NH: Vid of my latest open carry incident


PDA






Pages : [1] 2

DadaOrwell2
August 6, 2007, 07:21 PM
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

If you enjoyed reading about "NH: Vid of my latest open carry incident" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
MD_Willington
August 6, 2007, 07:46 PM
go bust the girl scouts... lol

Geno
August 6, 2007, 07:47 PM
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
August 6, 2007, 08:07 PM
^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
August 6, 2007, 08:24 PM
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
August 6, 2007, 08:32 PM
From where I sit--just amazing.

Bravo.

GRB
August 6, 2007, 09:19 PM
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
August 6, 2007, 09:43 PM
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
August 6, 2007, 09:44 PM
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
August 6, 2007, 10:04 PM
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
August 6, 2007, 10:10 PM
>>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
August 6, 2007, 10:12 PM
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
August 6, 2007, 10:19 PM
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
August 6, 2007, 10:37 PM
Tell us about your T-shirt. Also, the laminated badge you were wearing.

goings_51
August 6, 2007, 10:39 PM
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
August 6, 2007, 10:44 PM
G21: Please stay in California. :barf:

Geno
August 6, 2007, 10:45 PM
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
August 6, 2007, 10:49 PM
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
August 6, 2007, 10:51 PM
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
August 6, 2007, 10:53 PM
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.

Geno
August 6, 2007, 10:56 PM
"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
August 6, 2007, 10:59 PM
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
August 6, 2007, 11:01 PM
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
August 6, 2007, 11:02 PM
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
August 6, 2007, 11:09 PM
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.

Geno
August 6, 2007, 11:11 PM
Praise the Lord! Finally, common sense prevails! God bless you!!!

And yes, your statements are spot-on!

Doc2005

kingpin008
August 6, 2007, 11:11 PM
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
August 6, 2007, 11:14 PM
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.

Geno
August 6, 2007, 11:14 PM
Kingpin: We don't need more name-calling...that isn't a fact. :rolleyes:

goings_51
August 6, 2007, 11:16 PM
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 **********. 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
August 6, 2007, 11:20 PM
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
August 6, 2007, 11:23 PM
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
August 6, 2007, 11:29 PM
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
August 6, 2007, 11:32 PM
Rude behavior will not be tolerated here. Please practice the non-aggression principle on THR.

Albatross
August 6, 2007, 11:35 PM
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
August 6, 2007, 11:46 PM
The guy in the backround repeating "this is rediculous" is really annoying. Didn't help things out at all

goings_51
August 6, 2007, 11:47 PM
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.

Geno
August 6, 2007, 11:49 PM
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
August 7, 2007, 12:16 AM
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
August 7, 2007, 12:18 AM
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
August 7, 2007, 01:29 AM
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
August 7, 2007, 01:29 AM
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.
August 7, 2007, 02:38 AM
bravo. Well done.

Did they bust the girl scouts?

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

Aloha!
August 7, 2007, 07:51 AM
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
August 7, 2007, 08:01 AM
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
August 7, 2007, 08:04 AM
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
August 7, 2007, 08:33 AM
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
August 7, 2007, 08:52 AM
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
August 7, 2007, 08:56 AM
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
August 7, 2007, 09:50 AM
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
August 7, 2007, 09:57 AM
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
August 7, 2007, 10:17 AM
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
August 7, 2007, 10:27 AM
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
August 7, 2007, 10:31 AM
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
August 7, 2007, 10:41 AM
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

Geno
August 7, 2007, 10:51 AM
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
August 7, 2007, 10:55 AM
Sometimes plenty of publicity is needed to stop police (or other authorities) from wrongly infringing on rights, in order to end such infringements.

scubie02
August 7, 2007, 10:56 AM
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
August 7, 2007, 11:00 AM
I think I am going to do something like this over here in Utah. Once again congratulations!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Geno
August 7, 2007, 11:05 AM
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
August 7, 2007, 11:13 AM
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.

Geno
August 7, 2007, 11:26 AM
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
August 7, 2007, 11:37 AM
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
August 7, 2007, 02:53 PM
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
August 7, 2007, 03:12 PM
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
August 7, 2007, 04:19 PM
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
August 7, 2007, 04:59 PM
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
August 7, 2007, 05:29 PM
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
August 7, 2007, 06:40 PM
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
August 7, 2007, 07:09 PM
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
August 7, 2007, 07:22 PM
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
August 7, 2007, 08:13 PM
Good to see that it all ended well - nicely done.

03Shadowbob
August 7, 2007, 09:00 PM
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
August 7, 2007, 09:38 PM
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
August 7, 2007, 10:06 PM
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
August 7, 2007, 10:38 PM
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
August 7, 2007, 10:50 PM
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
August 7, 2007, 11:11 PM
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
August 7, 2007, 11:16 PM
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
August 8, 2007, 12:00 AM
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
August 8, 2007, 12:42 AM
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
August 8, 2007, 12:56 AM
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
August 8, 2007, 01:55 AM
<< 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
August 8, 2007, 12:47 PM
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
August 8, 2007, 12:57 PM
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
August 8, 2007, 01:15 PM
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
August 8, 2007, 01:32 PM
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
August 8, 2007, 02:04 PM
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
August 8, 2007, 02:06 PM
Is there any plan of activism going on here?

DigitalWarrior
August 8, 2007, 02:55 PM
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
August 8, 2007, 03:46 PM
"If a man neglects to enforce his rights, he cannot complain if, after a while, the law follows his example."

Oliver Wendell Holmes

rich636
August 8, 2007, 04:26 PM
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
August 8, 2007, 04:46 PM
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
August 8, 2007, 05:06 PM
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
August 8, 2007, 05:37 PM
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
August 8, 2007, 05:43 PM
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
August 8, 2007, 05:53 PM
Sucks but a felony arrest and your rights are gone.

Actually it would take a felony conviction

AntiqueCollector
August 8, 2007, 07:22 PM
A criminal is not going to carry openly and attract attention in an area known for the police to hassle those open carrying.

rich636
August 8, 2007, 07:37 PM
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
August 8, 2007, 08:00 PM
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
August 8, 2007, 11:46 PM
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
August 9, 2007, 05:25 AM
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
August 9, 2007, 08:20 AM
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
August 9, 2007, 08:31 AM
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
August 9, 2007, 08:55 AM
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
August 9, 2007, 09:20 AM
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
August 9, 2007, 09:34 AM
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
August 9, 2007, 10:03 AM
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
August 9, 2007, 10:21 AM
and where are all these young arab males going to find all these old non-arab females wanting to be suicide bombers...?

DigitalWarrior
August 9, 2007, 10:58 AM
Chechnya

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

DigitalWarrior
August 9, 2007, 11:00 AM
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
August 9, 2007, 04:30 PM
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
August 9, 2007, 04:46 PM
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
August 9, 2007, 05:02 PM
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
August 9, 2007, 06:02 PM
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
August 9, 2007, 06:13 PM
Why are some people afraid of freedom? Who said anyone was afraid of freedom?

I simply don't agree with this guys grandstanding.

old4x4
August 9, 2007, 06:22 PM
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
August 9, 2007, 06:40 PM
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
August 9, 2007, 06:54 PM
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
August 9, 2007, 08:21 PM
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
August 9, 2007, 09:05 PM
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
August 9, 2007, 09:17 PM
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
August 9, 2007, 10:12 PM
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
August 9, 2007, 10:18 PM
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
August 9, 2007, 10:19 PM
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
August 9, 2007, 10:26 PM
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
August 9, 2007, 10:44 PM
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
August 9, 2007, 11:05 PM
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
August 10, 2007, 12:06 AM
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
August 10, 2007, 01:03 AM
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
August 10, 2007, 02:26 AM
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
August 10, 2007, 06:12 AM
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
August 10, 2007, 08:39 AM
<<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

DadaOrwell2
August 10, 2007, 08:49 AM
<< 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? >>

contact "beavis" and "error" at forum.nhfree.com for details on setting one up.

If we get out of state calls they will take lower priority, especially if we don't know you. but you can call from out of state sure. from out of state you can also subscribe to hear the calls....we're always in need of more people monitoring or transcribing the incoming calls...the more of those we have the faster our response time will be.

bear in mind the rapid response this time was because people were watching from nearby, not because they got the 411 call. 411 just send to peoples' email; then it's usually 20 minutes or so before an emergency message ends up on forum.NHfree.com.

We still have a ways to go before it's a full fledged citizen 911.....but it's a start.

Sistema1927
August 10, 2007, 08:58 AM
you do what police officer tells you to do when he/she tells you to do it. You then file a complaint.

Are you for real?

"Papers! Ah, Juden. Get in the train car. You can file a complaint later."

"You there boy. We gonna put this rope around your neck. You can file a complaint later."

"The Mayor didn't like your last editorial. Stand back while we smash your printing press. You can file a complaint later."

Don't exercise your rights, and they will soon go away.

Scorpiusdeus
August 10, 2007, 11:37 AM
"Papers! Ah, Juden. Get in the train car. You can file a complaint later."

"You there boy. We gonna put this rope around your neck. You can file a complaint later."

So now Law Enforcement officers are akin to the Nazis and the KKK?

Unreal. This tells me everything I need to know these "like minded" individuals.

JaxNovice
August 10, 2007, 12:15 PM
+1 scorp. Wow! he had some jump in logic.

Bottom line is if you confront and engage police officers you will lose that engagement. You will end up in jail, getting your ass kicked or shot. Whether I am right or wrong I am not really interested in any of those options. If a cop asked me for my ID I would comply without any hesitation and deal with it in a civil manner later.

Nazis and KKK give me break. Come back down to earth where the rest of us live.

ScottS
August 10, 2007, 12:19 PM
+1 scorp. Wow! he had some jump in logic.

Bottom line is if you confront and engage police officers you will lose that engagement. You will end up in jail, getting your ass kicked or shot. Whether I am right or wrong I am not really interested in any of those options. If a cop asked me for my ID I would comply without any hesitation and deal with it in a civil manner later. Really? Did this guy "end up in jail" or "get his ass kicked or shot?" I'll have to watch the video again.

The question is, "How far are you willing to be bent over?" Clearly you're willing to bend over a lot farther than the original poster.

