NH: Vid of my latest open carry incident

[DadaOrwell2]

This is a video of my August 5 open carry incident in New Hampshire. It starts audio-only then the video picks up a minute or two later when our pro photographer runs to the scene.

Basically I'm a liberty activist here; I wear a holstered pistol in public roughly once a week. It's legal in New Hampshire but not that common south of the notches. Cops sometimes ignore, sometimes harass you for doing it. When that happens to me, I don't get angry but use the chance to educate police about the open carry rights of NH citizens.

I was walking 50 yards from my car to the monthly Free Stater meeting at Murphy's Taproom in downtown Manchester. I usually open carry to that meeting.

I was noticed by a state trooper, but I noticed him too and called the Free Staters' emergency hotline before he got to me. In the video you hear my call realtime, as I report my situation and try to explain to our listeners what's happening.

Folks inside the bar also came running out to support me. Police thought it was pre-planned it happened so fast, like they'd been set up or something. But this is just how our guys react when they're nearby. I appreciate the fact that the police were able to maintain calm and respectful demeanor despite some of the anger directed against them by the crowd. But of course look I forward to the day when they don't make such stops in the first place.

Note that I am able to lawfully refuse them when they ask for my "papers" and personal information. If you think this is a better outcome than you'd get where you are now.....move up here and share our freedoms!

Visit www.FreeStateProject.org

Thanks to all who showed support during and after this incident.

Hopefully this video will remind people New Hampshire does allow open carry, that officers here do handle themselves better than in most states, and that the Free Staters are continuing to improve level of support which is available to freedom lovers when police take exception to their responsible exercise of rights.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FWXnK5UyRI&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fnewhampshireunderground%2Ecom%2Fforum%2Findex%2Ephp%3Ftopic%3D10019%2E45

[MD_Willington]

go bust the girl scouts... lol

[Doc2005]

I suspect, per the officers' body language, that if the cameras and witnesses had not been there, the questioning would have been much more aggressive, and would likely have moved the the PD.

For what my view is worth, that was/is an awesome video!

Oh yes, I forgot about that...the girl scout...that was good! It seemed they were grabbing for anything and everything they could to find wrong-doing. That is part of what I mean body-language. This is a great video!

[brentn]

^Yep, I bet he would have been taken downtown had the cameras and cell phone conversation not taken place.

Well dadaorwell, let me say this,
you got one set of balls...
I think alec baldwin said it best "brass balls"

You handeled that exceptionally well with an open mind to your rights and to the officers and how they would react in a situation like that. Good job.
Its too bad that you were harassed, and thats exactly what it was, had you walked away from the officer after you were checked out (providing only your name and address using nothing official) you probably would have got your ass beat down and detained. It would have gone to court, and you would have been found not guilty and probably an apologie would be provided.
The next day you get out of your car with your gun and it will probably happen all over again...

sad really.. The officers should be well aware of carry laws, especially when you live in america one of the last free countrys with such a right. Its nice to know that you guys are publicizing this, making everyone aware of whats going on...

The way I see it, gun laws get stricter and stricter every day in free countries becuase citizens having guns are a threat to the governments control on the public.

[kungfuhippie]

Wow, BIG BRASS ONES is right.
Amazing how it took so many cops to decide that he was no breaking any law. ANd then could only lecture him about group assembly law that is probably some anti-gang activity legislation.

[Neo-Luddite]

From where I sit--just amazing.

Bravo.

[Glenn Bartley]

From where I sit it looks as if you were athe person who tried to rpovoke things, and the whole thing probably would have been over much sooner had you shown some form of identification. I can guarantee that if you did that with a federal LEO, you could have been taken in for questioning, and quite legally at that.

I mean so what if you have this right or that, why would you choose to act like you did. Let the officer do his job, file a complaint later if you think he did it wrong; or if you wanted almost immediate action you should have done the smart thing immedaitely and asked for the officer to call his supervisor to the scene. Instead you actually appear to have tried to just rag the officer to keep this goiung and to make a big deal out of, much like a flamer, by getting on your phone and calling your group. They don't always come up like gang busters, just as this guy did not. He came onto you professionally and with courtesy and respect. You did not show the same respect for him. Imagine one opther thing about the officer, that he was responding to a felony call and you fit the description of the bad guy. Much better off to be polite, respectful, not try to rile the waters, and just comply within reason to his requests to see some ID.

As for your friend, I can assure you, if he had made that move in front of my face, the one he did to the other officer, I would have brought him to the ground and handcuffed him before his hands waved uip and down - and I would have been all well within my rights.

I like freedoms as much as the next guy, maybe even more, but I can not see people starting problems like I believe you did over such a petty thing as an officer asking to see some ID, and that is exactly when you seemingly escalated it. As opposed to what your friend says, no one was accosted and no one demanded ID from you from what I heard.

One other thing, on going into a tap room, and I imagine that means as in taps for alcoholic beverages, is pretty foolish especially while carrying openly - you are almost begging for a a hassle from anyone who has imbibed too much.

Liberties and rights are both great, so is acting responsibly; and liberties and rights come with responsibilities.

All the best,
Glenn B

[Neo-Luddite]

But this is just how our guys react when they're nearby.

In fairness, from the video, you KNEW you had pals of like mind nearby.

Did you provoke a confrontation, sure--passively--but ONLY by exercising your rights with gentlemanly deportmant. For that matter, the LEO's you encountered seemed put off perhaps, but very nice about things.

[kaizer]

I liked the vid but I agree with the previous poster. Your friend is an idiot, all he was doing was escalating the situation. When I saw him move like that I thought for sure that he was gonna get some. I am not LEO, but if somebody comes at me like that I am going to feed him cement.

[newman32]

Excellent. I'm impressed. Part of the reason I want to move to NH is because in NJ, only the criminals are allowed to carry guns.

I do agree with other posters that your friend unnecessarily provoked the MPD officer. In Jersey, he would have gotten lumped-up pretty good for that. You did great by yourself!

Glenn Bartley - I mean so what if you have this right or that, why would you choose to act like you did. Let the officer do his job, file a complaint later if you think he did it wrong

So what if you have this right or that????A right not exercised is a right that does not exist! That's just like allowing for an search of your home w/o a warrant because you should just "let the officer do his job". :rolleyes:

We have a job too, and it is to exercise our rights as citizens at all times, even when not convenient or comfortable.

Bravo Dada!

[DadaOrwell2]

>>but I can not see people starting problems like I believe you did over such a petty thing as an officer asking to see some ID, and that is exactly when you seemingly escalated it.>>

It may be "petty" to you but "papers please" has an important significance historically. And you know what? You don't get to decide what is petty for me.

I do agree with you about the importance of being polite. I feel I did that. But that doesn't mean I'm going to hand cops my papers when I'm just a pedestrian. The right to refuse police requests for pedestrian ID...that is critical and one of the few rights cops still respect.

If you want to follow their "papers please" request, I can't stop you. But there are precious few of us left who say no to such requests, and when there are none of us it will cease to be a request. Then we'll be at a place where you-know-which-country was in 1933.

[FieroCDSP]

Glenn, I think the issue being brought up here is that open carry sometimes results in harassment(and that's what it is) by officers who aren't used to seeing it, or feel that they have the duty to stop and check the credentials of everyone doing it. Regardless of how public-safety minded an officer is, it is not a legitimate cause to stop and ask questions of a person who is open carrying safely while walking down the street, according to the open carry laws in most states.
If he had chosen to ignore the officer(s), things would have turned ugly, first for the victim, then for city/organization that the officers represent. Do you believe that every person has the duty to submit to questioning by a police officer when they have broken no law? I do not. I'm not being jerkish about it. We have become so acustomed, already, to the fact that the government has the ability (not the authority) to demand we listen to it whenever we encounter it. Going about our daily business is not a reason for an officer to stop us, even if it involves the carrying of a firearm. So it's out of place. Big deal. Were he carrying it in his hand, maybe you could chat with him, maybe run his license in some states.
But in a holster? The officer should have thought it was odd, noted that the guy didn't look like a nut-job, and that it was holstered, and went on his way. There was no crime being committed, so there was no reason to stop him. That would have been the outcome in court, should he be arrested for declining to give information. The city issues an apology, maybe pays some money, and no one is really better off.

Is this the way it's supposed to work? I'm sorry if my attitude seems anti-police. I am not. I think many of them do a lot of good. I'm also not the type to be a jerk if stopped.
But I honestly do think this video (minus the real jerk in the video, kudos to the cop for not reacting) presents a fairly good point. What is the law, where are the defining lines we are acustomed to versus where they are actually drawn on paper, and should we accept things if they are found to be wrong?

[rockinrussky]

Quite an interesting video. I do agree that your friend (I assume) did overreact but otherwise the situation was handled very responsibly. Here in Virginia its also legal to open carry without any sort of a license. There have been stories similar to this one happening here as well involving the police. Either way, its a nice educational opportunity for some. Anyone here have any interesting stories or vids about VA open carry? (sorry if its slightly off topic)

[Sistema1927]

Tell us about your T-shirt. Also, the laminated badge you were wearing.

[goings_51]

It may be "petty" to you but "papers please" has an important significance historically. And you know what? You don't get to decide what is petty for me.

I do agree with you about the importance of being polite. I feel I did that. But that doesn't mean I'm going to hand cops my papers when I'm just a pedestrian. The right to refuse police requests for pedestrian ID...that is critical and one of the few rights cops still respect.

I watched this a few hours ago and had mixed emotions. I don't remember him asking for ID until you started calling people and "webcasting" the conversation. That says to me that you expect trouble. It was pretty obvious that this was an attempt for attention.

That said, I would have also been offended if I was walking down the street minding my own business and was stopped and asked for ID. I think the best strategy for dealing with street cops is to cooperate fully and deal with any issues later. Perhaps an appropriate e-mail/letter/phone call to a newspaper/city councilman/supervisor would have been more appropriate.

