just Old: But in my experience, being a pain in the ass to the Police just nets a difficult time in return.

 

[HumblePie]

I agree he was perfectly within his rights to carry.

I also agree (adamantly so) that the Police had every right to talk to him in response to the complaint they (apparently) received.

In light of those things - and the presence of a firearm - I do not feel the request for ID was out of bounds at all.

For the most part, what I see is a couple police officers trying to do their jobs and being voice recorded by an educated Troll.

Asking for an ID is rude and out of bounds once they can see no crime is being committed upon approaching the "suspect" of the complaint. But rude, is not "wrong" in the sense of performing their duties at least. However, once they are told "No" then no further action, detaining, or talking is needed to be done by the police. They should say "Thank you" or nothing at all and leave him alone. End of scenario. It doesn't matter if the guy is a complete and utter douche bag, a waste of human skin, and had lost the better part of himself as a brown stain that ran down his mom's leg. None of that matters. Procedure and doing the correct duty as a police officer is what matters. Detaining and further questions beyond that point are WRONG for them to do.

 

[thraashman]

I agree he was perfectly within his rights to carry.

I also agree (adamantly so) that the Police had every right to talk to him in response to the complaint they (apparently) received.

In light of those things - and the presence of a firearm - I do not feel the request for ID was out of bounds at all.

For the most part, what I see is a couple police officers trying to do their jobs and being voice recorded by an educated Troll. And I (strongly) opine that, had our carrier been more polite and just a little cooperative, what you guys are calling "harassment" never would have happened.


{edit} Maybe I'm just Old: But in my experience, being a pain in the ass to the Police just nets a difficult time in return.

Considering this guy was so ready to record this and was so obviously being an impolite dick, I wouldn't be surprised if he made the complaint against himself just so he could set up this situation.

 

[Scotteq]

Question - Has an actual Police Officer on the forums here listened to the recording, and may be willing to offer an opinion on what is and is not "proper" procedure?

Because, like I said - I see a guy (within his rights) giving the police an unnecesarily hard time, and getting similar treatment in return.

Considering this guy was so ready to record this and was so obviously being an impolite dick, I wouldn't be surprised if he made the complaint against himself just so he could set up this situation.

I agree and also feel the situation was set up. I mentioned that earlier as part of an example.