[ford20]

I've been pretty harsh on the open carry guys on here in the past, but should someone get guns drawn on them and detained for carrying a gun over their shoulder? I'd have to go with no.

It's not the job of the police to be security officers all day. If a crime is committed, it's a cops job to investigate it. If a criminal(key word) is loose, it's their job to arrest him. Some dude walking down the street with a gun isn't inherently committing a crime or being a criminal, regardless of your personal beliefs on carrying.

Yes it is, that is what they are there for. It's also a cops job to prevent crime hence patrols (even though their effectiveness has been proven to be somewhat ineffective) and proactive police work. When someone is open carrying an AR and they commit a crime then what are you (maybe not you personally) going to say about it? The police should have been doing their job and preventing criminals from comitting crimes.

 

[foxfive]

I don't see a lot of open carry in my area. It is only a 14 day wait to get a concealed permit with just three references and a criminal background check. Everybody in my area owns guns most multiple. I guess the novelty of being able to play cowboy doesn't appeal to most people around here. The only one's who open carry are cop baiters who just don't realize how stupid they look......or just don't care lol.

I could see the draw in an area that makes you jump through hoops to get a permit. Some places the permit process is ridiculous. An open carry can be like a **** you to the bureaucrats in those areas.

If you can can get a concealed permit there is no need for open carry. And if you can't legally get a concealed permit because of your criminal record or you are a nut job, I think we all can agree you shouldn't be carrying a firearm.

 

[Hellstorm]

My god the amount of people that think this is ok. It really ****ing astounds me. YOU CANNOT DETAIN SOMEONE THAT IS LEGALLY CARRYING! Period. I don't give a **** who you are. It's against the law. Who ****ing cares if your panties get a wad open someone open carrying? That's not the discussion here. Whether they let the guy go or not is also not the discussion here. By all account's of the video, he shouldn't have had the gun removed from him, held at gunpoint, and detained. It's a simple concept. Why is this so hard for some of you to understand? This is specifically for Ford20, who apparently thinks someone carrying a weapon is a criminal just for that reason.

 

[Sixpointslow]

Yes it is, that is what they are there for. It's also a cops job to prevent crime hence patrols (even though their effectiveness has been proven to be somewhat ineffective) and proactive police work. When someone is open carrying an AR and they commit a crime then what are you (maybe not you personally) going to say about it? The police should have been doing their job and preventing criminals from comitting crimes.

No, it's not, and that's not just my opinion. It's an issue that's been hashed out in court more then once.

This is real life, not Minority Report.

 

[06RedfireGT]

I know people have their various opinions on "open carry" and some do it and others don't for various reasons. I personally try to avoid leaving the house with a gun depending on where I'm going personally and depending on who I'm traveling with. Anyway my wife played this video for me the other day and I just shook my head and said that's crazy but not surprising. The next day I seen it pop up a few tim. Crazy stuff es being shared by a few ppl on FB on my news feed. Crazy stuff and I'm sure a couple of ppl here have seen it already but I'm going to post it anyway.

Black Man Vs White Man Open Carry An AR-15 In Oregon... Must See The Results! - YouTube

You can't claim racism over one instance. You have no idea what information was relayed to them as they were responding to the call. For all we know the caller could have said he was walking down the street firing rounds into the car or that he was threatening people with it.

https://www.odmp.org/search/year/2015

Eleven cops have been killed so far this year by gunfire and it's only May. Hate towards the police is more common than ever. We have **** like this happening

Rocket launcher attack plot on Eustis police thwarted

You think that they may just err on the side of caution with someone carrying an AR15 down the street?

 

[Hellstorm]

You can't claim racism over one instance. You have no idea what information was relayed to them as they were responding to the call. For all we know the caller could have said he was walking down the street firing rounds into the car or that he was threatening people with it.

https://www.odmp.org/search/year/2015

Eleven cops have been killed so far this year by gunfire and it's only May. Hate towards the police is more common than ever. We have **** like this happening

Rocket launcher attack plot on Eustis police thwarted

You think that they may just err on the side of caution with someone carrying an AR15 down the street?

Just like you saying you can't claim racism over one case. The last link you posted can't be compared to this at all. Completely different. They were given a tip on these guys about a possible attack and went through the proper avenues to get a search warrant and find these guys.

As far as the deaths. I'd like to see some relevant information to show these people were legally open carrying before they killed the cops. You probably won't find anything because it doesn't exist. Most likely because these people weren't open carrying within the law.

