Openly carrying sidearm causes concerns

[KK]

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:


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

I'm a troll because of which reason;
1: I don't believe that the person is required to show ID to the officers for walking in a public place with a gun while not doing anything illegal based on a complaint about someone doing something legally. Sure they can stop and inquire about it, but thats about it.
2: Not taking your chest thumping bet. What is so hard about you just listing out your reason instead of doing this childish little game? Does it make you feel better about yourself. Is your life that pitiful you need this attention?

 

[Zargon]

Normally I try to avoid agreeing with Hal9000 since he's almost always wrong, but this. The guy was being a prick on purpose. Stop wasting time and police resources. The cops were polite ( at least for the first 2 minutes since I got bored listening to this retard). He should definitely get his permit yanked.

yeah he has pushing on purpose.

his point was rather valid, and I understand why the officers did what they did, its just humorous that he eventualyl says I am going ot leave now and they just say nothing back

 

[xj0hnx]

I did listen - 4 times


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

If that "complaint" isn't a violation of the law, which open carrying isn't than that is a moot point.

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

As he should have, Would you want to be stopped and question for doing nothing wrong?

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.

What is their fault is how they kept pushing the guy for information, after he had made it clear he wasn't going to give it to them, and by law didn't have to.

 

[Scotteq]

If that "complaint" isn't a violation of the law, which open carrying isn't than that is a moot point.

As he should have, Would you want to be stopped and question for doing nothing wrong?

What is their fault is how they kept pushing the guy for information, after he had made it clear he wasn't going to give it to them, and by law didn't have to.

Ah - So your entire complaint is based on nothing more than you disliking how long the Police talked to the guy.



Booo~Fucking~Hooo Cry us a river, why don'tcha.

 

[Venix]

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.

Not a single person in this thread said that.

What has been said is that the police cannot detain a person and compel him to identify himself when there is no evidence he committed a crime. The legal standard required for an investigative stop is reasonable articulable suspicion--the officers must be able to articulate which specific law the person is suspected of violating, and what specific facts led them to that conclusion.

Further, even if the police have the legal authority to detain a person, they cannot compel him to show written identification or answer any questions. Even in stop and identify states--where the law requires people to identify themselves to the police--simply verbally stating one's name satisfies the statute. A person has absolutely no legal obligation to cooperate with the police beyond following any lawful orders related to ensuring the officer's safety, and the officers cannot use that lack of cooperation as a reason to detain him for a longer time.

Even if we assume that the initial stop was legal (doubtful, since by their own words they stopped him solely for carrying a firearm and not because they suspected any specific crime), badgering him to show written identification was certainly not. If the officers had reason to believe a specific crime was in progress, their obligation was to promptly determine whether probable cause exists for a search/arrest, and to either arrest or release the suspect.

 

[Zargon]

and refusing to volunteer information or consent to a voluntary serach is NOT resonable suspicion


they admitted numerous times that he was not commiting any crimes.

 

[Scotteq]

Not a single person in this thread said that.

What has been said is that the police cannot detain a person and compel him to identify himself when there is no evidence he committed a crime. The legal standard required for an investigative stop is reasonable articulable suspicion--the officers must be able to articulate which specific law the person is suspected of violating, and what specific facts led them to that conclusion.

Further, even if the police have the legal authority to detain a person, they cannot compel him to show written identification or answer any questions. Even in stop and identify states--where the law requires people to identify themselves to the police--simply verbally stating one's name satisfies the statute. A person has absolutely no legal obligation to cooperate with the police beyond following any lawful orders related to ensuring the officer's safety, and the officers cannot use that lack of cooperation as a reason to detain him for a longer time.

Even if we assume that the initial stop was legal (doubtful, since by their own words they stopped him solely for carrying a firearm and not because they suspected any specific crime), badgering him to show written identification was certainly not. If the officers had reason to believe a specific crime was in progress, their obligation was to promptly determine whether probable cause exists for a search/arrest, and to either arrest or release the suspect.

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.