As for your frind... he is an instigator and I wouldn't want to associate any sort of 2A cause with that sort of personality. I'm not saying he's violent, that sort of behavior just doesn't do any favors.

[Sistema1927]

G21: Please stay in California. :barf:

[Doc2005]

Not to thump my chest, but the cognate from my Ph.D. is communication (analysis of videos for verbal and physical communication). Now, we have all viewed the same video. Odd how we all view it so differently. Let's establish a set of facts:

1) In open carrying, the gentleman broke no law.
2) The police stopped the gentleman, because he had a lawfully holstered, open-carry pistol.
3a) The gentleman was respectful in his answers.
3b) Some may assert that he provoked the officer by talking on the cellular phone, but it was not illegal.
4) The lead officer was polite, but woefully under-informed.
5) The back-up officer exhibited the attitude of a bulldog-on-alert, emotionless and intimating "You twitch; I shoot; you die!" Frankly, of all involved here, I found that the most unprofessional of all.
6a) A gentleman, who was witness, pulls attention to the bull-dog-like officer emotionlessness, by waiving his hand.
6b) Some may assert the witness was foolish. He broke no law.
7) A third officer came along to educate the two other officers, and bail them out for their bad detention and lack of information.
8) In the end, the sole violation was the girl scouts' poster was improperly placed.
9) Re: the poster violation, here too, the police jumped-the-gun (pun intended) and chastised the gentleman even before reviewing what the poster was!

In closing, I have already witnessed more chest-thumping in this thread that I care to witness. We have a learning opportunity here, not an opportunity for a The High Road brawl. So, let's kick this video around! Step up to the plate and state your facts! I did!

By the way, I did not bother to cite even 1/3 of the facts here. There is so much more to be posted. Let's have to...

Edit to add:

G21, do you care to step up to my "facts-only" challenge? (Doc2005 passes G21 the bat). Take your best observational facts swing.

Doc2005

[target1911]

WOW....you dont have Identify when asked???? TX passed a recently that if a LEO askes you for ID, for any reason, ya better give it up or be arrested. <<<<<YES I think it sux...YES I think it is invation of privicy and is wrong. However, I havnt heard of any LEOs abusing that power, but I am sure it has happened in RARE occations.

[owen]

G21, NH is not California. Live Free or Die.

Dada, your handwaving friend is gonna get himself in trouble. In that situation, I would have definitely taken that as a threatening movement.

[goings_51]

G21: Please stay in California.

This is childish. If you have something to say say it. Better yet, let's stay on the topic. If you have something to say about the topic, say it. If not, keep your post to yourself.

[Doc2005]

"Gentlemen"...I have thrown out a challenge...I'm waiting for a taker-to-the-challenge...the facts!

We don't need emotion; any fool can exhibit emotion. We need facts.

[goings_51]

I wasn't paying attention and took the G21 comment as a comment to me since the login is similar, but it still applies.

[Sistema1927]

goings_51:

Do you believe that:
The laws in NH must really stink when they pander to attention whores such as yourself.

Is an adult comment?

If you notice, I have contributed, I have asked the OP to fill us in with some more background. (And I have tried, via sarcasm, to refute the rantings of a statist freedom hater.)

[2TransAms]

Those policemen probably walked away cursing you. I know you don't have to give them your ID,but wouldn't it have been easier to cooperate while informing them of your open-carry rights in NH? Seems to me it would have gone a lot quicker.

[Sistema1927]

I'm waiting for a taker-to-the-challenge...the facts!

Fact 1: The OP exercised his rights.
Fact 2: He received grief for doing so.
Fact 3: He captured his experience on video, and made us aware of it.
Opinion 1: Some of the responses posted here are more indignant of his actions than those of the police who attempted to violate his rights.
Opinion 2: The reaction to this thread is as surprising to me as the flak that Templar took in his Chicago buy-back thread.
Opinion 3: We are in a sad state of affairs when the participants on the nation's foremost firearms forum express statist anti-freedom comments.

[Doc2005]

Praise the Lord! Finally, common sense prevails! God bless you!!!

And yes, your statements are spot-on!

Doc2005

[kingpin008]

Good for ya'll for standing up for your rights, and good for you for remaining calm and conversing with the officers in a calm, reasonable fashion - but your friend was acting poorly. His attitude and tone of voice is outwardly challenging, very condescending, and honestly, I don't see why he even opened his mouth to begin with, except to get on tape. You were doing just fine on your own, the incident was being video & audio recorded, and he's all over the place egging the cops on and making the entire things more complicated than it needed to be.

I understand that you need to represent yourselves and stand up for your rights, that's obvious, and commendable. His presence made me feel a little like this was a publicity stunt though. Maybe he wants it to be. Who knows.

[fletcher]

If this was California, I would have arrested you for refusing to give me your identification, and I would have arrested your buddy for interferring with a police investigation.

The laws in NH must really stink when they pander to attention whores such as yourself.

Do you really think you are doing a public service? Thank you very much for taking up valuable time and resources.

With an attitude like that, I can't imagine you're doing the public a service either.



DadaOrwell2 - Overall, great work. Hopefully they learned that OC is legal, and not to harass anyone else they ever see doing it. For those of you who find this type of thing ridiculous, it's even more ridiculous that this happened in the first place. It takes "attention whoring" to show people who otherwise wouldn't see, or care, that this is something you're legally allowed to do, that it hurts no one, and you're not going to take BS about it.

I love what the officer with the mesh hat said. He says (with respect to the signs/law) - "we're all the same", but then he starts on the guy's case for videotaping. I guess we're not the same, after all.

[Doc2005]

Kingpin: We don't need more name-calling...that isn't a fact. :rolleyes:

[goings_51]

response to Sistema1927

No, I don't aggree with the statement. My first post pretty much summed up what I think.

My response to you was a little on the rude side even, but you have to understand that G21 and G51 look a lot alike and I thought you were telling me to go to KalifornIA. I've been called a liberal on here a time or two as well and it rubbed me the wrong way. We spend alot of time on here bashing each other instead of debating the issues. 'nuff said.

[Sistema1927]

goings_51,

I will accept that as an apology. Now, let's work together to validate Dada's actions as the proper conduct of a free man in exercising his freedom.

[Sistema1927]

I know you don't have to give them your ID,but wouldn't it have been easier to cooperate while informing them of your open-carry rights in NH? Seems to me it would have gone a lot quicker.

2TransAms,

Sometimes freedom isn't expedient. It is the little flies that spoil the ointment, and the little infringements that steal away our rights. Rather than criticizing his conduct, more of us should be courageous enough to emulate it.

[goings_51]

I'm gonna go back to my original post here... it's just rude to cary on a telephone conversation while talking to the police. It's disrespectful. He could have made the call and informed the officer that the conversation was being recorded, but he should not have continued talking on the phone.

On the ID question, it's the law in most places. On the initial stop, I can't remember the case, but there is a famous supreme court case on this. An officer can stop and even frisk you without much reason at all. I still say cooperate on the scene, complain later. I still say the freind was trying to provoke an incident.

For all of the fact stating going on, I aggree with all of those facts. The facts are pretty clear, but there is a lot of lawyering going on here. The eventual outcome was that everyone walked away. Handling this situation the way I suggested would have had the same outcome, but with a lot more goodwill all around.

[Oleg Volk]

Rude behavior will not be tolerated here. Please practice the non-aggression principle on THR.

[Albatross]

Since when do you have to present government id in California or Texas or anywhere in America as a pedestrian?

Someone ought to site a law or example of this. Seems bogus to me. Same can be said about the federal agent comment too. I wasn't aware the right to remain silent was suspended when talking to ATF agents.

/I have many times steamed down to the west coast of the lower 48 and haven't had government issued id on me.

//Live free or die. Big respect to you and your friends.

///Shame on G21, I really hope he isn't a cop.

[The Deer Hunter]

The guy in the backround repeating "this is rediculous" is really annoying. Didn't help things out at all

[goings_51]

http://www.texasdefenselaw.com/recent_news/

An encounter occurs when a police officer approaches a citizen in public and asks questions but has little reason to believe that a crime has occurred. During an encounter, you do not have to answer the questions nor do you have to identify yourself to the officer. You are free to walk away.

If the officer has “reasonable suspicion” of criminal activity, the officer can detain you and investigate. To meet the standard of reasonable suspicion, the officer must be able to articulate facts of criminal activity. Reasonable suspicion is a low burden for a police officer to meet.

During an investigatory detention, an officer can require a citizen to disclose his name and show a form of identification.

Furthermore, during an investigatory detention, if the officer believes his safety is at risk, he may briefly pat down the citizen for weapons.

It doesn't sound like this case meets the bar, so I guess I learned something too. What we don't know is if maybe there had been an armed robery 2 blocks away earlier in the day. In that case, the officer would have been in his rights...but that is Texas law.

[Doc2005]

As I stated in my original post, if not for the camera and cellular telephone, this situation would have ended very different. The friend's rude intervention would have been "...obstruction...", and the failure to cooperate would have been the same. That acknowledged, two wrongs not one right make.

goings_51:

I don't see the standard as being met Re: suspected criminal. The officer was merely uniformed. I have listened to the video multiple times and I have yet to be able to pick a quote to demonstrate suspected criminal activity.

[kingpin008]

I knew I was going a bit too far calling the guy a D***, but that was the closest I could come to expressing his actions.

How about instigator? That fits, I think. I don't have a problem with his being there, but he had nothing to do with the incident, except as an observer. He chose to inject himself into it, in a most...rude and unnecessary way. I shouldn't be calling names, but he bothered me.

Ah well. FWIW, I apologize for the language.

Good on the OP, for making people aware of your rights. My only suggestion would be to let that guy know that how he was coming off has a good possibility of making those less informed think that by open carrying and participating in these sorts of incidents you're looking to purposefully stir up trouble. No good can come of that.