Scorpiusdeus
August 10, 2007, 01:54 PM
Providing your Identification to an officer of the law is being bent over?

What it must be like to live in your little world. Do let us know how things are in the compound? Keep up the vigil for the Jackbooted soldiers of ZOG.

Jared Stenoien
August 10, 2007, 02:06 PM
"So now Law Enforcement officers are akin to the Nazis and the KKK?

Unreal. This tells me everything I need to know these "like minded" individuals."



What it should tell you is that they responded to an extremist attitude with another extremist attitude, which shows the fallacy of the prior statement. It's called hyperbole and, while it should not be, it is a commonly used debating technique.

JaxNovice
August 10, 2007, 02:08 PM
Actually Scott I was not limiting myself to this one instance. It was a generalization.

Sistema1927
August 10, 2007, 02:16 PM
What I think that many of you are missing is the fact that"

"Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely."

What does it take for law enforcement officers to become like Nazi stormtroopers, or a Bull Conner, or a printing press smasher?

Not much. It only takes a lack of vigilance on the part of free men who are constantly alert to abuses of power on the part of any official, elected, appointed, or hired. Our Founding Fathers recognized this, but many people today have become so blase that routine abuses of authority take place daily, and nobody bats an eye.

Why should a free man be hassled for carrying a weapon? Why should any pedestrian have to produce identification when no crime has been committed? Why should we turn a blind eye when police officers overstep their authority? Why would any citizen defend abuse of power?

Law Enforcement officers work for us. We ought to hold them accountable.

Sistema1927
August 10, 2007, 02:19 PM
If a cop asked me for my ID I would comply without any hesitation and deal with it in a civil manner later.

No, you wouldn't deal with it in any fashion later. You have already conceded that the police have the right to make you accede to their every demand. "May your chains lay lightly on you."

Scorpiusdeus
August 10, 2007, 02:28 PM
How you guys make the huge leap from allowing an officer to see your ID to the total enslavement of Americans is beyond me.

How does an officer determine if a crime has been committed? He stops and asks questions.

In this instance, he should have known better yes, but he didn't. It's called a mistake, not an abuse of authority. Again, I state that the OP never asked if he was free do go, and the officer never said he wasn't free to go. Am I wrong? I admit I may have missed it. Please point it out to me.

If an officer walks up to me on the street and asks me some questions, even though I've committed no crime, is THAT an abuse of power?

Orvanic
August 10, 2007, 03:09 PM
Old 4X4 and others who live in NH,

Let me ask you this little hypothetical...

NH Legislation is proposed which would make openly carrying a firearm a crime. Do you support it?

Hardly anyone chooses to open carry in NH anyway...right?

kingpin008
August 10, 2007, 03:29 PM
If an officer walks up to me on the street and asks me some questions, even though I've committed no crime, is THAT an abuse of power?

Absolutely not. However, if I am detained in any way, or forced in any way to answer those questions or provide ID, then it very much IS an abuse of power.

That's the point the commenters here are trying to make. If there is a reasonable cause for an officer to suspect ME of a specific crime, then I will agree wholeheartedly that I may be questioned in a reasonable manner in order to determine any involvement I may have. Otherwise, I deserve to be treated with respect, and not be expected to prove anything to the officer, including who I am and what I am legally able to do.

Scorpiusdeus
August 10, 2007, 04:24 PM
Quote:
If an officer walks up to me on the street and asks me some questions, even though I've committed no crime, is THAT an abuse of power?
Absolutely not. However, if I am detained in any way, or forced in any way to answer those questions or provide ID, then it very much IS an abuse of power.

So again I ask, was the original poster prevented from walking away? Did he ask if he was free to go? Did he just assume that he had to stay there, silly considering how aware he seems to be about his rights.

redneckrepairs
August 10, 2007, 04:38 PM
Well I saw Police officers interviewing an armed man on a city street ( not unreasonable IMHO in this day and age ) , I did not see the man being detained , or cuffed , or subjected to unreasonable police attention. IMHO the delays were caused by the OP and his buddy in the striped shirt . No one here was imho in the wrong or acting illegaly . The Officers had a duty to ascertain that an armed man headed to ( if i understood right ) a bar was not a public safety issue ( po'd hubby, disgruntled employee/patron ect. ) . The OP delayed this by his attitude and refusal to cooperate . Once this was established he was free to go . All concerned were within their rights/dutys and it worked out fine without incident, tho with an overabundance of drama .

Sistema1927
August 10, 2007, 04:56 PM
The Officers had a duty to ascertain that an armed man headed to ( if i understood right ) a bar was not a public safety issue ( po'd hubby, disgruntled employee/patron ect. ) .

The officer had no such duty. This is another example of people here believing that "guilty until proven innocent" is acceptable.

This thread has done something for me. It has shown me that the cause is lost. I mean, if participants on the internet's foremost firearms rights website don't respect the basic principles of liberty, what hope do we have with the "unwashed masses" of the electorate at large?

Scorpiusdeus
August 10, 2007, 05:16 PM
So the officer did nothing wrong. The Original poster was not detained but chose of his own free will to stand there and speak with the officer.

I think we're done here.

redneckrepairs
August 10, 2007, 05:46 PM
I have said all i can on the subject. Were i to state my opinion(s) on this type stunt the post would not be fit for the high road .

I am in no way anti OC do it if you want , You can also deal with the increased police contact that comes from OC in a populated area . Be it done for Education or Irritation its bad form to precipitate such an incident and gains us no supporters of the 2nd.

My take on things as polite as i can voice them .

JaxNovice
August 10, 2007, 05:50 PM
Redneck, Even though I was raised a Yankee I give you the +1.

jaholder1971
August 10, 2007, 07:58 PM
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.

Kansas state law requires you present your driver's license or any state ID to any law enforcement officer or driver's license examiner whenever asked.

You agree to abide to these terms upon issuance of a license, same as giving up your right to refuse a breathalyzer.

ScottS
August 10, 2007, 09:07 PM
Kansas state law requires you present your driver's license or any state ID to any law enforcement officer or driver's license examiner whenever asked.

You agree to abide to these terms upon issuance of a license, same as giving up your right to refuse a breathalyzer.So you're saying in Kansas you have to show a driver's license even if you're not driving, or even near a vehicle? When you're just walking down the street? I find that very hard to believe, and would appreciate a cite to the applicable statute.

Nakedshoplifter
August 10, 2007, 10:37 PM
I spent 26 years of my life in Kansas and I've never heard of that. To require a person to show a DL or ID card, there would need to be a law stating all state residents must carry ID at all times. There is no such provision that I'm aware of. Additionally, wouldn't the state be required to provide the ID card for free if it required all its citizens to carry it?

IA_farmboy
August 11, 2007, 03:21 AM
Interesting little conversation we have here.

I would comply with every order given by a LEO.
Or...
I would comply, but if I thought the LEO was out of line I'd just file a complaint later.
Or...
What's the big deal? Hand over your ID and be done with it.
There are certain things a LEO can ask you to do, and certain things they cannot. Some tings a LEO may ask you to do may seem rather innocent at the time but might not seem so after you've gone about your merry way.

Imagine a LEO asked you to move to the back of a nearly empty bus. Depending on your mood or situation many might do so without thinking twice. Others might find it odd and do so anyway. Some would tell the officer to jump off a bridge. If no one said anything, or only filed a complaint, then how far do you think this might go? People became famous and honored heroes for not going to the back of the bus.

Many people might be surprised to find out how little some LEOs know about the laws they are supposed to enforce. Showing knowledge of your rights and not letting them get away with pushing you around will only make your life better.

You are required to show your government issued ID when asked at any time.
I disagree. I would also like to see the statute that states such. While those that think one is required to produce ID on demand are looking through their state laws I'll point out a certain fellow named Edward C. Lawson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_C._Lawson).

In some places a person is not even required to give their name to a LEO. In some places a person is required to give a name and address, verbally, when asked. At no time can a person be detained or arrested for the sole reason of not producing an ID on demand. No one needs a license to walk the street.

The LEO had every right to stop the person, he could have been up to trouble carrying a firearm like that.
Yes, he could have been on his way to a bar or a courthouse where firearms are illegal. He could have also been on his way to get groceries, or a newspaper. If the guy looked like he was going into a "gun free zone" then stop the guy at the door, not in the middle of the sidewalk.

The LEO did nothing wrong
The LEO did everything wrong. The only thing he did right was let the guy go when he was done hassling him. The biggest thing the LEO did wrong was not read up on the laws he is supposed to enforce.

The gun toting idiot did everything wrong
I'm not sure he did everything right but I'm pretty sure he got close. Good job.

Ford Prefect
August 11, 2007, 05:11 AM
Kansas state law requires you present your driver's license or any state ID to any law enforcement officer or driver's license examiner whenever asked.

You agree to abide to these terms upon issuance of a license, same as giving up your right to refuse a breathalyzer.

BS!!! Cite? I want to see that law, because it's pure fiction.
Your speaking of driving!!! Even then, they must have a reason to pull you over. You cannot be randomly stopped on the street.

Any where the American flag flies you have a RIGHT not to be detained or investigated without cause. The officer must have a specific reason to investigate YOU.
This has been hashed out in the supreme court repeatedly. The police can not stop someone walking down the street unless they suspect a crime is being commited by that person. Never.
That was a standard harassment technique against blacks before the civil rights movement. It is now illegal everywhere in this country.

FieroCDSP
August 11, 2007, 07:08 AM
I think a lot of the "stop being dumb and listen to the cop" views are directly related to being indoctrinated the the cops are the sole authority. Scorpiusdeus lists that he's from **********, where we know the cops can be *ahem* enthusiastic at times. No doubt if you were OC a gun there, you're probably in violation of something, thus probable cause for a stop.
Scorp, not everywhere is like California. Here in Ohio, minus a few places, the cops are fair, know what their legal restraints are, and don't go out of their way to hassle people. That does not necessarily mean that they are familiar with every law. I'm sure that if I walked down the streets of Columbus OC, I'd probably get stopped, and likely arrested, but have the charges dropped under the recent pre-emption. This is because that pre-emption is being kept alive by cities unwilling to listen to the state issue a law overrulling their own.

Scorp, and everyone else, please understand that what may be true where you live, is not necessarily the truth everywhere. That also does not mean that our rights are being violated or observed the same everywhere.