 

[T-Lee. 30]

Ford20 and 06 browse back over what I said Beyond the headlind bc I just linked the headline in I didn't write it. Guten tag gentleman.

 

[GT o1]

Just like you saying you can't claim racism over one case. The last link you posted can't be compared to this at all. Completely different. They were given a tip on these guys about a possible attack and went through the proper avenues to get a search warrant and find these guys.

As far as the deaths. I'd like to see some relevant information to show these people were legally open carrying before they killed the cops. You probably won't find anything because it doesn't exist. Most likely because these people weren't open carrying within the law.

It still isn't against the law to put someone in cuffs for safety. Argue it all you want its not illegal that's a common practice. Before finding out if the owner has an FID for the AR the officer has the right to make sure its safe to proceed.

You know how this entire thing could have been avoided? Don't bait the police, don't go looking for a reaction and you won't get one. Its a pretty simple concept

 

[Hellstorm]

You are absolutely wrong. The 4th amendment protects the citizens from that. Just because it's common practice, doesn't mean it's right. You can't infringe on someones rights for safety. That person does not have to give any information to the police. Without probable cause of a crime, that person is free to go. It's a pretty simple concept....We can argue this all day long, but US law states just that. It is not a crime to walk down the street open carrying, in a state/city/county/etc where it is legal.

Again, It's best for the parties involved to just listen to the police and do what they say. But, you don't have to declare any information, and it's against the law for the police to forcibly take that information from you without consent(if no probable cause is available).

I'm not saying for everyone to go out and "bait' the cops. Hell, I don't open carry because I think it's stupid, but I'm not going to sit here and act like rights aren't being violated.

 

[GT o1]

You are absolutely wrong. The 4th amendment protects the citizens from that. Just because it's common practice, doesn't mean it's right. You can't infringe on someones rights for safety. That person does not have to give any information to the police. Without probable cause of a crime, that person is free to go. It's a pretty simple concept....We can argue this all day long, but US law states just that. It is not a crime to walk down the street open carrying, in a state/city/county/etc where it is legal.

Again, It's best for the parties involved to just listen to the police and do what they say. But, you don't have to declare any information, and it's against the law for the police to forcibly take that information from you without consent(if no probable cause is available).

I'm not saying for everyone to go out and "bait' the cops. Hell, I don't open carry because I think it's stupid, but I'm not going to sit here and act like rights aren't being violated.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/392/1/case.html

That's the court case that its based off in case you didn't know. IMO this stop could easily be articulated and justified as the officer saw the weapon and perceived it as armed and dangerous. There were 100 ways this stop could have gone down.

You're right saying a citizen doesn't have to talk to police, hell he could have told him to **** off but would that really have made anything better? Maybe fox knows but I don't, if you're carrying I don't believe you can just walk away without providing your LTC or FID.

 

[T-Lee. 30]

You are absolutely wrong. The 4th amendment protects the citizens from that. Just because it's common practice, doesn't mean it's right. You can't infringe on someones rights for safety. That person does not have to give any information to the police. Without probable cause of a crime, that person is free to go. It's a pretty simple concept....We can argue this all day long, but US law states

Again, It's best for the parties involved to just listen to the police and do what they say. But, you don't have to declare any information, and it's against the law for the police to forcibly take that information from you without consent(if no probable cause is available).

I'm not saying for everyone to go out and "bait' the cops. Hell, I don't open carry because I think it's stupid, but I'm not going to sit here and act like rights aren't being violated.

To be honest with you I thought when an officer stops you while walking or whatever and ask you your name you were obligated to tell them that information I didn't know that even though I would still tell them even though i now know that.

On that last note I agree and that's why I said from the start there are various opinions on the open carry subject. It has come up before I know to each is own but it's not something I would personally be doing with a pistol or long gun in the states. It's sort of like a personal show of force imo and again opinions may vary on that.

 

[Sixpointslow]

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/392/1/case.html

That's the court case that its based off in case you didn't know. IMO this stop could easily be articulated and justified as the officer saw the weapon and perceived it as armed and dangerous. There were 100 ways this stop could have gone down.

You're right saying a citizen doesn't have to talk to police, hell he could have told him to **** off but would that really have made anything better? Maybe fox knows but I don't, if you're carrying I don't believe you can just walk away without providing your LTC or FID.

The justification in that case was that behavior beyond simply carrying a gun was justification for detaining the man.