[silverlance]

I agree entirely with the CA LEO who posted earlier (at least, I hope he's an LEO... otherwise he will have a lot of explaining to do if he pulls a citizen's arrest on another citizen for waving his arms in front of his face).

If that had been CA, both he and his friend would have been arrested. Also, he would have stood a decent chance of getting shot when he moved his left arm over to support his right elbow.

I'm not JBTing or anything like that. just saying it like it is. We have all read and seen the stories. I myself have been one the receiving end of LAPD brusqueness. Conversations with police officers here in LA begin with a pat down and handcuffs. I'm absolutely serious. I should know - I am involved with LE myself in my job.

What I liked most about this video was the way the prot absolutely knew his laws, and was firmly (non apologetically) stating his convictions.

This is what we ALL need to do. We owe it to ourselves to know our state's laws damn well, so well that we can say at any given moment, "law requires me to do THIS... law does not require me to do THAT."

now, a further question, then -
how do you (collectively) feel about keeping recording devices in your car/personals?

[IA_farmboy]

On the ID question, it's the law in most places. On the initial stop, I can't remember the case, but there is a famous supreme court case on this. An officer can stop and even frisk you without much reason at all. I still say cooperate on the scene, complain later. I still say the freind was trying to provoke an incident.

It's called a "Terry stop" after the court case that involved a Mr. Terry. They do need to have a suspicion that a law has been broken or will be broken, a very low standard to be met. The reason for a pat down is to look for weapons or contraband. In this case the weapon was in full view so there was likely little need to pat the guy down. The officer could have legally disarmed the man but he obviously did not for whatever reason.

There were also a couple other court cases relevant here. One with a man named Lawson and another with a man named Hiibel. Both determined (IIRC) that one is not required to present identification when asked by a LEO. The LEO may ask for a name, and depending on local laws one may be required to reply.

I won't pretend I know the laws of every US jurisdiction but I find it hard to believe that any place in the USA is someone required to present ID if stopped while walking down the street. I find that hard to believe for the simple fact that people are not (yet) required to carry ID to walk down the street.

This man was carrying a firearm so that changes things. Turns out that where he is no one is required to present ID when carrying a firearm openly. In other places the laws may be different.

Personally I'd be very reluctant to hand over my ID if stopped on the street. How do I know the LEO is going to give it back to me? As long as that LEO has my ID I'm being detained and can no longer ask the simple question, "Am I free to go now officer?" I would then also be forced to ask for my ID back as well. The LEO may simply keep it out of spite. (Remember, your gov't issued ID is the property of the gov't. It is kept on your person for the convenience of law enforcement.)

[coyote_jr]

Eh...this one could go either way I mean yes a lot of people take in NH take the "Live Free or Die" quite seriously and it is good to see the exercising of rights, the public awareness of the event with the video camera and the cell phone call, PORC411, etc. the people around questioning the validity of the stop, those were all good things...

at the same time...

to me, it comes off as a not so genuine publicity stunt, almost like you were waiting to be ambushed so as to counterstrike at a moments notice which kind of sours all the good things about the event. Again just my opinion. Dada, you apparently have no duty to produce ID which good on you for taking the officer to task on it. I'm just saying with the camera rolling and you're on the phone and the crowd it sort of felt gimmicky. I wish it wasn't just you that these events keep happening too. Any chance you can get like 15-30 people OC'ing and go out to the movies or the mall or something? The PD probably thinks of you as some green party nut just because the way these things end up on Youtube and turn into someone making a statement.

[.cheese.]

bravo. Well done.

Did they bust the girl scouts?

"GET DOWN! SHE HAS A BOX OF COOKIES!!!!!!" ;)

[Aloha!]

Let's see...according to the majority of people here, open carry is perfectly legal, and, one is not required to show identification.

So that means if you are a convicted felon, or an escaped fugitive, or wanted by the law for massive amounts of warrants, then all you have to do is walk around New Hamp with a holstered gun, and if a cop wants to check if you are legally able to carry that gun, then you talk into a cell phone, and state you are not required by law to show any ID.

You guys were critical of G21, but what he said was correct. Sorry if the truth hurts.

[Sistema1927]

it's just rude to cary on a telephone conversation while talking to the police.

At the same time, it is rude to accost and detain a law abiding citizen on the street when there is no suspicion of illegal activity. If not for both the cell phone and the camera, I have a suspicion that the OP would have been cuffed and taken to the pokie for nothing except for the exercise of his rights.

I am also still waiting for someone to direct me to either the relevant state or federal law that requires that a pedestrian must produce a government ID when approached by the police. While this may be the common practise today (thanks to the "War on Drugs") since when did it become the law of the land? If asked, I will give my name, and even my address, but I don't believe that I need to comply with "papers, please", at least not yet.

[Sistema1927]

So that means if you are a convicted felon, or an escaped fugitive, or wanted by the law for massive amounts of warrants, then all you have to do is walk around New Hamp with a holstered gun, and if a cop wants to check if you are legally able to carry that gun, then you talk into a cell phone, and state you are not required by law to show any ID.

Aloha!,

That is an excellent example of what is commonly called "the Strawman". Do you believe that you are guilty until proven innocent? That is what your post implies: Every person on the street is a suspect until they prove otherwise.

I hope you see that your "Strawman" burns quite nicely.

[Snarlingiron]

WOW!! I find the video fascinating. I find some of the attitudes expressed perplexing. As to all those that state that DadaOrwell2 was "grandstanding", or "provoking the situation", I can only point out that he says
Basically I'm a liberty activist here;. As an activist the job he has assigned himself is to provoke such incidents in order to educate the public to his point of view. Whether you agree with him or not, we are talking about the issues.

I say Good Job DadaOrwell2! I have always made it my own personal agenda to question authority. Not resist it, just make sure it is legally asserted. When we fail to do this, as most people do, then authority will be exerted without regard to what is legal.

[rbernie]

That is an excellent example of what is commonly called "the Strawman". Do you believe that you are guilty until proven innocent? That is what your post implies: Every person on the street is a suspect until they prove otherwise.The sad part is that most folks live exactly under this set of circumstances and see nothing at all wrong with it.

<sigh>

[DadaOrwell2]

thanks for the responses guys. with regard to russell, the angry supporter....there is a reason why he gets testy with manchester PD. they locked him up and dragged his wife into a paddy wagon for peaceably demonstrating outside a "free speech zone" while the president was in town. He was at a bus stop, not on private property. Secret service refused to help prosecute him so the case was dismissed.

but yes it's better not to get testy and especially i'm against humiliating government personell in any way. The fact that they're essentially our opponents makes it twice as important to treat them with kindness if at all possible.

Also here's video of an earlier open carry incident with me and a Concord NH cop.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=mu4Dr3B3Rg4

I just now got this youtube account so I just now posted there the background information.

I've had three incidents in three years....the first one i was alone, these second two i had friends within running distance. Yes I would much rather have the cops walk away feeling like they have made new friends as opposed to walking away chastised... That's what happened in the previous incident; it's what usually happens in Manchester when cops see my pistol. I will do what I can to make the next incident more amicable. but bear in mind that will probably mean you never hear about it.

[Nakedshoplifter]

I open carry in Virginia, I carry a video camera, and I would refuse to provide ID unless involved in an activity requiring it such as driving or carrying concealed. So by most logic in this thread, I am provoking a confrontation with the police? I'm looking for trouble?

Is it really that difficult to understand that lawful activity does not warrant detainment by authorities? For all of you taking sides with the cops in the video, would you feel the same way if the man was detained because of the political expression on his shirt? After all, nothing was illegal about his t-shirt, so why would they detain him for that? The same logic applies to the lawful carry of a firearm. If it's legal to do so in your state, it is unlawful for the authorities to detain you for questions pertaining to your lawful firearm carry.

Why the video camera? Because cops can and will lie, or otherwise handle themselves much differently when they know their actions are not being recorded. In fact, recording the police is the BEST way to ensure they act appropriately. Don't believe me when I say that cops lie? Check out the videos below:

http://policeabuse.org/the_one/shame.html

Lastly, I am a member of opencarry.org... we had a peaceful picnic in a county park which was interrupted by Fairfax County PD responding to a "man with gun" call. They thought they were looking for one guy, imagine their surprise when they showed up and ALL of us had guns!

http://youtube.com/results?search_query=ocdo+picnic

[Byron Quick]

I just had a chance to view the tapes. The man followed the state law. The state trooper was ignorant of the law and was therefore, however inadvertenly it may have been, intruding into a private citizen's life with no legal justification.

And the guy thus accosted is supposed to halt his activities such as talking on the phone for this? He's supposed to do things not legally required by law?

I don't think so.

I've got a clue for some here. If your state law requires you to hand over your ID upon demand, you need to start action to get state law changed. If you think you need accede to every request whether within the law or not of a policeman, you need to examine your concept of liberty for it has drifted from what our forefathers envisioned.

In 1972, I was at a roadblock manned by Georgia state troopers. Hair down past my shoulders. Beard. Fat state trooper with mirrored sunglasses was stomping his way to my car while shouting,"Hippy &#%)) this, long haired son of a *$^^, that" with each stomp. When he saw the 1911 .38 Super lying on the seat next to me(in open view in accordance with Georgia law) he said,"May I see your driver's license, sir?"

Amazing change of manner wouldn't you say? I became a fervent supporter of the Second Amendment that day.

Respect, yes. Civility, yes. Subservience, hell no. For your edification, respect and civility do not require me to cease legal activity which a policeman has no legal justification to intrude upon.

[scubie02]

well, I haven't had a chance to view the video yet, but based on comments I can see two sides.

My first comment, before I forget, is wasn't there some court case just recently where they basically said you have no right to refuse ID? I do not agree with that, of course, but it's something to keep in mind.