Schwebel
August 11, 2007, 09:50 AM
I totally agree with RedneckRepairs on this issue. I also am not anti-OC, but if you do it, be prepared to take some flak, and don't whine about it when you do. Also the whole not showing ID to police and staying on the phone thing seemed rude, their jobs are hard enough as it is. I have no reason not to identify myself or to cooperate with any reasonable request from a LEO, whether b/c of a law, or out of respect. And that striped shirt guy....he just needed to shut up, he was annoying. If you are going to challenge a LEO's request, tell your squirlly loud mouthed friend to take a hike. He ruined anything this video was trying to acomplish by being a jerk.

ScottS
August 11, 2007, 11:28 AM
I have no reason not to identify myself or to cooperate with any reasonable request from a [sic] LEO, whether b/c of a law, or out of respect. For the sake of discussion, would you consent to a random search of your car or person if an LEO requested it? After all, if you have "no reason not to" as you state in the ID request, then would you consent to a search? You know, would you "cooperate with a reasonable request...out of respect?"

Why is it that any infringement of Second Amendment rights is considered vile, but infringement on Fourth Amendment rights are considered "reasonable requests?"

joab
August 11, 2007, 12:51 PM
I totally agree with RedneckRepairs on this issue. I also am not anti-OC, but if you do it, be prepared to take some flak, and don't whine about it when you do. Also the whole not showing ID to police and staying on the phone thing seemed rude, their jobs are hard enough as it is. I have no reason not to identify myself or to cooperate with any reasonable request from a LEO, whether b/c of a law, or out of respect. And that striped shirt guy....he just needed to shut up, he was annoying. If you are going to challenge a LEO's request, tell your squirlly loud mouthed friend to take a hike. He ruined anything this video was trying to acomplish by being a jerk.True Stripey Shirt was annoying, but no more annoying than this type of call to subjugation
Cops are not there for respect they are there to investigate crimes and apprehend criminals, period
You may think that you have no reason to provide ID but we know that you have no reason to provide it
When you do provide it he writes it down in that little notebook he had in his hand, why would he do that?
If the incident is over as soon as it's over why would he have the need to record your info?

If their jobs are hard enough why do they want to make it harder by going outside the scope of their job?
Lots pf people have hard jobs, doesn't mean we have to cater to them when they go outside the scope of that job

As for the whining
I just have to assume that you did not bother to ascertain the purpose of the exercise before you made your comment
You can read the OP if you need to
It was fully explained there

BlkHawk73
August 11, 2007, 01:03 PM
My thoughts... If you purposely do something to showcase what you're doing, you should expect some sort of incident. In this case it was openly carrying a firearm. While perfectly legal, it does and will casue alarm to those unknowing. I see nothing wrong with the initial stop to question the person about the act. The police have the duty to ensure the safety of the public and if this type of behavior causes alarm well...you get what you ask for. Coming off as a "my right, my right, " polite-mouth (as apposed to beligerant loudmouth) doesn't make the situation better. It gives negative attention to the situation and the cause of what is trying to be done. rathe than playing br big shot, and all the other crap, I bet the outcome would've been much better if handled differently. If it weren't for the video, I'd have thought it was a schoolyard argument. (kids do things just for the attention ya know) I could continue but it's not the place here on THR. Bottom line to my thoughts...if you do something you KNOW will cause a stir and proberly ensure a police contact, you're a freakin' moron. Activist or otherwise, the way one presnts themselves to further a cause says a lot about the casue they belive in and it's the un-knowing public that sees the negative side of this. It's the general public that you want to see positives. This incident did nothing for furthering any pro-gun attitude and proberly even less for carry laws. Good job for making the restof us look like smart-butts. :cuss:

BlkHawk73
August 11, 2007, 01:09 PM
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?


Eating breakast also doesn't alert others to the extent that a firearm does. Really bad comparison!

BlkHawk73
August 11, 2007, 01:13 PM
Ok, another thought...Pretty clear it's a whole activist thing here. In the past what other activist have there been? A LOT! Take a think about some of them and how they see thier side and thier beliefs as the only true and absolute correct way. The word itself even congures up a sort of negative feel because of the extreme tunnel vision and inabilty to see the whole picture. They focus solely on thier vision, thier views, thier beliefs. That gives the public a bad view of the activists and thier cause.
Anyways, there's surely better ways to get one's message across.

joab
August 11, 2007, 01:31 PM
Anyways, there's surely better ways to get one's message across.Tell me a better way that lawfully walking down the street committing no crime.
And can you point to another "activist" that has ever tried this approach?

What are the chances that this is a known Freestater hangout that is loosely monitored by the police?
Would collecting names and info look any different then?

ScottS
August 11, 2007, 01:32 PM
Eating breakast also doesn't alert others to the extent that a firearm does. Really bad comparison!
The extent to which it "alerts" others is irrelevant, as would be a black man eating at an otherwise all-white lunch counter "alerting" other patrons. Either it's a right, or it's not.

And speaking of that, here's what the New Hampshire Attorney General has to say on open carry: "...open carry is regarded as a Right, and though any citizen may call the police if they observe someone carrying a gun openly, that citizen's 'annoyance and alarm' does not override the Right to carry openly."

As far as other states go, I can't speak for them, but here it's regarded as a right, recognized by the Chief LEO in the state.

newman32
August 11, 2007, 01:56 PM
After reading all this, I also think this cause is doomed. :uhoh: NJ is the future folks. Come here and you will see what is in store for NH and the rest of the country. If you don't like what you see as your future, then give this guy some credit and support while there is still time to make a difference.

I just don't understand how Dada (OP) or anyone who chooses to do something that is completely LEGAL, should be burdened with the expectation of, or actual harassment from Police. Prior to the stop, Dada did NOTHING wrong. OC is LEGAL in NH, period. What Dada SHOULD expect, is the right to go about his business WITHOUT harassment from anyone, because he was doing NOTHING wrong. I would also hope he could expect more support from the 2A community.

One parallel I could think of. Lets pretend this video was all about voting, the way you look, and not OC. What if Data were hassled by authorities because he "looked" a certain way, and because of that, he expected to be hassled on the way to the voting booth, and so he decided not to vote? Think that's ever happened in America? Should he have behaved differently? Would you be more supportive?

For those who think the Police have a duty to check him out to determine his motives, why stop there? Maybe we all should all be stopped before leaving home every day and questioned by a qualified official as to our intentions that day. Sounds good to me. Maybe a quick questionnaire or thought-scan? It wouldn't take up too much of your time, and after all the government's job is to protect the public. The police just want to make sure, ya know?

Maybe most here don't like OC because they fear the dirty looks of the little sheep or expect to be hassled by cops. Well, how do you think that paradigm will ever change unless more people do it? How will it ever change in people's minds that (guy+ gun = OK) and not (guy+gun=nutjob) ???? Maybe some more letters to the Senators will help. :rolleyes:

I don't OC because I live someplace where I WOULD get arrested. I will never never never never have that legal right here in NJ. So, arguments aside of weather or not it was in good taste, or rude, or whatever, if you do not defend and exercise your rights, whatever they are, you WILL lose them. Once they are gone, they will never return.

Come to Jersey to see the future.

joab
August 11, 2007, 01:56 PM
The extent to which it "alerts" others is irrelevant, as would be a black man eating at an otherwise all-white lunch counter "alerting" other patrons. Either it's a right, or it's not.My only exception to that statement would be that right or wrong has nothing to do with it. Legal or illegal is all that matters( I know that's what you meant, but someone was going to comment)

"...open carry is regarded as a Right, and though any citizen may call the police if they observe someone carrying a gun openly, that citizen's 'annoyance and alarm' does not override the Right to carry openly."

Good research
Anyone care to respond as to how the officers were just doing their job in contradiction to what their boss thinks their job is?

ScottS
August 11, 2007, 04:24 PM
My only exception to that statement would be that right or wrong has nothing to do with it. Legal or illegal is all that matters( I know that's what you meant, but someone was going to comment)
You are exactly correct, of course. Poorly worded on my part.

ATW525
August 11, 2007, 05:24 PM
And speaking of that, here's what the New Hampshire Attorney General has to say on open carry: "...open carry is regarded as a Right, and though any citizen may call the police if they observe someone carrying a gun openly, that citizen's 'annoyance and alarm' does not override the Right to carry openly."

The quote is actually from Chief Donovan of Salem, NH (relating what the State AG has informed his staff on the issue of open carry), but you left out the rest, "We are obligated to investigate the complaining citizen’s complaint, but once it is determined that there is no substance to the complaint, the citizen openly carrying must be allowed to carry on with his/her business."

That would appear to be what occured in the video unless I'm missing something. The police investigated, found no crime and everybody went on their way.

Also, further down in the same letter he mentions, "Also, open carry does not include carrying a firearm in a motor vehicle." Which is true... it's generally a crime to carry a loaded handgun in motor vehicle. With an exception for people with Pistol & Revolver permits. If the trooper had seen the OP leave his car with the pistol, it seems perfectly reasonable for him to investigate what would appear to be criminal activity under normal circumstances.

brerrabbit
August 11, 2007, 06:26 PM
ATW

IIRC the original poster does have a weapons permit. What you are saying is that it is reasonable for an LEO to investigate someone leaving a vehicle while performing an action that it would take a licence to do legally.

How many people are accosted by police while leaving their vehicles to make sure they have valid drivers licenses while performing no other suspicious or illegal activity. Heck I can go down town and see many people leaving their vehicles all the time in front of police and not see them being checked..

No, it does not seem reasonable to me.

jaholder1971
August 11, 2007, 06:56 PM
BS!!! Cite? I want to see that law, because it's pure fiction.
Your speaking of driving!!! Even then, they must have a reason to pull you over. You cannot be randomly stopped on the street.


http://www.ksrevenue.org/pdf/dlhb.pdf

Very top of page 8. Must have it on person while driving and present to LEO, judge or DL examiner upon request. Don't like it, turn in your DL, I didn't make the rules.