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

..and they did release him.


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.

 

[Zargon]

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.

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

..and they did release him.


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.

not if you broke a traffic law, then its reasonable


how long is too long to be forced to stand around, for doing something thats perfectly legal. what if it was an airsoft gun? a replica sword? a water gun? a nerf gun? anything else silly?

is it OK if I get stopped for 15 minutes because I carry a pocket knife in public? thats also a deadly weapon I am legally allowed to carry.

Are you sure you not OK with it because its a gun and you dont like guns? becuase you dont agree with the constitutional right its OK if they attempt to violate his rights?

thats a slippery slope


they reluctantly released him after 12 minutes, when it was likely obvious when they saw him that he was just open carrying a holstered weapon.

if the guy in the video was really clever, he would have called in a complaint about a suspicious person with a firearm on an officer on foot patrol then videotapped it afterwords.

 

[Scotteq]

You don't read threads very well, do you ====>>> I *am* a gun owner.


The only thing slippery here is the amount of Tears and Blood on your Tampons.

 

[umbrella39]

I think more people should open carry. It's a nice red flag to civilized people that that you're a backwards redneck sociopath and that we should avoid you. Seriously, what kind of weirdo walks around with a gun showing?

Winners!

 

[Zargon]

You don't read threads very well, do you ====>>> I *am* a gun owner.


The only thing slippery here is the amount of Tears and Blood on your Tampons.

the anti gun statement was more general and not aimed specifically at you

I will assume you dropped the traffic stop deal because well, I was right.


I will reiterate that I have ZERO problems with them checking out the complain and approaching him

there are 3 issues that caused the incident

someone who does have a large bloody tampom calling the cops about someone open carrying because they are stupid/unimformed/afraid pick one

the officers insisting he provide information they had no legal authority to require

the guy being a prick about it. sure, if he had showed his DL, maybe even just gave his name they might have just let him go

but the point is that they should have anyways. and its a indication of a larger problem that spans the whole society, that some beleive that big brother/the government/police are always right and we should blindly comply with their requests/wants/needs apparantly reguardless of what the law says.

you are labeling it as whinning and nit picky with your oh so lovely tampon statements(really mature I might add)

but if not here, where? rights are dissappearing left and right

people doing nothing wrong are either scanned or groaped or both just to fly on an airplane.

the police block off roads and make everyone driving do a breathalizer because apparantly being on a road at midnight is reasonable suspicion of drunk driving

no knock warrants being given for low level crimes with swat teams gunning down apparantly innocent civilians who were simply defending what they thought was a home invasion

in all fairness to you, you live in Jersey, which is one of the only states more totalitarian than IL

if you draw the line on something that seems so trivial, you prevent them doing something more seriously

 

[xj0hnx]

Ah - So your entire complaint is based on nothing more than you disliking how long the Police talked to the guy.



Booo~Fucking~Hooo Cry us a river, why don'tcha.

Are trying to be ignorant? Or does it just come naturally? My entire complaint is that the guy didn't break any law, and was detained further than necessary at all. Walking down the street, doing nothing illegal is not grounds to be detained and questioned by police, even if some busy body that can't stay out of other people's business calls the cops.

 

[Scotteq]

Are trying to be ignorant? Or does it just come naturally? My entire complaint is that the guy didn't break any law, and was detained further than necessary at all. Walking down the street, doing nothing illegal is not grounds to be detained and questioned by police, even if some busy body that can't stay out of other people's business calls the cops.

As you agreed to above- The Complaint was a legitimate reason to talk to the guy.

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.

So Cry More.



"Oh My Gawd!!! The Big Mean Officer TALKED to Meeeeeee!!!!" <WAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!>


fukkin pussies

 

[KK]

As you agreed to above- The Complaint was a legitimate reason to talk to the guy.








So Cry More.



"Oh My Gawd!!! The Big Mean Officer TALKED to Meeeeeee!!!!" <WAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!>


fukkin pussies

Nobody is saying or complaining that the officers spoke to this guy. What's your issue? why the name calling?