I will also say that many police and court officers are woefully ignorant of gun laws. I had my own experience a few years back with law enforcement where I had been headed to the range and had two handguns with me in the vehicle, one in a case and one on my person. Someone looking to stir up trouble had called in "man with a gun" and cops showed up with weapons drawn. I was cuffed etc but will say that given the call they had received and not knowing the circumstances initially the officer was really pretty professional. He obviously did NOT really know the gun laws though since even though he was very calm and polite because I had stayed calm and turned over the weapons and cooperated I was still taken in for "having a loaded firearm in the vehicle", even though I explained that my pistol permit meant I could carry a weapon on my person and loaded let alone in my vehicle in ny, and the no loaded weapons referred to long guns. Once at the station they had to go through several people before it was confirmed that yes, it was fully legal for me to carry my weapon loaded in a vehicle since I had a permit, and upon further investigation it came out that the other person had made this call trying to cause trouble, and THEY were the one in trouble, since I in fact had done nothing wrong. The initial police officer who responded was very apologetic and said he hoped I understood given the call that they had received why they had responded as they did, and even gave me back my pistol loaded, which spoke volumes to me as far as how they now viewed me. In truth I do NOT really blame him at all since he was very polite and simply responding to a call, and it was clear that they weren't really used to dealing with someone legally carrying a handgun.

AFTER that incident I did actually start to carry much MORE often, however, even though it is concealed, thinking that if officers come across this more often it will be viewed less as an oddity and that they will also become aware of what the actual laws are. The episode was unpleasant in many ways, but at the same time numerous officers involved became aware of what the laws actually were, and saw a gun owner who was polite and not confrontational and not some kook, so all in all maybe a good thing to have happened in some respects. I also should point out that my best friend is a cop and so I can out myself in their shoes and understand caution and realize that they deal with the scum of the earth every day and are more used to dealing with that sort of person than somebody NOT looking for trouble with a gun.

I do think what you do has an educational value to it. I also think it is VERY important that such interactions be as polite and reasonable as possible, since you want police officers (who in most instances are going to be showing up not knowing what the situation was because they were sent out on a call of "man with a gun") coming away with a feeling of "well, that person was an ok guy and seems reasonable, I can see his point of view" rather than "another freaking jerk I get to deal with every day". This is important since it will affect what happens the NEXT time he encounters a legal gunowner. Will he think " that last guy was ok, so this one probably is too", or will he think "that last guy was a @#$%, and I'm going to see if I can watch and come up with some probable cause so I can harass this guy and then maybe make a weapons thing out of it too". Human nature is human nature, people don't like to be embarrassed or threatened or given a hard time, they just want to do their job and get through a day with a minimum of drama. The first cop from what it sounds (again haven't seen the vid yet) may have been happy to have an "out" and walk away once he realized you weren't a criminal, but not wanted to look like a "wuss" in front of his gung ho friend. Doesn't hurt to give a person that extra opportunity to walk away and save face.

[joab]

I understand that you need to represent yourselves and stand up for your rights, that's obvious, and commendable. His presence made me feel a little like this was a publicity stunt though. Maybe he wants it to be. Who knows.
I can agree with DadaOrwell's grandstanding
I can also agree with the way he handled himself during the incident

However Mr/ Stripey shirt simply strengthens a popularly held opinion about these FreeStaters

Bystanders watching this would have been distracted from the message by his sophomoric tantrum
They would also would have gone away with a general disapproval of the group if they saw him as the main representative instead of Dada
If the purpose is to educate why distract that with counter productive juvenile tactics
As I stated in my original post, if not for the camera and cellular telephone, this situation would have ended very different. The friend's rude intervention would have been "...obstruction...", and the failure to cooperate would have been the same. That acknowledged, two wrongs not one right make.As you stated in a subsequent post
We don't need emotion; any fool can exhibit emotion. We need facts.

[scubie02]

ok, I did just get to watch it so let me amend and say the cops were in the wrong here, and fishing to get out with some dignity at the end in a somewhat sorry fashion. The ONLY critique I would give is the one guy shouldn't have waived his hand in the one cop's face, that was pretty provocative, but otherwise nicely handled. I actually DIDN'T think that cop was acting aggressive--he was standing at that point with his hands in his pockets, which isn't really an aggressive stance. I thought the first cop had more aggressive body language actually.

The bust the girl scouts thing was pretty funny haha

[scubie02]

one other comment--couldn't always hear the dialog--at any point did you politely ask what it was that caused you to be stopped? Did you ask "what about my behavior or demeanor did you find suspicious? This puts them in a position to have to say "well, you had a gun" or some up with something else. If he says you had gun, then you could-again, very politley-ask what it was about wearing an openly carried and holstered gun that seemed suspicious to him. After all, a bad guy, NOT wanting to have any more interaction with law enforcement than necessary, is NOT likely to openly carry a holstered gun. Only someone who has nothing to hide is going to do so generally I would think. There is that small chance then that, even if they don't want to acknowledge the truth to that at the time when it's a confrontational situation, as he's laying there in bed before drifting off to sleep that night in his own mind he might think "ok, he had a point there...maybe I should think about that next time"

much of what we do is instinctual reaction, after all, and upon reflection we might act differently the next time

[Doc2005]

Go back and re-watch the video...officer number two had hands in his pockets, rather relaxed. Watch his body language as the provocateur continues. Who is it that takes the officer's demeanor to bulldog-like alertness? But, on whom does the officer focus?!

As I said, I have not detailed even 1/3 of the video's content facts, heck, not even a 10th! That video is information-rich, rather a pot of gold in situation awareness. There is much to be learned from it, Re: all parties' deeds.

Doc2005

[AntiqueCollector]

Sometimes plenty of publicity is needed to stop police (or other authorities) from wrongly infringing on rights, in order to end such infringements.

[scubie02]

exactly, the second officer didn't look overly concerned or confrontational to me to start with with his hands in his pockets, it's not until the jerky second guy starts ranting and waving his hands in his face that he takes his hands out of his pockets and crosses his arms--this is simple self defensive sort of a posture in my book. Go up to any person standing with their hands in their pockets and
wave your hand in their face or act provocative in some way and see how long it takes for their hands to come out of their pockets, or have someone do it to you and see what your instinct is. That second guy was NOT really helping the situation. If he had calmly and quietly talked to passersby or any gathering crowd "this guy was just walking by with a holstered gun, minding his own business, which is perfectly legal, and now they are harassing him" that might have been helpful. Once he starts out with the waving hand and constant ranting it is...less helpful...

[mr102075]

I think I am going to do something like this over here in Utah. Once again congratulations!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Doc2005]

scubie02:

You're nailing it, my friend! We need to assess the video, frame-by-frame, and look objectively at it. We need to look at the legal and the sociologic issues, the action-to-reaction effects. Only by doing that, can we really benefit from what this video can teach us. Then, we need to take the best and carry it forward, and drop the worst.

After all, we also do not need intentional confrontation. It is counter-productive and will lead to either case law or legislation against us to toward “protecting” LEOs (albeit needlessly). In sum, we have more to lose than to gain if we are not careful in how and where we exercise our rights...and our "fights".

Mr102075:

Before you run head-long into conflict, I would encourage you to educate yourself. The originator of this video would have netted FAR more benefit, and far less resistance if he had been able to cite the specific laws that he claimed to protect him. Knowledge of the specific laws is power! Because LEOs are to uphold the laws, if the gentlemen had cited the specific laws, they would have shut down the confrontation faster than a slamming door. Because the gentlemen drew only upon generality of the laws, the interaction degenerated into confrontation and therein lingered, and grew needlessly out-of-proportion to its genuine merit. Furthermore, regardless of intent, they came across as looking for confrontation. We do not need confrontation.

Doc2005

[Mannix]

What your friend did was perfectly legal. I'm not saying I approved of it, but I believe he has every right to be an impolite prick to police(or anyone) without fear of arrest or being assaulted.

That said, if the point of this type of confrontation is to change people's minds about open carry, having your friend be verbally combative with police officers is NOT the way to do it, though I'm sure that wasn't your idea(at least I would hope so). You may have educated a couple police officers in the process, but any fence sitters looking on probably would not have come away with a positive view of your organization, and people who open carry in general. The CORRECT way, IMO, to change people's mind about open carry is to be the model gentleman while standing firm about the exercise of your rights, and you did that quite well. However, I feel your friend's attitude detracted from that, at least from the perspective of a passing pedestrian/motorist.

I would LOVE to do something like that here, but unfortunately to open carry around here you need a permit(the law makes no differentiation between concealed and open), along with a photo ID, and must produce them upon request of a police officer. So I guess after I get my permit, I'll just have to be content with open carrying, although I'm pretty sure that will make quite the splash anyway.

One step at a time, one person at a time, one right at a time. That's how we got here, and that's how we're getting back.

[Doc2005]

Mannix:

Good point. How many fence-sitters walked or drove by and thought, "Thank God the police were there! That guy had a gun strapped it!" The fact is, we will never know.

Doc2005

[scubie02]

yep, and let's face it, at this point Manchester is deep in enemy territory. I lived in southern NH before moving back to NY to be closer to family, and I can tell you that southern NH has already been largely been taken over by people from Massachusetts, and we all know where that state has headed. The original poster is in the same position as us upstate NY'ers--gradually being made to feel out of place in their own state because city folks are taking over. I don't know what the answer is. Maybe we need to start a breeding campaign! But the long and the short of it is you are going to be playing to a hostile crowd alot of the time, and you need to present a "today it's us, tomorrow it might be you" perspective to these folks to make them see the light. The end part where they were ready to go tell the girl scouts they better watch it was the PERFECT segue for that, btw--let them leave, then mention to the gathered crowd how it looked like the Girl Scouts were next...that brings it home and into THEIR reality, even if they are not gun owners

[Docgmt]

By not showing an ID DaraOrwell2 is following the law, if you consent to showing id then that is what you will end up doing all the time whether it is the law or not. Even if the whole thing had gone away with showing ID doing so just perpetuates the notion that this is the norm, a requirement and that is one less right you have. The loss of rights is due to consent by the people. Point two the by-stander is in the insipid stages of cranial rectal inversion in my opinion.