After more looking I cannot find the exact statute #, but here's another reference:

http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/terrorwar/liberties/2004/0621identification.htm

Kansas is one of the states with these laws on the books.
http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/terrorwar/liberties/2004/0621identification.htm

03Shadowbob
August 11, 2007, 08:57 PM
So Dada, were you detained? Were you not allowed to walk away? Did you ask him if you were being detained? If you weren't being detained then this whole video is just a conversation on the sidewalk between a few guys. How did the cop do anything wrong besides asking for ID? And even then, he asked him for it, he didn't demand it.
I agree with Redneckreparis and others on this.
I would rather not have someone like the OP lobbying for 2A rights.I agree that shock value is good but there is a fine line where it is more damaging to the intended message than helpful.

ATW525
August 11, 2007, 09:09 PM
ATW

IIRC the original poster does have a weapons permit. What you are saying is that it is reasonable for an LEO to investigate someone leaving a vehicle while performing an action that it would take a licence to do legally.

How many people are accosted by police while leaving their vehicles to make sure they have valid drivers licenses while performing no other suspicious or illegal activity. Heck I can go down town and see many people leaving their vehicles all the time in front of police and not see them being checked..

No, it does not seem reasonable to me.

Getting out of a car is perfectly normal activity for a licensed driver. Getting out of a car while open carrying in downtown Manchester, NH is an abnormal activity for a concealed permit holder. I live here and I can count the number of people I've personally seen doing it on one hand and still have four fingers and a thumb left over. I would consider the notion that the police shouldn't take an interest in you in those circumstances to be unreasonable and utterly ridiculous. If your going to do something outside the social norms, you're going to attract attention to yourself.

I'm not against open carry by any means, but I think if you're going to put your firearm out for public display you need to be able to accept what comes with that. Personally I value my right to privacy and choose to keep my firearms private by the use of concealment.

I would also be appalled if the police had laid hands on somebody for legal open carry, confiscated their gun or slapped handcuffs on them. However none of that occured. They approached, asked some questions and eventually left, all the while keeping remarkably cool in the face of the unpleasent gentleman in the striped shirt. Ooooh... what big mean bullies they were... they must've violated his civil rights because they asked questions... multiple times even. How horrible! And when he didn't cooperate, what did they do? Did they break out the rubber hoses? No... they asked again! The nerve of them! What tyrants!

ScottS
August 11, 2007, 09:17 PM
The quote is actually from Chief Donovan of Salem, NH (relating what the State AG has informed his staff on the issue of open carry), but you left out the rest, "We are obligated to investigate the complaining citizen’s complaint, but once it is determined that there is no substance to the complaint, the citizen openly carrying must be allowed to carry on with his/her business."It's my understanding Donovan was, in fact, quoting the AG opinion, and not paraphrasing. No matter, really. The point is, there is no requirement to stop someone to investigate the complaint. If the "offender" is simply walking down the street, i.e. breaking no law, once the officer determines that, there is "no substance to the complaint."

My objection is not that he was stopped, but that the original officer was ignorant of the facts surrounding OC, and that he had to be "educated" by the other responding officers. I also thought the "Girl Scout" poster thing made the officers look petty. "Are these yours!? They can't be posted here!" Oops.

BTW, it's a pet peeve, but words mean things. It's a Pistol and Revolver License, not a permit. No one is asking for nor granting permission for anything.

ATW525
August 11, 2007, 09:34 PM
BTW, it's a pet peeve, but words mean things. It's a Pistol and Revolver License, not a permit. No one is asking for nor granting permission for anything.

Could be, but the Manchester PD calls it a permit (http://www.manchesternh.gov/forms/mpdpistolpermitapp.asp), which is good enough for me.

AntiqueCollector
August 11, 2007, 09:54 PM
One of the points behind open carrying in a state like NH would be...no permit needed! Therefore, it's unreasonable to be asked for a license for something that doesn't require it. You can be asked to present a driver's license if you're pulled over/stopped while driving but someone walking around is entirely different.

If he didn't have a CCW and it's needed to have the gun loaded in the car, that's also not reason to stop him. He was already out of the car when he was stopped. He could very easily have had the gun unloaded and then loaded it when he got out. And people are presumed innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around. So, again, the police had no legitimate reasons for harrassing anyone open carrying like this.

ScottS
August 11, 2007, 10:30 PM
Could be, but the Manchester PD calls it a permit, which is good enough for me.The Manchester PD can call it a library card if they want, but that doesn't make it one. It clearly says "Pistol/Revolver License" across the top of the form, as well in the enabling Statute.

And thanks for pointing that website out. The MPD has evidently been requiring people come to the station to pick up their license. ("...you would have to return to the Station to pick up your permit.") NH RSA Section 159:6 clearly says "The original shall be delivered to the licensee and the duplicate shall be preserved by the people issuing the same for 4 years." (Emphasis added.) Accordingly, mine has always been delivered to my door by an APD officer. I think I need to bring this to the attention of GO-NH and NHFC.

ATW525
August 11, 2007, 10:33 PM
And people are presumed innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around.

Totally irrelevent and nonsensical. If the police weren't allowed to investigate until people are proven guilty, nobody would ever be proven guilty. To be proven guilty you have to have to trial and to have a trial the police have to investigate. To say that the police can't investigate until after somebody is convicted is ridiculous.

brerrabbit
August 11, 2007, 10:33 PM
ATW

As posted before, The OP was in the legal clear. So should a black man eating at predominantly white eatery also be under suspicion because it is out of the norm? Or a black woman who dares to sit at the front of a bus? A person displaying an anti-war sign?

They are exercising their rights but as it is out of the norm, Under your standards they should expect to be scrutinized and held under a dubious street interrogation where they are not detained or under arrest but cannot leave until they clear themselves in the opinion of a LEO with dubious grasp on the law in the state.

At what point do you say that a person exercising the rights that they enjoy should not be under scrutiny?

I lived in the Kittery Maine/Portsmouth New Hampshire are back in the 80's/ early 90's during an overhaul of my boat. Back then, many of them did believe in the "Live Free or Die" motto.

ATW525
August 11, 2007, 11:00 PM
So should a black man eating at predominantly white eatery also be under suspicion because it is out of the norm?

Absolutely not as far as law enforcement goes. There's no legimate public safety interest in the color of his skin. In fact I'm reasonably sure that there's no danger he's going to kill anybody by looking black at them.

Or a black woman who dares to sit at the front of a bus?

I have no idea where you live, but black women can sit pretty much anywhere they want on the buses around here. If it's not the case in your neck of the woods, I suggest moving out of the 1950's.

A person displaying an anti-war sign?

Again, I'm not sure how this is abnormal?? I don't even notice these thing anymore because anti-war signs and stickers are a dime a dozen. Why would this be suspicious?

brerrabbit
August 11, 2007, 11:17 PM
My neck of the woods, thirty something years ago all of them would have ended up in jail for something we consider normal today.

All are exercising what are considered rights. ALL LEO in the state know or reasonably should know that it is legal. Harrassment by LEO for performing a legal action does not serve the cause of LEO very well either.

As per your post, any unusual activity by a citizen should involve scrutiny by LEO, even if the citizen is acting within within his or her rights. I believed you even clarified it as a matter where they may be breaking the law. Now you clarify that they may harrassed on not breaking the law but posing a threat to safety

So based on your belief system, anyone that may be breaking the law, even with no proof, as long as they look scary or have the possibility of causing harm, should be expect harrassment by LEO.

Sounds good for the driving while black crowd, Or for that matter any of fifty occupations that I could name offhand that routinely carry enough reactive chemicals that can cause a hundred times more death and destruction than a man with a gun could.

brerrabbit
August 11, 2007, 11:20 PM
Double post

joab
August 11, 2007, 11:28 PM
ATW525
But what two things do all those actions have in common with the OPs?

They are offensive to those that choose to be offended by them and they are perfectly legal

ATW525
August 12, 2007, 12:17 AM
As per your post, any unusual activity by a citizen should involve scrutiny by LEO, even if the citizen is acting within within his or her rights. I believed you even clarified it as a matter where they may be breaking the law. Now you clarify that they may harrassed on not breaking the law but posing a threat to safety

Reasonable suspicion is the standard that needs to be met to initiate an investigative stop. It's judged on the whole picture from the perspective of the officer which takes into account any abnormal behavior on the part of the subject (including his reaction upon seeing the officer), the likelyhood that a crime may have occured/is in progress/or is about about to occur, and the threat to public safety. It is also based on the previous experiences of the officer in question and the information he had on hand at the time.

With a few exceptions (such as the subject fleeing at the sight of the officer) there are no hard and fast black and white rules to determine reasonable suspicion. However, unlike probably cause, it requires only a minimal level of objective justification.

In Terry v. Ohio, which set the standard for investigative stops, the subjects were stopped after a detective had observed them walking back and forth, looking in a store window and conversing among each other. None of which are illegal acts. Yet the court found that the detective had reasonable suspicion that they might have been casing the place for a robbery based on the totality of the circumstances.

ATW525
August 12, 2007, 12:37 AM
But what two things do all those actions have in common with the OPs?

What don't they have in common with the OPs? Race isn't a valid criterion for reasonable suspicion (unless it's simply one facate of a more detailed description).

I'm also not aware of any incident where anti-war signs have been used as justification for a Terry stop either. Though it's true there are people who are offended by them, the stretch of imagination required to come up with a criminal use for an anti-war sign is probably beyond what reasonable people would call reasonable, or so I reasonably choose to believe.

However, knowledge that a subject is armed has successfully been used in the past as a component of reasonable suspicion.

absolut_beethoven
August 12, 2007, 01:58 AM
"If a man neglects to enforce his rights, he cannot complain if, after a while, the law follows his example."

Oliver Wendell Holmes


Thanks for that quote AnyC.

As an ex-South African who was fortunate enough NOT to be subjected to that country's pass laws due to my being born white, I cannot believe how many of you people on this board are only too happy and willing to give up our hard earned rights. That is, the few that we have left.

jaholder1971

Kansas state law requires you present your driver's license or any state ID to any law enforcement officer or driver's license examiner whenever asked.

Very top of page 8. Must have it on person while driving and present to LEO, judge or DL examiner upon request. Don't like it, turn in your DL, I didn't make the rules.

jaholder1971 - You have misinterpreted the law. You only have to carry your DL and are obligated to show it to LEO's while driving. If you are not driving, then you are neither required to carry it or show it. Yes, Kansas is one of the 21 states that you have to verbally ID yourself if requested by a LEO, but you are still NOT required to show them an ID. PERIOD. That is the law.