 

[Perknose]

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?

What a thoroughly dishonest reply! Your are the one hiding.

How does my challenge of a bet the winner of which to be determined by an objective third party YOU must ok translate into me hiding?

How? Answer me THAT.

You are the weasel who is shucking and jiving and hiding behind the internet, AFRAID of committing to any real life consequences.

If you are convinced the facts are against me, man up and attempt take my money. But you won't, because your just a blowhard internet troll, aren't you?

 

[Scotteq]

Nobody is saying or complaining that the officers spoke to this guy. What's your issue? why the name calling?

Really? Go back through the thread, then, and re-read the earlier posts where John stated the Police had no right to stop the guy. Took me a whole day to get him to admit that the Patrol had a right to speak to him to follow up on the 3rd party complaint.

Once there, all John had left is to whine about the length of the conversation. He's whining over 12 minutes. He's crying over some words. I understand the Carry guy was within his rights; But I also understand that 12 minutes could have been a hell of a lot shorter if the Open Carry guy been just a *little* bit more forthcoming.

Does John let it drop? No - He continues crying over semantics. This is sad and childish...



...and fully worthy of ridicule.

 

[Perknose]

Is your life that pitiful you need this attention?

I don't need your attention, I just want to separate you from your money.

 

[xj0hnx]

As you agreed to above- The Complaint was a legitimate reason to talk to the guy.
So Cry More.
"Oh My Gawd!!! The Big Mean Officer TALKED to Meeeeeee!!!!" <WAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!>
fukkin pussies

Awesome, you've devolved into ...whatever that is.

 

[xj0hnx]

What a thoroughly dishonest reply! Your are the one hiding.

How does my challenge of a bet the winner of which to be determined by an objective third party YOU must ok translate into me hiding?

How? Answer me THAT.

You are the weasel who is shucking and jiving and hiding behind the internet, AFRAID of committing to any real life consequences.

If you are convinced the facts are against me, man up and attempt take my money. But you won't, because your just a blowhard internet troll, aren't you?

The only blowhard here is you. You have no facts, if you did, you wouldn't be hiding behind some "bet" like a little child.

 

[HumblePie]

Well back in today at work and I still can't believe Scotteq can't comprehend this.


Let me break this down for you point by point from your arguments.

Scotteq's Point 1: Police are required to investigate because there was a complaint.

Incorrect. Police are not required to investigate based off a complaint solely. They are required to investigate based off a complaint of a crime or suspicion of a crime being committed. Otherwise I could call in to the police and make a complaint about the way my neighbor smells like pork rinds all the time to get them to "investigate" my neighbor all the time. Such a complaint would not be and should not be investigated because smelling like pork rinds is not a crime (except to my nose).

However, if the complaint made stated a specific crime being committed by the person in the audio tape then they need to investigate. That is true. If the called in complaint had been an accusation that the guy was brandishing his gun, ie taking it out of his holster, while in public then the police are required to investigate.

Investigation does not mean an interview is required either. A visual inspection may be all that is required. If the complaint was the guy was brandishing the weapon then a visual inspection, without even talking to the citizen, would reveal if this complaint was valid or not. IE, is the gun out of the holster or not? If the gun isn't out of the holster, the complaint is invalid, the police no longer have reason to continue the investigation and should move along.

The cops have no reason to initiate a verbal investigation with the person unless they can clearly articulate a suspicion of a crime being committed that requires information from that person. That is THE LAW. If the cops can not articulate what the crime is they are investigating, then that is actually an unlawful contact. Look up what is legal under "Police Privilege" and what is not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_imprisonment

In Enright v. Groves, a woman sued a police officer for false imprisonment after being arrested for not leashing her dog. The plaintiff was in her car when she was approached by the officer, and when she was asked to produce her driver's license and failed to do so, she was arrested. She won her claim, despite having lost the case of not leashing her dog. The court reasoned that the officer did not have proper legal authority in arresting her, because he arrested her for not producing her driver's license (which itself was not a crime) as opposed to the dog leash violation