[scubie02]

You DO notice however that the supervisor cop or whatever that shows up at the end semi tries to entrap him by going "well, it looks like you're doing some sort of informational sort of thing here...is, that what you're doing?" sort of conversationally, and the guy goes "well no not really I was just on my way to a party" or some such thing and the cop goes "well 'cause that would be against the law" or something to that affect, so he was trying to get him to say "yeah, that's what we're doing" which just by his tone you would have tended to agree with him at first, which is semi smarmy.

It's also somewhat alarming that he seemed to be saying if 3 or more people were gathered there it would be a problem (I realize he was reaching for SOME situation where he'd have authority over the poster) and he'd be harrassing him for that, which sort of shats on a basic liberty as well.

The guy having the fit still comes off the worst I think, though, which is unfortunate. I understand he may be sick and tired of how things have degenerated in this country but still. You could hear part of the conversation with the one other guy who had come out of the bar who clearly was sympathetic and said he came out to see what was going on but was also basically saying chill out.

[XavierBreath]

I find it humorous that the supervisor stated that if three people blocked traffic on the sidewalk, they would be breaking the law. It seems blocking the sidewalk is what three officers were doing at that point.

DadaOrwell2, thank you for what you are doing. It takes guts, and you did it very well, in each video.

I agree that your friend in the striped shirt is not helping things.

I also agree that in many areas, this kind of peaceful affirmation of rights would land you in the pokey. In some areas, such as New Orleans, you could expect much worse, whether it was being taped or not.

While the officers were in error, I applaud their professionalism, in each instance.

[Scorpiusdeus]

Let's establish a set of facts:


5) The back-up officer exhibited the attitude of a bulldog-on-alert, emotionless and intimating "You twitch; I shoot; you die!" Frankly, of all involved here, I found that the most unprofessional of all.

6a) A gentleman, who was witness, pulls attention to the bull-dog-like officer emotionlessness, by waiving his hand.
6b) Some may assert the witness was foolish. He broke no law.

Take your best observational facts swing.

Doc2005

Right up to #4 I'm with you. #5, is 1) highly speculative, and 2) in accordance with most police training and correct. He stood off a bit to observe and protect the other officer and he did not get involved unless needed. YOU may not like his stance, but as you say "it's not illegal and has noting to do with professionalism or the lack there of.

As to 6A and 6B, I, not knowing New Hampshire law, must assume interfering with an officer in the performance of his duties is not against the law in that state. Here in CA it is and he would have been arrested.

The citizen and the officers were all polite and respectful. That's it. Sure, the officer might have shot this citizen if the camera weren't present, but they didn't.

I think that the OP staged this incident, waited for an officer to notice him knowingly had people standing by. How fortuitous that there was a video camera there. How fortuitous that you just happened to be going to a club meeting of like minded folk. OH PLEASE!!!

While within your rights, I think this is little more than asking for trouble and when you get it, recording it.

The OP was within his rights, but I'm annoyed that he acts as if he got any less than what he was out for that day.

You exercised you rights, you educated some police officers just like you intended to and they treated you with respect. End of story.

[Scorpiusdeus]

If any of you watch the other videos you'll see that this guy and his little group also support not paying your taxes.

In addition to this in the other video, the young officer is very nice and mentions that the Police department has received four other calls about this guy.

So to make your statement that open carry is legal, you provoke situations that pull limited police resources off the street so you can make a point? Nice.

Why don't you just hand out flyer's to officers and citizens?

I don't think you just open carry, I think you make a spectacle out of yourself hoping to provoke calls the police and waste their time.

All of these videos are set ups and you make sure the police will become involved.

Sad. You're not much better than Cindy Sheehan.

[Telperion]

So to make your statement that open carry is legal, you provoke situations that pull limited police resources off the street so you can make a point? Nice.

Why don't you just hand out flyer's to officers and citizens?

I don't think you just open carry, I think you make a spectacle out of yourself hoping to provoke calls the police and waste their time.

You are now the second person in this thread to claim the OP was wasting police resources. Humor me and explain your position in the following context:

- The OP did not call the police on himself, either somebody else called or the first officer stopped him on his own
- The OP was involuntarily detained
- The first officer called two other officers to the scene in response to a lawful activity

How is DadaOrwell2 responsible for wasting police resources when he never requested their presence? If anyone is to be blamed, it is the caller and the responding officers. They are the ones who chose to direct police resources to investigate a lawful activity.

[DWARREN123]

I truly enjoyed that. I do not believe the LEO's would have been quite as nice without the phone, crowd and camera. I am happy to see it turn out to the good!:evil:

[average_shooter]

Why don't you just hand out flyer's to officers and citizens?

They HAVE done the flyer thing, and have been harassed just as much for that, too.

[AndyC]

Good to see that it all ended well - nicely done.

[03Shadowbob]

Why do a lot of people think the cops would have acted any differently without cameras there? What is your professional opinion, that is, if you are a professional trained in reading peoples minds. That one "bully" cop didn't have the body language or facial expressions of a cop bent on torque-ing someone. If anything to me, he looked disinterested in being there. He did show great restraint for not slamming that loudmouth to the ground. That guy wouldn't be so lucky in most other cities regardless of cameras.
Personally, I am all for exercising your rights but I don't buy for one second that this wasn't made out to be a spectacle in the first place by the OP, just like Cindy Sheehan (as mentioned above).
As far as that obnoxious guy in the striped shirt, he appears to me to want to provoke the cops into doing something so he can get "payback" for the way he and his wife were treated however long ago by whichever agency it was. He appears to be a bandwagon rider.
I would choose better people to be around. Why wasn't he open carrying, since he appears to have so much to say about it? Why wasn't anyone else from his group open carrying? Is the OP the poster child for his group on open carry?
Here's what I do know, Doc, as far as facts:
1) The OP's holster should be updated
2) Wearing white tube socks pulled up while wearing shorts is not "in" right now
3) Those cops mustaches kick ass!
4) Those girlscouts should be fined for littering

[AntiqueCollector]

If any of you watch the other videos you'll see that this guy and his little group also support not paying your taxes.

In addition to this in the other video, the young officer is very nice and mentions that the Police department has received four other calls about this guy.

So to make your statement that open carry is legal, you provoke situations that pull limited police resources off the street so you can make a point? Nice.

Why don't you just hand out flyer's to officers and citizens?

I don't think you just open carry, I think you make a spectacle out of yourself hoping to provoke calls the police and waste their time.

All of these videos are set ups and you make sure the police will become involved.

Sad. You're not much better than Cindy Sheehan.

Umm, your first comment is a red herring, but regardless, haven't you heard of the free state project before? It's about freedom, not only in regards to carrying of firearms but taxes, etc., that should not exist, cutting down the government's size, and so forth, starting in one state.

As for the rest, the above posters stated it well, they didn't call the police. The police in that particular area (and others with large numbers of MA types moving in) from what I understand have a habit of harrassing those open carrying, therefore, this kind of action is necessary to end it. Eventually, either the police learn their lesson, or a lawsuit will force them to.

[joab]

Sad. You're not much better than Cindy Sheehan.I'm sorry but that little ad hom is definitively short sighted and simplistic
The police responded to a call about a man walking down the street with a holstered gun
That makes as much sense as them responding to a call about a man walking a leashed and muzzled Pit Bull down the street
If they respond they have wasted their own time

Personally I am tired of reading VCDL (?) he said she said accounts of open carry incidents
They are all written with a definite slant towards the open carriers and we never get the other side of the story
I agree with what they are doing and applaud their efforts but there is just so little to back up their stories

This way we have a video account of exactly what went on
And perhaps the video crew did have an effect on the officers demeanor, forcing them to behave and actually listen to what was being said thereby getting that much needed on the spot education
Those are two officers who will not make the same mistake again and it will cause some locker room accounts that will educate other officers

If DaDa was walking down the middle of the street intentionally drawing attention to himself by yelling at passing cars or holding a sign that said "I got a big gun right chere" you may not be so far off with the Shehan attack

But simply committing a codified lawful act, even though you know it will draw police attention and even if you have friends nearby because you are aware of the possibility of police attention, is reprehensible how exactly?

[brerrabbit]

Glenn Bartley

As for your friend, I can assure you, if he had made that move in front of my face, the one he did to the other officer, I would have brought him to the ground and handcuffed him before his hands waved uip and down - and I would have been all well within my rights.

Hmm, while detaining a person while unable to voice any laws broken, and standing like a statue, which a reasonable person would be concerned about, while interrogating law abiding activists that will sue, that are carrying heat, that also outnumber you and your partner and have you flanked, and on video tape so there cannot be debate about what happened in civil court, in a state that still thinks highly of civil rights, why you are going to initiate force in a situation that does not require it because you feel slighted in some way?

Somehow this does not sound like a career enhancing decision.

Please also explain how this is a "Right". As I understand it, LEO do not enjoy rights different than citizens, they enjoy privileges that are a requirement of the job.

[telomerase]

That said, if the point of this type of confrontation is to change people's minds about open carry, having your friend be verbally combative with police officers is NOT the way to do it, though I'm sure that wasn't your idea(at least I would hope so).

Mannix is right about that. Also, if the point is to change people's minds, it would work better if the carrier were a grandmother.

All that said, it's great that people are working on getting open carry to be more common.

[scubie02]

well, when I was telling my brother about this, his first comment was "well, when people call and say 'there's a man here wearing a handgun', why don't the cops just say 'it's not illegal in this state to carry a handgun' and ask if there's anything else?" and he's got a point, really.

Hell, I called the cops one time in Syracuse when my car was broken into, which IS illegal I believe, and they said they wouldn't even come for something like that, call my insurance company...