I have posted this link before, and IA_farmboy posted it again earlier in this thread. The United States Supreme Court has already ruled that all states that have such laws on the books are unconstitutional, thanks to Edward C. Lawson. Meaning...

a) You are NOT obligated to carry your DL with you when you aren't driving.

b) You are NOT obligated to show your DL to LEO's just because they ask for it, unless, as stated above, you are driving a car, or a bicycle etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_C._Lawson

jeepmor
August 12, 2007, 02:14 AM
any unusual activity by a citizen should involve scrutiny by LEO, even if the citizen is acting within within his or her rights.

:barf::barf::barf: :scrutiny: This attitude is giving your rights away folks, please don't do that.

This has been one of the best threads at causing people to show their true colors. I am 100% in support of the OP on this. I thought you dealt with the officers in quite a respectful manner. Striped shirt guy wasn't helping though, and in a place like Stumptown, he would have been carted off, I have little doubt.

Some of you who think you should just succumb to authority will be very easy to herd onto the trains. Just comply and we'll work it out after the fact. 6 million dead jews would disagree with your method, if they were around to discuss it.

jaholder1971
August 12, 2007, 03:14 AM
a_b,

Kansas has a "stop and identify" law. The Hiibel decision upheld it.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/terrorwar/liberties/2004/0621identification.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiibel

The driver's license book is very clear: you will present it to an LEO upon demand, says nothing about presenting it upon demand while driving. Besides, I don't think too many judges do traffic stops.

We have a number of cities in Kansas who allow open carry, but will arrest you for disorderly conduct if you do so. The DC statutes are very liberal in their interpretation.

joab
August 12, 2007, 08:24 AM
Race isn't a valid criterion for reasonable suspicionNeither is committing a lawful act

However, knowledge that a subject is armed has successfully been used in the past as a component of reasonable suspicion.Knowledge that the subject was legally armed in accordance with federal, state and local laws while breaking no other laws ?
Can you provide an example?

ATW525
August 12, 2007, 09:20 AM
Neither is committing a lawful act

Wrong. As I already mentioned, the suspects in Terry v. Ohio were committing lawful acts.

In Sokolow the suspects paid cash for two airline tickets from a large roll of $20 bills and the tickets were from Honolulu to Miami to stay for a 48 duration in July. Again perfectly legal acts, but taken as a whole they helped form the grounds of reasonable suspicion.

Reasonable suspicion is pretty much always based on the observation of lawful acts. If an officer observed an unlawful act, said officer would have probable cause to arrest (or a write citation depending on the degree of the crime), and not simply reasonable suspicion to investigate.

Knowledge that the subject was legally armed in accordance with federal, state and local laws while breaking no other laws ?
Can you provide an example?

How did the trooper in this case have that knowledge? He knew the OP was armed, but is unlikely to know from simply looking at him whether he was legally armed in accordance with federal, state and local laws while breaking no other laws. If our police officers were psychic we wouldn't need a reasonable suspicion standard... heck, we wouldn't even need trials.

Sistema1927
August 12, 2007, 09:27 AM
There's no legimate (sic) public safety interest in the color of his skin.

And neither should there be any legitimate public safety interest in the exercise of open carry. The fact that there are those who illegitimately believe that open carry is an invitation to LEO scrutiny is a sad commentary, sad indeed.

joab
August 12, 2007, 11:36 AM
How did the trooper in this case have that knowledge? He witnessed a man walking down the street openly carrying a gun in a lawful manner
His knowledge that no crime was being committed should have come from observation and applying that to a knowledge of the laws that he is tasked with enforcing

Would you think that e has the same right to stop a man walking down the street, bothering no one, if his hand was in his pocket or if he was wearing a back pack
Why is it that the state legislature would pass a law allowing open carry if they meant for the citizens practicing that lawful activity to be stopped and questioned for it?
I think the tiniest amount of common sense would tell us that that was not their intent

Your Terry analogy does not hold up because as I said there was no reason to believe that any crime was being or about to be committed by the lawful actions that the officer observed, which was the determining factor in the Terry decision

absolut_beethoven
August 12, 2007, 11:39 AM
And in Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352 (1983), the Court struck down a California stop-and-identify law that required a suspect to provide "credible and reliable identification" upon request.[3] The words "credible and reliable" were vague because they "provided no standard for determining what a suspect must do to comply with [the law], resulting in virtually unrestrained power to arrest and charge persons with a violation."

jaholder1971

Did you actually read the link to Lawson? How about the link to Hiibel that you provided from which I took the quote shown above? Do you understand how decisions of the United States Supreme Court work?

So yes, Hiibel, et al ARE required to verbally ID themselves when asked in those states that require it. But no, he is NOT required to show ANY form of ID as per the USSC decision in Kolender vs Lawson. Regardless of what any state says or laws that they pass, they MUST comply with the US Constistution and the USSC's interpretation of it. If not, those laws are automatically null and void. As hopefully we'll see in the DC Parker case.

ATW525
August 12, 2007, 12:42 PM
Why is it that the state legislature would pass a law allowing open carry if they meant for the citizens practicing that lawful activity to be stopped and questioned for it?
I think the tiniest amount of common sense would tell us that that was not their intent

Common sense tells me I can't judge the intention behind a law that doesn't exist.

Your Terry analogy does not hold up because as I said there was no reason to believe that any crime was being or about to be committed by the lawful actions that the officer observed, which was the determining factor in the Terry decision

Obviously the Trooper, who is trained and trusted to make such judgement calls for a living, felt otherwise. Your opinion to the contrary would only matter if you set on a court of law with jurisdiction over the incident.

AntiqueCollector
August 12, 2007, 12:42 PM
However, knowledge that a subject is armed has successfully been used in the past as a component of reasonable suspicion.

Thompson v. United States: There is Nothing Wrong with Carrying a Rifle for Protection

The Gourko decision was announced in April of 1894, [FN98] and the Starr case in May of that same year. [FN99] Seven months later, in Thompson v. United States, [FN100] the Supreme Court again emphasized its determination not to let Judge Parker draw adverse inferences about an individual because of his exercising the right to bear arms.

Thomas Thompson was a seventeen-year-old farmboy. [FN101] Half a mile away lived Charles Hermes, who made threats to kill Thompson if he came near the Hermes farm. [FN102] One afternoon, Thompson was sent to deliver a bundle to a woman who lived a few miles away. [FN103] The only road to the woman's house went by the Hermes farm. [FN104] Passing by the farm, Thompson got into a heated argument with Hermes, who repeated his threats to kill Thompson. [FN105] After delivering the bundle, Thompson, realizing that the only road home was the road that ran by the Hermes property, borrowed a Winchester rifle. [FN106]

*304 As Thompson rode home, Hermes's sons called out to Thompson. [FN107] One of the sons, Charles Hermes, started towards a gun that was propped on a fence. [FN108] Thompson, believing that Hermes intended to kill him, shot Hermes first, and then fled on horseback. [FN109] Charged with murder, Thompson pleaded self-defense. [FN110]

In the Thompson trial, Judge Parker instructed the jury that they were free to conclude that Thompson had provoked the trouble, and therefore lost his right to self-defense. [FN111] According to Judge Parker, Thompson could be viewed as the instigator of the confrontation because he had armed himself and returned to a place where he knew Hermes would be. [FN112] Similarly, the judge instructed the jurors to the effect that they should not convict Thompson of manslaughter, rather than murder. [FN113] By arming himself, Thompson had shown the kind of deliberation and premeditation which amounts to murder. [FN114]

Quoting at length from the Gourko case, the Supreme Court unanimously reversed Thompson's conviction because of the defective jury instructions. [FN115] Merely being armed and traveling by the only road available could not possibly be considered evidence that Thompson wanted to provoke trouble or that he intended to kill Hermes. [FN116]

The Court concluded that the trial court's error "is in the assumption that the act of the defendant in arming himself showed a purpose to kill formed before the actual affray." [FN117] That same error was found in the instructions regarding the right of self-defense in Gourko. [FN118] Thompson was freed, and was not retried. [FN119]

The Court's unanimous opinion was written by Justice George Shiras, Jr. [FN120] The next year, Justice Shiras joined a dissent which highlighted his concerns about the abusive power of judges - concerns which had perhaps been exacerbated by the cases coming from Arkansas. In Sparf v. United States, [FN121] the Court considered another set of abusive jury instructions. The majority of the Court held that juries do not need to be told that they have a legal right to vote their conscience in order to acquit a defendant who is technically guilty. [FN122] Justice Horace Gray dissented with Justice Shiras *305 joining. [FN123] The Gray dissent observed: " ut, as the experience of history shows, it cannot be assumed that judges will always be just and impartial...." [FN124] In a comment certainly reflective of the Court's view of Judge Parker, Gray and Shiras noted that many judges "occupied in the administration of criminal justice are apt, not only to grow severe in their sentences, but to decide questions of law too unfavorably to the accused." [FN125]

In support of juries being told about their right to vote their conscience, Gray and Shiras affirmed the right of armed resistance to abusive government and extolled the jury as an institution that could prevent the need for armed resistance. [FN126] Gray and Shiras quoted Theophilus Parsons, whom they described as "a leading supporter of the constitution of the United States in the convention of 1788, by which Massachusetts ratified the constitution, appointed by President Adams, in 1801, attorney general of the United States, but declining that office, and becoming chief justice of Massachusetts in 1806." [FN127] Arguing in favor of the proposed federal Constitution, Parsons had explained that jury rights would prevent the people from having to use force against a potentially oppressive federal government:

'The people themselves have it in their power effectually to resist usurpation, without being driven to an appeal to arms. An act of usurpation is not obligatory; it is not law; and any man may be justified in his resistance. Let him be considered as a criminal by the general government; yet only his fellow-citizens can convict him. They are his jury, and, if they pronounce him innocent, not all the powers of congress can hurt him; and innocent they certainly will pronounce him if the supposed law he resisted was an act of usurpation.' [FN128]

As Justice Shiras understood, restraints on trial judges - whether the restraints are imposed by appellate courts or by juries - are not contrary to law and order. Indeed, such restrictions help assure the peaceful continuation of constitutional government by protecting the fairness of criminal trials.

http://www.davidkopel.org/2A/LawRev/Self-Defense-Cases.htm


One can reasonably conclude from this decision that no, being armed is not justification for police harrassment.