Scotteq's Point 2: It was his own fault for not cooperating. The cops holding him for 12 minutes is only a minor inconvenience

So if there is no reasonable suspicion of a crime, and the officers can not articulate a crime when asked, as done in the audio recording they ARE LEGALLY BOUND TO LET HIM GO. Any further investigating is illegal for them to do. Period. The cops in the audio recording BROKE THE EFFING LAW and you seem to be fine with that. It is not some "little sleight" or a "minor inconvenience" as you keep stating. It is in some state a FELONY what the cops did. They unlawfully detained a person when they could not articulate the crime being committed and the person asked to leave. The constant harassment, which is breaking more laws, for his photo ID is just compounding what they are doing as wrong. The guy in the audio could legally hire a lawyer and sue the cops using the audio recording would win. The cops could even potentially face jail time themselves or at least a fine. This is no joke when cops step over their bounds.

q


Scotteq's Point 2: "Oh My Gawd!!! The Big Mean Officer TALKED to Meeeeeee!!!!"

It has nothing to do with the officers talking to him. If the officers came up to him to strike up conversation about the weather or baseball or something else that would be one thing. The guy could state, "I'm not interested in talking" and walk away or not say anything at all and walk away. The problem is when they detain him for questioning and identification. That, as I shown above, is illegal. Just because you want to throw away your rights and let cops get away with being above the law does not mean the rest of us are going to. The whole episode in the OP should have taken 30 seconds or less. Not 12 minutes. It is not the citizen's fault he was detained for 12 minutes but the cops. Place the blame properly where it needs to be which is squarely on the cops. And on you because you would let them continue to do stupid shit like this without recourse.

 

[xj0hnx]

Really? Go back through the thread, then, and re-read the earlier posts where John stated the Police had no right to stop the guy. Took me a whole day to get him to admit that the Patrol had a right to speak to him to follow up on the 3rd party complaint.

Once there, all John had left is to whine about the length of the conversation. He's whining over 12 minutes. He's crying over some words. I understand the Carry guy was within his rights; But I also understand that 12 minutes could have been a hell of a lot shorter if the Open Carry guy been just a *little* bit more forthcoming.

Does John let it drop? No - He continues crying over semantics. This is sad and childish...



...and fully worthy of ridicule.

You are pathetic. There's no "crying over semantics", there's the fact that the guy wasn't doing anything wrong, I'm sorry you want to leave in a police state, have fun with that.

 

[Scotteq]

Humble:

(1) He was never imprisoned. They didn't put him in the car. They didn't search him. They didn't touch him.


(2) The Police had every right to talk to the guy if they deemed it necessary to follow up on the complaint.


(3) The Police damned well did let him go.


This is not hard to understand at all.


From your link:

False imprisonment is a restraint of a person in a bounded area without justification or consent. False imprisonment is a common-law felony and a tort. It applies to private as well as governmental detention.

404 - "Bounded Area" Not Found.

Noun 1. detainment - a state of being confined (usually for a short time); "his detention was politically motivated"; "the prisoner is on hold"; "he is in the custody of police"
custody, detention, hold
confinement - the state of being confined; "he was held in confinement"

404 - Detention Not Found

 

[Scotteq]

You are pathetic. There's no "crying over semantics", there's the fact that the guy wasn't doing anything wrong, I'm sorry you want to leave in a police state, have fun with that.

404 - Police State Not Found


Just a bunch of whiny babies who can't handle a simple conversation with Police who are just doing their jobs.

 

[HumblePie]

Humble:

(1) He was never imprisoned. They didn't put him in the car. They didn't search him. They didn't touch him.


(2) The Police had every right to talk to the guy if they deemed it necessary to follow up on the complaint.


(3) The Police damned well did let him go.


This is not hard to understand at all.

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.

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.

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.

 

[Perknose]

The only blowhard here is you. You have no facts, if you did, you wouldn't be hiding behind some "bet" like a little child.

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.