[FieroCDSP]

Here's some thoughtful insight from the Original Post, for those of you who say he staged it.

I was walking 50 yards from my car to the monthly Free Stater meeting at Murphy's Taproom in downtown Manchester. I usually open carry to that meeting.

I was noticed by a state trooper, but I noticed him too and called the Free Staters' emergency hotline before he got to me. In the video you hear my call realtime, as I report my situation and try to explain to our listeners what's happening.

As I read it, he parked his car (as seen in the video) roughly fifty yards from the meeting place. It looked to be the first or second spot from the corner but I can't be sure. Parking is almost always full in front of restaurants, so choosing this spot is legit.
As he was walking that distance, the state trooper noticed him and stopped. Knowing what was likely to transpire, he called the hotline to the others, who were already in the restaurant.
One happened to have a vid-camera. As this was a meeting, some form of recording is helpful in documentation. Whether it was a tape deck or a vid camera, it doesn't matter. Meetings get recorded.
The encounter ensues, and the others in the meeting, go out to help their brother.

There is no real evidence that this was staged. Circumstantial, perhaps, but it can be explained by the meeting. IF this was staged, then our friend here is lying to us, and that is just not cool on THR. You always get called on it in the end. I personally to believe his story. The difference between this situation and one many of us could find ourselves in, is that all of the elements were in place through coincidence, perhaps with a little preparedness. What if the cop had turned down the street before? He wouldn't have seen a man OC a gun and decided to stop. Then this wouldn't have become a topic for discussion.

As the third officer said, it is illegal (or at least in poor taste) to stage an encounter with police to push an agenda. I'm not sure what that is called, but it's probably worth 90 days in the county's guest house. It also wouldn't help the cause at all. It would jeopardize the work they've already done. That is just not how things go if you want to get your point out.

So for all of you who think it was staged, think about it some more, and at least consider taking our brother at his word.

[brerrabbit]

As the third officer said, it is illegal (or at least in poor taste) to stage an encounter with police to push an agenda. I'm not sure what that is called, but it's probably worth 90 days in the county's guest house.

Considering that the initial premise of the stop involved no law breaking that either LEO could vocally identify, pray tell us how they staged an encounter when it was the LEO that created the encounter.

Second off, I would actually be very interested in what law they broke by possibly staging an encounter. Since the LEO instigated the encounter, wouldnt the law fall more heavy on them?

One of the best conversations I can remember was from an enlisted and vocal activist who said words to the effect that the greatest gain to liberty in the past 30 years was the advent of cheap handheld video recording equipment.

[joab]

So for all of you who think it was staged, think about it some more, and at least consider taking our brother at his word.Personally I believe it was staged as much as Rosa Parks bus ride was

I also couldn't care less
All but Mr. Stripey Shirt performed and represented their agencies well

[hankdatank1362]

Terry v. Ohio


The LEO could articulate that violent gun crime is up, or there was an armed robbery earlier, blah, blah, blah, whatever to the court in order to uphold his invesigatory stop. Just like when they "profile" (I hate that term) someone, pull them over, toss the car, and come up empty-handed, they apologize and say they were looking for the proverbial bank robbers matching the drivers' descriptions.

Is it right? No, but it's part of life. If the police ask you for ID, and you don't want to make a scene, give them the ID. Of course, if it's a scene that you're looking to make (like this was), then don't. Whatever floats your boat. If this is the battle you choose to pick, then I support you one hundred percent.

[DadaOrwell2]

<< How fortuitous that there was a video camera there. How fortuitous that you just happened to be going to a club meeting of like minded folk. OH PLEASE!!!>>

This is the kind of problem I want to have....people reacting in disbelief when I show them how fast and effective these folks are becoming. this is their reaction speed when they are caught off guard, I kid you not. There was no expectation this would happen, only planning for a meeting location and a videographer to film the meeting. Until these people came running out I wasn't even sure there friends in the building or that a videographer would be present. The meeting was scheduled to start 15 minutes later.

There is however a general level of preparedness for open carry incidents, which happen to us a couple times a year. If our reaction seems too overwhelming to be real maybe your standards are too low.

Since this is a board dedicated to dispassionate determination of fact, do a little sleuthing if you want to find evidence as to whether this incident was set up or spontaneous.

If you go to forum.nhfree.com you can find most of the folks who were there. Also our trolls on the forum will happily inform you of any false or disingenuous move we've ever made.

[ScottS]

Terry v. Ohio


The LEO could articulate that violent gun crime is up, or there was an armed robbery earlier, blah, blah, blah, whatever to the court in order to uphold his invesigatory [sic] stop. Just like when they "profile" (I hate that term) someone, pull them over, toss the car, and come up empty-handed, they apologize and say they were looking for the proverbial bank robbers matching the drivers' descriptions. First, you grossly misunderstand, or at least misstate, Terry. A police officer can't use some vague "violent crime is up" or make up some "armed robbery" to justify a stop under Terry. How long do you think that would hold up in court? You don't think the Court would ask, "And just what robbery was that, Officer?"

Also, note the standard for Terry is two-fold: "where a police officer observes unusual conduct which leads him reasonably to conclude in light of his experience that criminal activity may be afoot and that the persons with whom he is dealing may be armed and presently dangerous..." The officer needs to be able articulate (i.e. explain in detail) his reasons to believe "(1) a crime had been committed or (2) a crime was in the process of being committed or (3) a crime was about to be committed." That's what "criminal activity may be afoot" means. Maybe I missed it; what criminal activity was afoot here?

Terry is not a blank check to stop everyone and say, "Violent crime is up. I'll frisk you now."

[hankdatank1362]

I'm not saying there was any criminal activity afoot. Our guy was 100% legal.


But that's not my point. I'm sure any relatively intelligent LEO can come up with some justification for a Terry stop, or stop-and-frisk. It doesn't have to be "violent crime in the area is up" or "Bank robber matching your description" per se... it would likely need to be a real justification. But that's not too hard to pull out of one's rear. Especially if that LEO has the ability to ARTICULATE well. It could be a real reason, or it could be BS, but as long as the LEO can articulate it well, 99 times out of 100, it will fly.


If a police officer wants to stop you on the street, he can find a reason. Just like if they want to pull you over... they'll find a reason. (Taillight was out, but now seems to be working) Once again, not saying it's right, but it happens.

[ScottS]

I'm not saying there was any criminal activity afoot. Our guy was 100% legal.You said: "Terry v Ohio." If you think Terry applies, then you must think that "criminal activity is afoot." You can't have one without the other. Terry is not a magic word like abbra cadabbra.
But that's not my point. I'm sure any relatively intelligent LEO can come up with some justification for a Terry stop, or stop-and-frisk. It doesn't have to be "violent crime in the area is up" or "Bank robber matching your description" per se... it would likely need to be a real justification. But that's not too hard to pull out of one's rear. Especially if that LEO has the ability to ARTICULATE well. It could be a real reason, or it could be BS, but as long as the LEO can articulate it well, 99 times out of 100, it will fly.Please provide either experience or evidence to back up this statement.
If a police officer wants to stop you on the street, he can find a reason. Just like if they want to pull you over... they'll find a reason. (Taillight was out, but now seems to be working) Once again, not saying it's right, but it happens.Again, that's just factually incorrect. A police officer can approach you on the street, just as any panhandler can. And unless he has a reasonable, articulable suspicion on which to detain you, you are free to ignore him and leave, just as you would with a panhandler. If he detains you on your bull**** criteria, he opens himself up to a lawsuit for "wrongful detention."

[WeThePeople]

The usual opinions flourish.

More of us should be working to ensure that all citizens can carry openly.

The phone and your friend, well everyone will have a different opinion.

In the end however, I say 'well-done.'

[Hendrick]

Great work! Your actions may very well succeed in preventing this kind of "harassment" in the future. Now perhaps other community groups will also benefit - such as MS13 who will be free to roam your family's neighborhood with weapons and prey on the weak and elderly without being similarly "harassed" by the police department.

Do yourself and your community a big favor by politely telling police officers your intent and thanking them for checking it out. The last thing you want is a LEO force that either becomes apathetic or the equivalent of U.N. peacekeepers who are legally hogtied from protecting themselves or anyone else.

[coyote_jr]

Is there any plan of activism going on here?

[DigitalWarrior]

Wow Hendrick, you are looking at this entirely wrong-headed.

I know that criminals eat breakfast. However police should not question everyone who eats breakfast. If a police officer asked me why I am eating breakfast, I might tell him that it is none of his business.

Or do you think that eating breakfast is an unimpeachable right and that open carrying is not?

[AndyC]

"If a man neglects to enforce his rights, he cannot complain if, after a while, the law follows his example."

Oliver Wendell Holmes

[rich636]

Dave, I think you set a great example in the video, independent of the OC issue. You were mature, informed, and steadfast while remaining non-adversarial.

To a degree I understand where Hendrick is coming from. The idea of having everyone in my city openly carrying is an unsettling notion. With a population of 2 million people, the percent of felons or would be felons translates into a large number I would guess.

That being said, I wish we could all open carry. I also wish we all had a strong, good, and equal minded value system. I believe vast majority of us on this board do, but not in my city.

If police could use their judgment to wave and nod at OCers who didn't look like a probable threat, and stop those who did, I think it could work. The problem is that there are some officers who don't have good judgment. The ones that do have good judgment would lose their jobs at the hands of the ACLU or their own PC Administration. It would also create a stronger authority which I'm guessing wouldn't be welcome by libertarians.

To me it seems tough to find a system that works in a society as complex as ours has become. It makes me wish I was born 150 years ago. I remain open minded and I think it's good that we bounce ideas off each other.

[Hendrick]

DW,

As member of the gun and knife owning community, I have given it some consideration but simply cannot find the logic in your analogy. First, let me state that I am not against conceal carry permits, only the suggestion that they can be exercised with impunity.