AntiqueCollector
August 12, 2007, 12:44 PM
Obviously the Trooper, who is trained and trusted to make such judgement calls for a living, felt otherwise. Your opinion to the contrary would only matter if you set on a court of law with jurisdiction over the incident.

Actually the officer who harrassed the OP seemed quite ignorant of the law.

ATW525
August 12, 2007, 12:59 PM
One can reasonably conclude from this decision that no, being armed is not justification for police harrassment

It's a great self defense related case, but I'm not seeing where it has anything to do with Terry stops at all.

AntiqueCollector
August 12, 2007, 01:06 PM
"Quoting at length from the Gourko case, the Supreme Court unanimously reversed Thompson's conviction because of the defective jury instructions. [FN115] Merely being armed and traveling by the only road available could not possibly be considered evidence that Thompson wanted to provoke trouble or that he intended to kill Hermes. [FN116]"


Simply being armed can not be considered evidence of being up to trouble/etc. And that is all the OP had done to be harrassed, he was legally armed.

insidious_calm
August 12, 2007, 01:31 PM
ATW,


You are missing the most important thing in your insistence that "terry" gave the officer the authority to seize the OP. "There is no gun exception to the requirements of Terry.." see Florida v. J.L. (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&invol=98-1993) In other words the mere presence of a firearm is not justification for a stop unless the presence or manner of possession of said firearm is itself a crime. There is no getting around that requirement.


Jaholder,


You either do not know what the kansas statute says on the matter, or you are intentionally misleading the readers. The acutual statute is KSA 22-2402 (http://www.kslegislature.org/legsrv-statutes/getStatuteInfo.do?number=22-2402) to wit: Stopping of suspect. (1) Without making an arrest, a law enforcement officer may stop any person in a public place whom such officer reasonably suspects is committing, has committed or is about to commit a crime and may demand of the name, address of such suspect and an explanation of such suspect's actions.

(2) When a law enforcement officer has stopped a person for questioning pursuant to this section and reasonably suspects that such officer's personal safety requires it, such officer may frisk such person for firearms or other dangerous weapons. If the law enforcement officer finds a firearm or weapon, or other thing, the possession of which may be a crime or evidence of crime, such officer may take and keep it until the completion of the questioning, at which time such officer shall either return it, if lawfully possessed, or arrest such person.

History: L. 1970, ch. 129, 22-2402; L. 1990, ch. 106, 1; July 1


As per kansas law you are NOT required to produce ID. The OP was not driving at the time of the seizure, so those laws do not apply. In kansas he would have been required to state his name and address ONLY. That assumes of course that the other requirements set forth in the kansas staute for the seizure are met, which essentially mimic those in Terry. As stated above, there is no firearm excepton to the requirements of Terry. Period.

As for whether or not the stop constitutes a seizure as defined by law, the rule is whether or not the person being seized felt like he/she was free to leave. While he did not ask if he could leave it is generally understood that an officer asking you to produce ID has engaged you in an official capacity and you have in fact been 'seized' and are not free to go. This is true in kansas because the officer has no statutory authority to ask your name unless he has already met the requirements of Terry. A terry stop is a seizure as defined by the 4th amendment.

As far as open carrying in Kansas goes, it is not legal in any incorporated city here that I'm aware of. While there are no state laws against such, every incorporated city I'm aware of has a local ordinance or home rule resolution against it, making open carrying in the city clear evidence of a crime and thus justification to stop you.

I.C.

ATW525
August 12, 2007, 01:40 PM
Simply being armed can not be considered evidence of being up to trouble/etc. And that is all the OP had done to be harrassed, he was legally armed.

The decision had nothing to do with the police, Terry stops or reasonable suspicion at all. The issue addressed is whether arming oneself can be considered evidence that one intended to provoke a fight or kill someone beyond a reasonable doubt (the standard required for a criminal conviction).

joab
August 12, 2007, 01:43 PM
Common sense tells me I can't judge the intention behind a law that doesn't exist.
Are you saying that it is not legal to open carry in NH

Obviously the Trooper, who is trained and trusted to make such judgement calls for a living, felt otherwiseDoes Terry allow for feelings?
Nope

Your opinion to the contrary would only matter if you set on a court of law with jurisdiction over the incident.every opinion stated in this discussion carries that same weight
Is there a purpose for that comment or are you simply trying to discredit me because your argument does not hold up?

AntiqueCollector
August 12, 2007, 01:52 PM
The decision had nothing to do with the police, Terry stops or reasonable suspicion at all. The issue addressed is whether arming oneself can be considered evidence that one intended to provoke a fight or kill someone beyond a reasonable doubt (the standard required for a criminal conviction).

SCOTUS decisions are generally written in a way that they can be applied to a variety of situations, and this is a good example of it. The original trial judge tried to claim that being armed was evidence of intent to commit a crime. The SCOTUS ruled otherwise. That can also be applied to this situation, it wasn't just a self-defense case alone. It affected the entire right to be armed to protect ones' self. If being armed could be considered evidence of intent to commit a crime, it destroys the right to bear arms for the purposes of self-defense. Being armed is not evidence of an intent to commit a crime. Furthermore, state law in NH and its Constitution protect the right to carry. The police were ignorant of that law or maybe even intentionally ignoring it. And as one earlier poster stated, the Terry case decision does not allow being armed legally to be reason to do a stop.

Again, the OP was well within his rights in NH, the police were not. And last time I checked, this is the "activism" forum not legal & political...

ATW525
August 12, 2007, 01:52 PM
You are missing the most important thing in your insistence that "terry" gave the officer the authority to seize the OP. "There is no gun exception to the requirements of Terry.." see Florida v. J.L. In other words the mere presence of a firearm is not justification for a stop unless the presence or manner of possession of said firearm is itself a crime. There is no getting around that requirement.

Florida v. J.L. says that anonymous tips about illegal firearms are not sufficient cause for a stop. In that situation the police never saw the firearm before making the stop, and Florida argued that there should be an exception that allowed police to perform a stop and frisk based on such tips.

I'm not aware of any anonymous tips in this case, and the firearm was in plain sight and clearly visable to the Trooper.

ATW525
August 12, 2007, 01:58 PM
Are you saying that it is not legal to open carry in NH

No, I'm saying that there's no law that says open carry isn't a crime (and no law that says that it is, other than in motor vehicle).

ATW525
August 12, 2007, 02:05 PM
Again, the OP was well within his rights in NH, the police were not.

Again, I disagree.

And last time I checked, this is the "activism" forum not legal & political...

Point taken.

joab
August 12, 2007, 02:37 PM
159:4 Carrying Without License. – No person shall carry a loaded pistol or revolver in any vehicle or concealed upon his person, except in his dwelling, house or place of business, without a valid license therefor as hereinafter provided. A loaded pistol or revolver shall include any pistol or revolver with a magazine, cylinder, chamber or clip in which there are loaded cartridges. Whoever violates the provisions of this section shall, for the first such offense, be guilty of a misdemeanor. For the second and for each subsequent violation of the provisions of this section, such person shall be guilty of a class B felony, provided such second or subsequent violation has occurred within 7 years of the previous conviction.159 goes on to explicitly exclude certain people and certain places, it also describes in detail illegal actions
By not specifically excluding open carry of a loaded firearm while specifically outlawing other forms of carrying a firearm the law allows open carry

So if a law detailing the conditions under with you cannot carry without including open carry ,the law if fact allows open carry, as I said

Don Lu
August 12, 2007, 04:48 PM
I get the point from the OP, but I didnt see any time in the video were the cop said he couldnt leave, nor any place where he asked to leave and was denied. "papers" were never demanded. The only thing I saw that was bothersom was that annoying guy w/the stripes. There are a lot of laws and I dont expect cops to have them all memorized. It wouldnt be a problem for me to produce ID nor would my carry liscence be a problem. While I produced my liscense I may educate him on the rights of the citizen. A search of my vehicle or home is one thing, but as others have said, things would have been over much more quickly If ID was produced. making things go easy is not always a good motivation, but I would not feel bad or bent over if the public and police felt better knowing I was liscenced to carry.

insidious_calm
August 12, 2007, 05:24 PM
ATW,


You still miss the point. While J.L. was about an anonymous tip, the court also addressed guns in light of the Terry decision and held specifically: This Court also declines to adopt the argument that the standard Terry analysis should be modified to license a "firearm exception," under which a tip alleging an illegal gun would justify a stop and frisk even if the accusation would fail standard pre-search reliability testing.


In other words, there is no gun exception to Terry. Whether a gun is visible or not is moot. The mere presence of a gun does not justify seizure under Terry unless the possession or manner of possession of the gun itself is a crime. The officer in question clearly had no terry grounds to justify the seizure. Because there is no law against open carry in NH, open carry alone does not justify the stop. There is simply no way around that fact for those who believe the state should be able to do so. There must be indicia of a crime being, or about to be committed, before a stop is justified. The mere possession of a gun in a lawful manner does not meet that criteria and the court has clearly said so.

As far as this not being "legal & political", I certainly would hope that the discussion of various types of activism and whether or not those actions are legal would fall under the purview of an "activism" forum. I certainly don't want to see well intentioned activists for this cause doing something that would make them criminals. Activism by design will sometimes push the limits. A discussion of where exactly that line may fall is surely legitimate.

As far as activism goes and "in your face style" activities are concerned, I believe they have a place in our cause. Like it or not 'we' are at 'war' with the majority of law enforcement in america with regards to firearms. Every manner of excuse from 'officer safety' to 'it made me feel uneasy' has been used to justify the unlawful infringement upon the right to bear arms. Unfortunately, examples need to be made of those who cross that line, it's the nature of this game. I'm perfectly fine with officers thinking twice, even three times, before they acost someone with a gun simply because they have a gun. If a law isn't being clearly broken they have no business doing so to begin with.


I.C.

Blackbeard
August 12, 2007, 06:22 PM
It's also legal to wear a ski mask and walk around upper-class neighborhoods with a crowbar at night. But the cops are going to stop you and find out what you're doing.