If a guy is walking down the street with a gun out in plain sight, that's not inherently suspicious behavior. Articulation isn't the same as wording something in your favor, although it gets treated that way by some individuals.

Example of what I'm talking about: FEDagent | News for federal agents, law enforcement - Fourth Circuit Finds That Carrying a Firearm in an Open-Carry State Does Not Create Reasonable Suspicion and Provides Thorough Analysis of the "Free to Leave" Standard of Seizure

 

[Novanutcase]

I can see how LEO's would argue that there may have been pre-existing issues that led to the response but I think it's pretty apparent the bias that most LEO's have in regards to minorities and their threat level. Is it unfounded? Not at all. I also understand that at the core of it MOST LEO's just want to be able to make it back to their wife and kids at the end of the day and they're not actively trying to discriminate anyone.

BUT.....I will also agree that detaining someone that has not committed a crime simply because he MIGHT be a threat is unlawful. Why? Number one, the bias is being made based on race. I get that a certain population in a certain geographic area has a propensity for crime but that doesn't circumvent their constitutional rights. Number two, constitutionally, as has already been posted, it is against both the 2nd and 4th amendment to do what the officers did with the black open carrier if no other probable cause warranted it.

I think the proper way to have handled the incident would have been for the first officer on scene to have surveyed the situation, follow the person(note that I didn't say "suspect" since that would connotate some sort of wrongdoing), call in backup first, then go ahead and do the stop. I would have no problem with backup having their gun drawn but not pointed at the person so as to be at the ready. Once the approaching officer has had a chance to determine the threat level he can signal the other officer and the other officer would then either holster his weapon or backup the approaching officer in taking the suspect into custody. In the case of the black open carrier that would have been an acceptable stop process in my view.

I get that the best and worst open carry stops may have been employed in the video but it would also seem apparent that the BOC was not making any threatening gestures so the response was overblown and, I would suspect, race had a large part to play in it so to try and gloss it over with this or that seems a bit naive.

BTW for those that claim he kept coming at the officer rewatch the video. Never did he come at the officer. Until the officer ordered him on the ground he simply kept walking in the direction that he was walking prior to the arrival of the officer. Once he was ordered to the ground he complied willingly and without incident. The response was overblown if their were no other extenuating circumstances. Also, he was never handcuffed as was mentioned in a previous post. Once the approaching officer determined that he was simply exercising his right to open carry it looked like he was just going to be questioned and released. I'm curious if there is any info on what happened to him. Was he arrested or was he detained, questioned and then let go?

John

 

[06RedfireGT]

Just like you saying you can't claim racism over one case. The last link you posted can't be compared to this at all. Completely different. They were given a tip on these guys about a possible attack and went through the proper avenues to get a search warrant and find these guys.

As far as the deaths. I'd like to see some relevant information to show these people were legally open carrying before they killed the cops. You probably won't find anything because it doesn't exist. Most likely because these people weren't open carrying within the law.

I'm not trying to relate the second link to this situation, I posted it was evidence of the crazy anti-cop climate that exists right now. Also I wasn't trying to insinuate that lawful open carriers killed a cop, but there have still been 11 deaths involving fire arms. In the second video, we still have no idea what information was provided to the police. It is entirely plausible that they received information that would cause him to react like that.

You are absolutely wrong. The 4th amendment protects the citizens from that. Just because it's common practice, doesn't mean it's right. You can't infringe on someones rights for safety. That person does not have to give any information to the police. Without probable cause of a crime, that person is free to go. It's a pretty simple concept....We can argue this all day long, but US law states just that. It is not a crime to walk down the street open carrying, in a state/city/county/etc where it is legal.

Again, It's best for the parties involved to just listen to the police and do what they say. But, you don't have to declare any information, and it's against the law for the police to forcibly take that information from you without consent(if no probable cause is available).

I'm not saying for everyone to go out and "bait' the cops. Hell, I don't open carry because I think it's stupid, but I'm not going to sit here and act like rights aren't being violated.

No, you're wrong. If the police received a 911 call saying a black male matching his description was walking down the street carrying a rifle and was threatening people with it and they respond and find that male matching that description carrying a rifle they have reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed and can detain that person while they investigate if a crime has been committed. They are well within the law to do that. The people that say it is common practice for rights to be violated think they know the law but in reality they don't.

 

[06RedfireGT]

@Whiskey11 @foxfive Why don't you guys clear some of this up?