There is wealth of legal jargon available which can be better summarized as a common sense variable to laws and rights. Political correctness is political correctness, regardless of which side of the fence you reside. After 9/11, I found it ridiculous that we used our nation's limited resources to make sure all citizens (e.g., airline passengers) would be treated with equal security suspicion, when it is known that 95%+ of the current threat in this country is from terrorist groups comprised of young males of middle eastern descent. Likewise, your suggestion that law enforcement treat someone wondering through your neighborhood with a firearm equally to someone carrying an egg mcmuffin is patently absurd.

After all, would you approach these two equally just because they both have a right to do what they are doing? Really?

[45Badger]

Just wasted @ 10 minutes of my life on the video. Idle curiosity may not kill me, but it sure can eat into free time.

My biggest take-away from this earth-shattering event-

The guy in the striped shirt must have had his a$$ kicked weekly in junior high.

[TonyStarks]

Lucky you didn't get arrested for video taping a police officer. I have heard of it happening and people have been charged with Felony arrests for illegally recording someone without their consent. Sucks but a felony arrest and your rights are gone.

[DigitalWarrior]

Rich and Hendrick,

There are a couple of problems with your suggestions.

First, Political Correctness aside, profiling is counterproductive. http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2006/06/patrick_smith_o.html

Second, the idea of Felons open carrying might not make you comfortable, but be sure, many of them are carrying concealed. If a person with a gun is not doing something wrong, leave them alone.

Third, I am pretty sure that police should treat the McMuffin carrier the same, because I have heard that all police should always assume all people are armed, lest they end up ambient temperature. If a person goes for their weapon or a pocket, there should be similar consequences too.

Really, everyone should assume everyone else is armed. The world would be a better place.

[coyote_jr]

Sucks but a felony arrest and your rights are gone.

Actually it would take a felony conviction

[AntiqueCollector]

A criminal is not going to carry openly and attract attention in an area known for the police to hassle those open carrying.

[rich636]

DW that sheiner link is a group of handpicked group of cases where profiling would have failed. It is not a true sampling. Science isn't science if you pick a desired result and work backwards. By in large, if it walks like a duck, talk likes a duck, it's usually a duck.

Does that make profiling a good thing, not always. I would agree with you on that. There will be people who dress "gangster" but are stand up guys. There are people who dress nicely but have dead guys in their garage freezer. To ignore trends is naive though.

[kingpin008]

Lucky you didn't get arrested for video taping a police officer. I have heard of it happening and people have been charged with Felony arrests for illegally recording someone without their consent. Sucks but a felony arrest and your rights are gone.

Tony - those arrests you've heard about are illegal arrests. If an individual (including LEOs) is in public, they submit to photography/video monitoring by default due to the lack of a reasonable expectation of privacy. How do you think all the paparazzi out there get those shots of celebs? They have the right to photograph them because they're out in public. No permissin need be given. Or what about those signs on businesses that say "These Premises are under Video Surveillace"? They're allowed to do that because you have no right to privacy in a public area. Any LEO that arrests an individual taping/taking pics of them in public is asking for a HUGE lawsuit, as long as the person taping/taking their picture was not interfering in the officer's duties.

[joab]

You said: "Terry v Ohio." If you think Terry applies, then you must think that "criminal activity is afoot." You can't have one without the other. Terry is not a magic word like abbra cadabbra. I thought it was an officer safety issue not an impending criminal activity issue.
I've gotten Terry love during a traffic stop where I disclosed that I had a gun in my glovebox

Any LEO that arrests an individual taping/taking pics of them in public is asking for a HUGE lawsuit, as long as the person taping/taking their picture was not interfering in the officer's duties.Not everywhere
Audio taping without permission is a criminal offense in Florida

[h2ojunkie]

One of the most important things I learned from this audio/video is that we need a national phone number for any law abiding citizen to use as the person in this video had available to him.

Imagine how differently that encounter would have gone had the police not known they were being recorded

[owen]

Can't record public officials while perrforming their duties without their knowledge?

One more law that needs to be changed.

Since when does the government have a right to privacy?

[scubie02]

Yeah, I was just going to say that as far as I'm concerned, a private citizen SHOULD be able to have a reasonable expectation of privacy when out in public, but a public official otoh such as a judge or police officer (while in the performance of their duties) should not. We don't have enough of a sense of "this is just right or wrong to do, even if it's technically legal" anymore. It's like going to a funeral or a wedding and heckling or something--even if it were in a public place or something, you should expect to get your ass beat in such a situation, and a judge should say "geez you had it coming idiot, dismissed".

A judge or a police officer etc however is working in the public interest while performing their duties, and there should be transparency there to insure no abuse of powers.

[joab]

Can't record public officials while perrforming their duties without their knowledge?

I don't know if that is referencing my comment
But in Florida that is true for all citizens, officers are still considered citizens here

Dada was not simply recording or allowing another person to overhear the conversation he was broadcasting the incident, that would not be allowed here

[average_shooter]

Out of curiosity; would it be illegal for a person in Dada's position to whip out a pen and notebook and start taking notes about what was happening?

The way I see it, all he was doing really was documenting the incident in real time. The site he called doesn't broadcast to people who aren't listening to it at the time, it's just a way to record the incident for future review. But maybe I'm wrong.

BTW since we're comparing state laws, last I heard about the law here in MN, if only one person involved in the conversation knows it is being recorded then the recording is perfectly legit. Cop or no cop.

[joab]

last I heard about the law here in MN, if only one person involved in the conversation knows it is being recorded then the recording is perfectly legit. Cop or no cop.Used to be that way here
I don't know when it changed, but I found out in what could have been a hard way a few years ago when I bugged my home phone

[DigitalWarrior]

Rich, maybe this will convince you:
http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2005/07/profiling.html

Ethics aside, institutionalized profiling fails because real attackers are so rare: Active failures will be much more common than passive failures. The great majority of people who fit the profile will be innocent. At the same time, some real attackers are going to deliberately try to sneak past the profile. During World War II, a Japanese American saboteur could try to evade imprisonment by pretending to be Chinese. Similarly, an Arab terrorist could dye his hair blond, practice an American accent, and so on.

Profiling can also blind you to threats outside the profile. If U.S. border guards stop and search everyone who’s young, Arab, and male, they’re not going to have the time to stop and search all sorts of other people, no matter how hinky they might be acting. On the other hand, if the attackers are of a single race or ethnicity, profiling is more likely to work (although the ethics are still questionable). It makes real security sense for El Al to spend more time investigating young Arab males than it does for them to investigate Israeli families. In Vietnam, American soldiers never knew which local civilians were really combatants; sometimes killing all of them was the security solution they chose.
-----------------------------------------

Whenever you design a security system with two ways through -- an easy way and a hard way -- you invite the attacker to take the easy way. Profile for young Arab males, and you'll get terrorists that are old non-Arab females. This paper looks at the security effectiveness of profiling versus random searching. http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue7_10/chakrabarti/

If we are going to increase security against terrorism, the young Arab males living in our country are precisely the people we want on our side. Discriminating against them in the name of security is not going to make them more likely to help.

[scubie02]

and where are all these young arab males going to find all these old non-arab females wanting to be suicide bombers...?

[DigitalWarrior]

Chechnya

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

[DigitalWarrior]

Back to the point, though.

Dada, do you think the FreeStaters would consider putting up a telephone line for the whole country... It could be useful.

Will

[Scorpiusdeus]

I'm sorry but that little ad hom is definitively short sighted and simplistic
The police responded to a call about a man walking down the street with a holstered gun
That makes as much sense as them responding to a call about a man walking a leashed and muzzled Pit Bull down the street
If they respond they have wasted their own time

And if this guy had shot a bunch of people with his legally carried and holstered gun and it was latter determined that police had been called and the call was ignored..

I'm not sure where you live, but I live in the real world. Police do not just get to ignore calls of a man with a gun. Legal or illegal, they respond.

[Scorpiusdeus]

I'm sorry but that little ad hom is definitively short sighted and simplistic
The police responded to a call about a man walking down the street with a holstered gun
That makes as much sense as them responding to a call about a man walking a leashed and muzzled Pit Bull down the street
If they respond they have wasted their own time

And if this guy had shot a bunch of people with his legally carried and holstered gun and it was later determined that police had been called and the call was ignored..

I'm not sure where you live, but I live in the real world. Police do not just get to ignore calls of a man with a gun. Legal or illegal, they respond.

You are now the second person in this thread to claim the OP was wasting police resources. Humor me and explain your position in the following context:

- The OP did not call the police on himself, either somebody else called or the first officer stopped him on his own
- The OP was involuntarily detained
- The first officer called two other officers to the scene in response to a lawful activity


If this had happened in the normal course of his day, I'd agree, but it is clear that he walks around flaunting his open carry with the intention of having the police called. As I said, pretty fortuitous that a video camera just happened to be there huh?

He was unlawfully detained? Did he ask to leave and was he refused the right to leave because I didn't hear that part. If it's there, then it is, I just didn't hear it.

It's not illegal for me to wear a KKK teeshirt either, but If I do it in Harlem trying to prove that some black people won;t respect my right to free speech then I'm 1) asking for trouble 2) can be pretty sure police will be involved and 3) wasting valuable police resources.

The OP provoked this incident and waited for the outcome he expected. When people call the police, they respond. I seriously doubt that officer was just driving buy and in the other video the officer clearly states they'd had four calls about this.

You know how you promote open carry and display your rights? You just do it. No video cameras or group of buddies needed.

[Scorpiusdeus]

This is the kind of problem I want to have....people reacting in disbelief when I show them how fast and effective these folks are becoming. this is their reaction speed when they are caught off guard, I kid you not. There was no expectation this would happen

I made sure to watch the other videos about your little group. How about the one where a member of your group enters the IRS office in protest? She clearly states in the beginning, she's there to "GET ARRESTED". YOU people are looking for confrontation. I will say here and now that I simply don't believe otherwise after seeing a number of your videos.