This type of OC stop isn't going to go away until OC is much more common. I would give ID if I had it and cooperate fully, hoping to resolve the stop quickly and easily. If I just gave my name, there may be a warrant out for someone with the same name, and bingo I'm going downtown. (I have a common name.)

phaed
August 12, 2007, 07:07 PM
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.

i don't think you respect freedom as much as you advertise. the cop had no reason to mess with the guy in the first place.

i think he handled himself very respectfully. outstanding job on educating those that clearly needed it.

Don Lu
August 12, 2007, 07:37 PM
It's also legal to wear a ski mask and walk around upper-class neighborhoods with a crowbar at night. But the cops are going to stop you and find out what you're doing.

Thats how I feel about it. good analogy !

insidious_calm
August 12, 2007, 08:06 PM
It's also legal to wear a ski mask and walk around upper-class neighborhoods with a crowbar at night. But the cops are going to stop you and find out what you're doing.


Apples - Oranges. For starters a skimask conceals ones identity. Now, if the OP had been wearing a skimask in august then we wouldn't be having this discussion. Really, it's a strawman argument you make. Terry clearly states that it is the totality of the circumstances that must be considered. Wearing a skimask clearly out of season would seem to lend a lot towards justification of an investigatory stop. There is no season for firearms, nor any time of day. They are appropriate at all times day and night throughout the year depending on the bearers needs.

Simply carrying a firearm when not otherwise illegal, which is the topic in question here, does not by itself meet the requirements for an investigative stop and the USSC has said as much. Strawman aside, the reality is that the OP was clearly in the right. I am curious though, had he handled it your way would any of you have supported a lawsuit against the offending officers afterward. I highly doubt it.


I.C.

Don Lu
August 12, 2007, 08:19 PM
Not really apples and oranges. If the cop ask you, even in august in the middle of the day "why do you have a ski mask on." the reply would be the same...because I can..and you cant make me take it off.. Then you woulda had some guy w/ a stripped ski mask annoying everyone one waving his hand in front of a cops face.... Per the sentiment I pick up, The OP may have done the same thing even if he swapped the gun w/a ski mask and crowbar, regardless.. Juts seems like he was that dude in Jr. High that thought it was cool to be a wise guy just because.

tnieto2004
August 12, 2007, 08:29 PM
Apples - Oranges. For starters a skimask conceals ones identity. Now, if the OP had been wearing a skimask in august then we wouldn't be having this discussion. Really, it's a strawman argument you make. Terry clearly states that it is the totality of the circumstances that must be considered. Wearing a skimask clearly out of season would seem to lend a lot towards justification of an investigatory stop. There is no season for firearms, nor any time of day. They are appropriate at all times day and night throughout the year depending on the bearers needs.

So now it is illegal to wear ski masks when it is not a winter month? YOUR INFRINGING ON MY RIGHTS!:neener:

joab
August 12, 2007, 09:07 PM
It's also legal to wear a ski mask and walk around upper-class neighborhoods with a crowbar at night. But the cops are going to stop you and find out what you're doing.Terrible analogy
Those two activities together, or even in some cases alone, create an easy to articulate suspicion that a crime may be taking place or about to be taking place

The legislature has specifically excluded open carry of a firearm as a reason to suspect that a crime is being committed or about to be committed, the attorney general has backed them up

pdowg881
August 12, 2007, 09:25 PM
I have heard the "possession of burglary tools" thing on cops before. I'm not sure of the law, but maybe that would apply to snakeing around masked and with a crowbar? So maybe it could be illegal? Just throwing that out there for anyone who knows about that law because I've only heard it used on an episode of cops. I beleive he was charged with "possession of burglary tools" and his suspicious actions supported it.

Scorpiusdeus
August 12, 2007, 10:09 PM
And still we have nothing wrong done here. No one did anything wrong except maybe stripe shirt guy.

The Original poster did nothing wrong and the officer, can stop and speak with anyone he pleases. He DID NOT detain or arrest the original poster.

What is everyone arguing about? I've had police stop and ask me questions and I was happy to answer and I knew I was free to leave at anytime.

No one surrendered a right.

No one was harassed.

Nothing to see here folks.

jaholder1971
August 13, 2007, 12:32 AM
I'm not playing this game anymore.

You do this in Kansas, even where OC is legal and you'll likely encounter the police. More than likely because some busybody called them.

Cop an attitude like these 2 did and you'll probably get slapped with a Disorderly conduct charge. Exercising a right while being polite trumps exercising a right while being a jerk all day long.

insidious_calm
August 13, 2007, 12:35 AM
Scorpius,


I have no first hand knowledge of how things are in NH, but here in Kansas if an officer asks you for ID it's not because he wants to send you a postcard. He has done so because he has engaged you in an official capacity. Smalltalk is just that, but a request for ID is an official action of the state and one that must be complied with to the extent of your name and address. I dare say that had the OP kept walking and ignored the officer the encounter would have still occurred, only much more violently. As I stated above, it's not just about what was said but what was implied. Officers of the law project authority by their very nature. If the OP felt he could not leave for fear of what the officer would do then he was in fact detained even if the officer didn't specifically state so.

Also, as I said above, had he handled it your way would any of you have supported a lawsuit against the offending officers afterward? For that matter, do you support the use of punitive lawsuits against officers and their departments as a form of activism against these types of infringments? Should they be made examples of?


I.C.

Blackbeard
August 13, 2007, 01:08 AM
This is starting to sound like the 2A version of the gay pride parade. Instead of, "We're here, we're queer, get used to it!" it's "We're the ones who have guns, get used to it!"

Look, it took a long time for the antis to get the public mindset into the state it is. It's going to take a long time to get back. Take baby steps. Find out who writes the policies for the 911 dispatchers and inform them that a man with a holstered gun is not an emergency. Get the policy changed. Write to, or better yet meet with your chief of police and discuss the department's policy on open carry. Suggest changes that better support our rights yet still allow them to do their job.

Ford Prefect
August 13, 2007, 05:24 AM
http://www.ksrevenue.org/pdf/dlhb.pdf

Very top of page 8. Must have it on person while driving and present to LEO, judge or DL examiner upon request. Don't like it, turn in your DL, I didn't make the rules.
After more looking I cannot find the exact statute #, but here's another reference:
http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/t...tification.htm
Kansas is one of the states with these laws on the books.
http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/t...tification.htm


You don't know the rules either. Where does it say you can be stopped on the side walk and ordered to show you DL? It doesn't. That's illegal. The officer must have cause to stop you before he can ask you for ID. Not in kansas, not anywhere the American Flag flies.

You posted a link to a 70 page Drivers Lisence Manual, that does not mention random stops on the side walk.

Post a quote to back up your claim, not 70 page pdf that do not back up your claim. Your other 2 links don't work at all.

Ford Prefect
August 13, 2007, 05:42 AM
jaholder1971

I'm not playing this game anymore.

You do this in Kansas, even where OC is legal and you'll likely encounter the police. More than likely because some busybody called them.

Cop an attitude like these 2 did and you'll probably get slapped with a Disorderly conduct charge. Exercising a right while being polite trumps exercising a right while being a jerk all day long.


You made a claim, you have yet to back up.
Now you've made another false claim you can't back up. "Copping and attitude is also not a crime. Disorderly charge cannot apply.

Mazeman
August 13, 2007, 07:51 AM
And still we have nothing wrong done here. No one did anything wrong except maybe stripe shirt guy.

Maybe not illegal, but talking on a cellphone while a policeman is asking you questions is incredibly boorish and disrespectful. So he can't be arrested. He and his friend are very un-likeable, and IMHO their behavior is harmful for our cause.

Blackfork
August 13, 2007, 09:33 AM
Congrats and thanks to the New Hampshire gun rights folks for taking a stand and standing together. We could use more of this, not less.

Sistema1927
August 13, 2007, 09:41 AM
Cop an attitude like these 2 did and you'll probably get slapped with a Disorderly conduct charge. Exercising a right while being polite trumps exercising a right while being a jerk all day long.

Since when has one's demeanor been a qualifier to exercising a right?

If you can only exercise your "rights" while being polite, then it isn't a right, but a privilege. "I will let you do that, but only if you have the right attitude about it."

In the pre-civil rights error, blacks were allowed to have certain "rights", but only if they didn't get "uppity" about it. "Hey boy, we ain't gonna botha ya just so long as ya knows ya place."

Scorpiusdeus
August 13, 2007, 11:17 AM
Also, as I said above, had he handled it your way would any of you have supported a lawsuit against the offending officers afterward? For that matter, do you support the use of punitive lawsuits against officers and their departments as a form of activism against these types of infringments? Should they be made examples of?

"IF" the OP had actually been detained, which he was not, and the officer would have based his detention solely on the legal open carry of a firearm, then, yes, I would support the OP making a complaint, and depending on the degree of detention, i.e. asked to stand still and not leave vs being handcuffed and or stuffed in the back seat, I would be in favor of a lawsuit.

Still, no one, broke any laws here and no one's rights were infringed upon.

insidious_calm
August 13, 2007, 07:56 PM
and no one's rights were infringed upon


Well, I believe the request for ID made it a detention. Sure would have in Kansas. Either way, if you think a government agent acting on behalf of the state stopping you to ask where you are going and what you are doing simply because you are carrying a firearm in a non-threatening way, something the officer admits to btw, then you and I have VERY different definitions of infringment. As the court would say, the officers actions were intended to have a chilling effect on the right to bear arms. I'm not surprised by your answer to the questions either. "May your chains rest lightly upon you, and may history forget....."


I.C.

goings_51
August 13, 2007, 08:58 PM
If you can only exercise your "rights" while being polite, then it isn't a right, but a privilege. "I will let you do that, but only if you have the right attitude about it."

In the pre-civil rights error, blacks were allowed to have certain "rights", but only if they didn't get "uppity" about it. "Hey boy, we ain't gonna botha ya just so long as ya knows ya place."

I don't disagree with what you said, however...
Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King Jr. went about things in a certain manner. They didn't back down, but they were non-confrentational. They made it hard NOT to support them and made it such that anyone who DIDN'T support them was the jerk. We could learn much from their example.