 

[T-Lee. 30]

You know what's crazy the same reaching that you are doing right now if you just google this headline you will see it on various forums bc this story is being discussed on various forums and that same narrative is being played out about the black guy who was walking down the sidewalk open carry with the gun slung on his side playing on a cell phone. Some people are saying there may have been a call of a black man waving a gun around at people so that's why the police came in the way they did.

It's just weird how complete strangers across the globe will have a similar narrative or rationalization of that situation to justify that violation of rights. It's crazy and ****ing sad at the same time. Bc in that other thread some years back that involved a vet some ppl were kinda outraged that the rights were violated even though ppl had their opinions on open carry. In various ways some people let it be known sometimes. That statement has personal meaning to me bc some things are just eye opening.

 

[06RedfireGT]

What reaching? It's reaching because it's contradicting the race fueled violation of rights you want it to be? What are you getting at here?

 

[T-Lee. 30]

There are some things that understandably I have to explain to my young kids bc they are just that. But when it comes to grown ass men and women and simple 2+2=... I will leave that answer blank instead of going into some explanation when simple things , situations explain themselves.

That's my answer high speed and if you have a problem with it that's a personal thing to be honest hopefully that statement is loud and clear/lima charlie or whatever! A simple word can only be spelled out so many times within the same block of instruction before it gets to the point of being ridiculous.

 

[Hellstorm]

What reaching? It's reaching because it's contradicting the race fueled violation of rights you want it to be? What are you getting at here?

No, Honestly this guy could be ****ing purple and my thoughts would still be the same. I know I mentioned race in my first post towards this, but that's honestly not even the point. My points are not fueled by race at all.

I think what T-Lee is pointing out is that folks are trying to rationalize why the cops responded how they did. The same point that you argue can easily be turned the other direction. He's saying why is it so easy for the majority of the people to automatically assume things like this? To automatically assume that the cops were right? That some random caller made up a lie about this guy. See what I'm saying?

 

[foxfive]

I'm not trying to relate the second link to this situation, I posted it was evidence of the crazy anti-cop climate that exists right now. Also I wasn't trying to insinuate that lawful open carriers killed a cop, but there have still been 11 deaths involving fire arms. In the second video, we still have no idea what information was provided to the police. It is entirely plausible that they received information that would cause him to react like that.



No, you're wrong. If the police received a 911 call saying a black male matching his description was walking down the street carrying a rifle and was threatening people with it and they respond and find that male matching that description carrying a rifle they have reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed and can detain that person while they investigate if a crime has been committed. They are well within the law to do that. The people that say it is common practice for rights to be violated think they know the law but in reality they don't.

RedFire is correct in his statements, especially the second paragraph. You absolutely CAN detain somebody is you have reasonable articulable belief they may be involved in a crime. The example that Redfire used about you responding to a call of a man with a rifle threatening people then you encounter a man with a rifle in the area you can detain him. He may or may have nothing to do with the call. If he has nothing to do with it after a brief time he would be sent on his way.

It is 100% illegal to resist arrest or detention even if you feel you committed no crime. For example if an officer responds to a suspicious person and you match the description and he asks you to stop, if you refuse, run, fight, you will be charged and most likely convicted even if you were just walking down the street. It is about a little cooperation to stop crime, not a pissing contest to discuss rights violations. Unfortunately the human race isn't smart enough to decide when or when they won't submit to arrest or detention so Law Makers have taken that decision away from them.

I see the words Probable Cause over and over and over again. You Do Not need probable cause to detain somebody, to stop a car, or conduct a field interview. You need Reasonable Articulable Suspicion. If cops follow that train of thought and do their job correctly trust me when I say there is very little that can't be articulated.

As for this topic, a man open carrying a rifle or handgun minding his own business is not grounds for a detention. That being said people call **** in all the time. If a citizen reports that the same man is acting suspicious or they felt threatened etc. , even if the guy did nothing wrong he can be detained. There is a huge difference between first hand observations made by a police officer and observations made and reported by citizens. Just somebody open carrying a weapon is considered a threat by citizens who don't know the law or dislike guns. Police act on citizen complaints until they can form their own observations. Forming there own opinions and observations may require a detention and people need to suck it up for the greater good. A detention like that could serve as an educational lesson. After determining the person committed no crime, I can educate the caller who originally complained so hopefully they don't jump the gun next time. Detentions don't have to be negative, it's normally the detainee, not the cops that make it a bad situation.