I'm supposed to believe that despite the other incidents that you guys taped where your members ADMIT on tape to wanting to be arrested, that this one time, where you were ready for it, it was just a coincidence? Sorry, that doesn't pass the smell test.

I don't agree with your methods, but I give you credit for taking a stand. I'm happy you support 2A and the right to open carry. I think that's great and more power to you, but I don't agree with the way yo go about it.

[Sistema1927]

And if this guy had shot a bunch of people with his legally carried and holstered gun and it was latter determined that police had been called and the call was ignored.

#1, the courts have already ruled that the police are under no obligation to protect you.

#2, let's turn it around a bit: And if this guy is killed by an assailant after his legally carried and holstered gun was confiscated by police and it was later determined that police had been called and the call led to said confiscation.

Why are some people afraid of freedom? A gun is a tool, it can be used for good or for evil, just like a hammer, just like a car, just like fire, just like a propane tank. Free societies don't deny the use of tools just because they have the potential of being abused.

[Scorpiusdeus]

Why are some people afraid of freedom? Who said anyone was afraid of freedom?

I simply don't agree with this guys grandstanding.

[old4x4]

I can't stand people like this...Just stirring up trouble. Creating a problem where none existed before. Idiots.
The previous poster put it just right.

[brerrabbit]

Who is grandstanding or stirring up trouble? These people are just excercising thier rights and at the same time aggressively protecting them..

They all rank up there as my heroes. Especially the guy in the striped shirt. They are actually getting off their tuchusses and doing something.

[txgho1911]

Camcorders are much more common in daily routine and access for many more people now than in the past. Might be a good thing to make recording police action by non LEO and carcams common and accepted.

[Mantua]

If Dada is looking for confrontation by parking a little farther from his destination than he normally would, he's not looking very hard. And if he's being confrontational by openly carrying in a state where it's legal, more power to him. Now a few more LEOs are familiar with NH open carry law, as well as a few more citizens. And those Girl Scouts got what's coming to 'em ;)

[CPerdue]

Before the trolls get this thread locked I just have to ask,

How does the call-in recording system work? Can we use it too? How would I set one up and how much would it cost to operate?

As someone said about page #3, it is tiresome to have accounts of these LEO interactions without records of the events. The apparent ease of recording this event is the best thing I've taken away from it.

Thanks,

C.

[Sistema1927]

Who said anyone was afraid of freedom?

I contend that comments such as:

And if this guy had shot a bunch of people with his legally carried and holstered gun and it was latter determined that police had been called and the call was ignored.

are prima facie evidence of a fear of freedom.

"Oh no, we have to call out the cops to investigate anytime someone sees a citizen carrying a gun. Who knows what he might do with it?"

[ScottS]

I thought it was an officer safety issue not an impending criminal activity issue. I've gotten Terry love during a traffic stop where I disclosed that I had a gun in my glovebox.

Here's the actual text of the Terry decision. Note the two part test (highlighted).

"We merely hold today that where a police officer observes unusual conduct which leads him reasonably to conclude in light of his experience that criminal activity may be afoot and that the persons with whom he is dealing may be armed and presently dangerous, where in the course of investigating this behavior he identifies himself as a policeman and makes reasonable inquiries, and where nothing in the initial stages of the encounter serves to dispel his reasonable fear for his own or others' safety, he is entitled for the protection of himself and others in the area to conduct a carefully limited search of the outer clothing of such persons in an attempt to discover weapons which might be used to assault him."

[Flyboy]

I mean so what if you have this right or that, why would you choose to act like you did
That's right. Ignore your rights and they'll go away.

[USMC6177]

In reference to the legality of recording a police official, I think there was a case recently where an individual was prosecuted for taping a police officer during a traffic stop and the prosecutor argued that the voice recording was illegal because it fell under the laws againest illegal wire tapping. I think they were successful in the prosecution not 100% sure though I will do some research once I get home from work.

[ScottS]

In reference to the legality of recording a police official, I think there was a case recently where an individual was prosecuted for taping a police officer during a traffic stop and the prosecutor argued that the voice recording was illegal because it fell under the laws againest illegal wire tapping. I think they were successful in the prosecution not 100% sure though I will do some research once I get home from work.This varies by state, according to state law. Some states allow "1 party recording," that is, if one party to the conversation consents to the recording, it is legal to do so. Some states require both parties to be aware of/consent to the recording for it to be legal.

If you recall, Linda Tripp got into hot water when she recorded her conversations with Sword-Swallower Monica, because she did so in Maryland (two party state) and not Virginia (one party state).

[brerrabbit]

The first argument for recording police involves a simple doctrine. They are public officials with no expectation of privacy. Current USSC decisions pretty much state the same. If the LEO in the audience do not like the fact, find another line of employment.

The second argument is the first amendment. This provides for freedom of the press. A video recording of police engaged in activity not protected by law is sometimes a newsworth event. Considering how easy it is to freelance material to a news network, freedom of the press has been expanded upon in the last 30 years. Thus any recorder of material pretty much has the same protections as a reporter for a major news network, especially if they have provided news to a network that a court considers a news source in the past.

[joab]

And if this guy had shot a bunch of people with his legally carried and holstered gun and it was latter determined that police had been called and the call was ignored..Are you for real or just stirring the pot

Think about this just a little and apply my pit bull comment

Suppose the man legally walking his leashed Pit Bull decides to unleash him on a group of school children after the police were called, anyone going to blame the cops
Are the police to blame for not responding to a non crime?
Now put that together with Sistema's verifiable true comment and what do we have
I'm not sure where you live, but I live in the real world. Police do not just get to ignore calls of a man with a gun. Legal or illegal, they respond.Where I live the police do not routinely respond to non crimes

I see kids on their way to the park every day carrying baseball bats
Ten bucks says the police would not respond if I called them to say that there was a group of kids over at the baseball diamond carrying what looks like big sticks

Also where the two of us live open carry is illegal so the cops would certainly have the right to detain and question us, we would also be legally arrested for the offense

I'd agree, but it is clear that he walks around flaunting his open carry with the intention of having the police called. Well how damn dare he walk down the street like a citizen committing no crime, when he is in fact flaunting the fact that he is committing no crime.

[IA_farmboy]

For those looking for a number to call to record your conversation with a LEO I have one for y'all...

911

I do believe that number is staffed 24/7 with people that automatically record all calls they receive. I haven't tried the service myself but I do believe they answer the phone right quick.

[error]

As the person who created the Porc-411 recording system, I have a few observations to make and a few details to share, especially as several people here are basing their opinions on misunderstanding or misinformation.

First, as best we can tell, there were no 911 or other emergency calls made as a result of Dave attempting to walk 50 yards north on Elm Street to his destination, the building with the large windows which is visible in some of the scenes in the video.

Second, it was not a Manchester police officer who stopped Dave, but a state trooper. As best we can tell, he was eastbound on Auburn Street, happened to see Dave and turned south onto Elm. Dave's crossdraw holster would not have been easily visible from Elm Street as he walked northbound, but could be seen easily by someone eastbound on Auburn approaching Elm.

During the stop, as best we can tell, the trooper called in Manchester PD. "Four calls," as far as I know, is misleading. There may have been four calls between various LEOs, but it's highly doubtful there were four 911 calls. And even if there were, a state trooper would not normally respond to a 911 call within the city, especially near downtown where local police pass by frequently.

My personal opinion, based on my personal knowledge of the events, the original audio and video recordings, and my interviews with the people present, is that Dave did nothing whatsoever to provoke the incident; the state trooper did by making a legally dubious stop. He is quite correct to say, though, that we are quite prepared to defend our rights, and we have assembled a number of tools to assist with such defense.

One of those tools is Porc-411. It's an automated recording system whereby you call and can leave a message of unlimited duration. The message is recorded to a compressed audio file which is then e-mailed out to a mailing list, most of whom are here in New Hampshire (there are 3 or 4 reporters from out of state who are subscribed).

The videographer, who has been recording Free State Project activities for several months now, mixed this recording with the audio from his camera in order to provide better sound coverage, though as you may have heard, it's hard to get good audio off a cell phone.

I don't think a "national" number similar to this would work, simply because too many of the calls which would come in on it would be for events taking place far away from most of the subscribers. If you live in Florida, hearing immediately about something going on in Utah doesn't do you a whole lot of good, since you can't respond by traveling to the scene.

It works as a statewide number in New Hampshire since the state is fairly small, but for most of the rest of the country, I think a series of numbers, each for a particular region, would be a lot more effective, since people would actually have a chance of being able to make a meaningful response to whatever happens to be going on.

[kingpin008]

For those looking for a number to call to record your conversation with a LEO I have one for y'all...

911

I do believe that number is staffed 24/7 with people that automatically record all calls they receive. I haven't tried the service myself but I do believe they answer the phone right quick.


Yea, unless they're taking a nap:

http://www.kirotv.com/news/4329110/detail.html

http://www.kirotv.com/news/3618760/detail.html

Or the signals get screwed up:

http://hematite.com/dragon/die911.html

http://www.wpxi.com/news/10292983/detail.html

But sure - that's hardly ever going to happen. The system is COMPLETELY reliable and all we need should an emergency present itself.:barf::rolleyes::barf:

[JaxNovice]

I am jumping in here a little late in the game. MY $.02 is that regardless if you feel you are right or wrong, you do what police officer tells you to do when he/she tells you to do it. You then file a complaint. I don't know you but from what I observed you tried to bait a confrontation, got a bite and then escalated it.

[DadaOrwell2]

<<Dada, do you think the FreeStaters would consider putting up a telephone line for the whole country... It could be useful.>>

I don't like the idea of stretching ourselves beyond NH much....
the whole idea is concentrating our efforts in a limited geographical area.

Sure things will happen out of state which some of us get involved in. But if people want to really come under our umbrella they're going to need to move here