Jared Stenoien
August 13, 2007, 10:40 PM
Well I don't really see much difference between not giving your ID when some official says you should, and not getting up from your seat when some official says you should. I'm speaking only about dada, Russel needs to chill out, he's only harming the cause.

jaholder1971
August 14, 2007, 12:28 AM
Ford Prefect,

What part of "You are required to show it (Driver's license) to any police officer, sheriff, constable, judge, justice of the peace or driver's license examiner who may ask to see it" do we not understand? It doesn't say under what condition, just to show it when ASKED FOR.

Your right not to show it was given up when you applied for the license. Deal with it.

BTW, Open Carry in most Johnson County, KS cities is legal but you WILL be charged with Disorderly Conduct. Shawnee and Overland Park I believe post this on their websites.

jaholder1971
August 14, 2007, 12:49 AM
Quote:
Cop an attitude like these 2 did and you'll probably get slapped with a Disorderly conduct charge. Exercising a right while being polite trumps exercising a right while being a jerk all day long.
Since when has one's demeanor been a qualifier to exercising a right?

If you can only exercise your "rights" while being polite, then it isn't a right, but a privilege. "I will let you do that, but only if you have the right attitude about it."

In the pre-civil rights error, blacks were allowed to have certain "rights", but only if they didn't get "uppity" about it. "Hey boy, we ain't gonna botha ya just so long as ya knows ya place."
__________________
Lew Wallace was an optimist.

I want my country back!

The Kansas Disorderly Conduct statute:

"9.1 DISORDERLY CONDUCT. Disorderly conduct is, with knowledge or probable cause to believe that such acts will alarm, anger or disturb others or provoke an assault or other breach of the peace:

(a) Engaging in brawling or fighting; or

(b) Disturbing an assembly, meeting or procession, not unlawful in its character; or

(c) Using offensive, obscene or abusive language or engaging in noisy conduct tending reasonably to arouse alarm, anger or resentment in others. (K.S.A. 21-4101)

Disorderly conduct is a Class C violation."

There are a number of Kansas cities where their conduct would have gotten them arrested, the argument being they guy carrying the gun alarmed someone and the other guy for being an ass. This is also pretty much an officer-discretion call, so acting like a jerk will get you nowhere.

Since these are usually adjudicated at the municipal level you're defending yourself in a Kangaroo Court, the City judges are measured on how much $$$ they bring into the city coffers.

I neither wrote laws, enforce them or set case law. I just know this from my CCW class where the instructors hammered into our heads that OC in most Big cities is bad, bad, bad even where legal.

insidious_calm
August 14, 2007, 01:07 AM
Jaholder,


I am a Kansas certified CCH instructor. You are mistaken in your interpretation of the disorderly conduct statute as well as the drivers license statutes. There are home rule resolutions and municipal ordinances against OC in every incorporated city that I know of in Kansas. That is what you would be charged with. I already posted the KSA w/ link to the kansas ID statute. Unless you are driving you only need to give your name and address. You are not required to produce ID unless you are driving or you have a CCH and are currently carrying when you are asked. For the record I specifically asked the AG staff that very question during one of the train the trainer classes.


I.C.

IA_farmboy
August 14, 2007, 01:40 AM
There are a number of Kansas cities where their conduct would have gotten them arrested, the argument being they guy carrying the gun alarmed someone and the other guy for being an ass. This is also pretty much an officer-discretion call, so acting like a jerk will get you nowhere.


So, the guy legally carrying a firearm should be charged with disorderly conduct because someone was alarmed at the sight of someone carrying a firearm openly? That is seriously ****ed up.

I am alarmed at the sight of women in slacks. They should be wearing dresses that are no higher than 6 inches from the ground when standing straight. In fact I am so alarmed that I am going to call the police for disorderly conduct for every women in slacks and short skirts I see. :what:

The problem here is not that too many people carrying a firearm openly, its that there are too few. People have forgotten (including the LEOs on the scene) that it is quite legal to carry a firearm in the public view.

Oh, the guy that was jumping around and being a general ass? He shouldn't be charged with anything either as he was enjoying his right of free speech. He was not inciting a riot, or yelling "FIRE" in a crowded movie theater. Last I heard making an ass of yourself on a public street is not illegal.

Ford Prefect
August 14, 2007, 06:57 AM
jaholder1971

Ford Prefect,

What part of "You are required to show it (Driver's license) to any police officer, sheriff, constable, judge, justice of the peace or driver's license examiner who may ask to see it" do we not understand? It doesn't say under what condition, just to show it when ASKED FOR.

Your right not to show it was given up when you applied for the license. Deal with it.

BTW, Open Carry in most Johnson County, KS cities is legal but you WILL be charged with Disorderly Conduct. Shawnee and Overland Park I believe post this on their websites.

What part of "they must have a reason to stop you first" do you not understand? If they do not have suspicion of a crime they cannot stop you in the first place. Ever. They can not stop people because they don't like the kind of shoes your wearing or because they feel like "checking you out". They must be able to articulate a specific reason to stop you. No reason, no stop. The reason must be criminal, not something that is legal. Using a pogo stick or hula-hoop at 3 am is weird, but not criminal. If OC is legal, then they can not stop you to check you out. That would be illegal harrasment.
If they have a reason, then yes, they can ask you for ID. If your speeding or roll thru a stop sign then can ask for ID. They cannot pull over mexicans just to see if they are illegal aliens.
They cannot stop cars just to see if you have a license. They cannot stop you just to see if you have any warrants.
You cannot surrrender these rights just because you applied for a licence.


Still waiting for you to post a law that back up your claim that they can demand ID from someone one the street who does not appear to breaking any laws. Hint: you won't find one.

Ford Prefect
August 14, 2007, 07:03 AM
jaholder1971

The Kansas Disorderly Conduct statute:

"9.1 DISORDERLY CONDUCT. Disorderly conduct is, with knowledge or probable cause to believe that such acts will alarm, anger or disturb others or provoke an assault or other breach of the peace:

(a) Engaging in brawling or fighting; or

(b) Disturbing an assembly, meeting or procession, not unlawful in its character; or

(c) Using offensive, obscene or abusive language or engaging in noisy conduct tending reasonably to arouse alarm, anger or resentment in others. (K.S.A. 21-4101)

Disorderly conduct is a Class C violation."

There are a number of Kansas cities where their conduct would have gotten them arrested, the argument being they guy carrying the gun alarmed someone and the other guy for being an ass. This is also pretty much an officer-discretion call, so acting like a jerk will get you nowhere.

Since these are usually adjudicated at the municipal level you're defending yourself in a Kangaroo Court, the City judges are measured on how much $$$ they bring into the city coffers.

I neither wrote laws, enforce them or set case law. I just know this from my CCW class where the instructors hammered into our heads that OC in most Big cities is bad, bad, bad even where legal.

??? Yeah, where does it say "copping an attitude" to police is a crime? Did you even read it? Copping an attitude is not a crime.
Another of your false claims you can't back up. Instead you post a law that proves your wrong, but you think it back up your cliam?


This is silly. You apparently think you are a peasant who must do as you are ordered under any circumstance. Wrong. Red flags should have gone up when your instructor told you that you can be arrested for doing something that is not illegal. Wrong. That is why we have laws.

The OP was legal, his attitude is irrelevant. The police investigating him was without cause. They should have known OC was legal and their investigation was unwarranted. He was under no obligation to even respond to them at all. They can be ignored like any bum on the street asking for change.

Sistema1927
August 14, 2007, 08:22 AM
jaholder1971,

Re. post # 232. Please learn how to quote properly. The way that you did it makes me look like I am arguing with myself.

Now, that out of the way, why are you so afraid of freedom?

Sistema1927
August 14, 2007, 08:29 AM
Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King Jr. went about things in a certain manner. They didn't back down, but they were non-confrentational.(sic)

Did you witness the same era that I did, or did you only read about it in public school history books?

ALL of the actions of the Civil Rights era were confrontational. Every single one of them. They confronted the evil of the day. Sitting at segregated lunch counters, taking front seats on buses, marching on Birmingham, and a thousand other acts in defiance of Jim Crow and Bull Conner. Largely non-violent, but anything but non-confrontational. Time after time they broke the evil laws of the segregated south, and they were confrontational to the max, getting in the face of the system.

To confront the established order and expose its ugly underbelly was courageous and costly. That is why the forces that defended the indefensible decided to turn water hoses and police dogs on those "uppity n*****s".

Don't ever dishonor these acts of courage by denying them the confrontationality that they so richly demonstrated.

Scorpiusdeus
August 14, 2007, 12:48 PM
Well, I believe the request for ID made it a detention. Sure would have in Kansas.

You can believe in flying saucers for all I care, but as you can see, an i.d. was never provided and the subject could leave at any time.

Toto, I don't think we're in Kansas anymore.

jaholder1971
August 14, 2007, 08:23 PM
Sistema,

Wanna tell me what freedoms we've lost? With every freedom comes responsibility, which a few of you seem to have forgotten. OC because it's a right is one thing, OC simply to create a disturbance and a confrontation with any cop he encounters is reckless and irresponsible. Yes, I believe this clown OC'd simply to get attention. Within his rights? Yes. Stupid? Incredibly.

Hey Ford,

you gave up your right to refuse a breath test as well as your right to counsel before a breath test for a license. Why is this so hard to understand? If you want to keep your DL you will surrender it upon request per the DMV regs in Kansas.

I.C.,

There are a number of cities in this state (Johnson county's the worst) that equate open carry with disorderly conduct. P.M. me if you wish to discuss this further and I'll offer you the name of my CCW instructor.




JH

jpk1md
August 14, 2007, 09:56 PM
Wanna tell me what freedoms we've lost? With every freedom comes responsibility, which a few of you seem to have forgotten. OC because it's a right is one thing, OC simply to create a disturbance and a confrontation with any cop he encounters is reckless and irresponsible. Yes, I believe this clown OC'd simply to get attention. Within his rights? Yes. Stupid? Incredibly.

ja, If you choose to submit thats your choice.

Lets recall the timeline of events....the OP Parks Car, Gets out and begins walking down the sidewalk....there was no PC for the Police Stop.

The OP was 100% within his rights according to NH State Law which allows for OC.....conversely the LEO's were overstepping their boundaries....lets remember what LEO stands for 'Law Enforcement Officer"....what LAW did the OP Break? None! As such where's the Probable Cause for stop/questioning?

Stopping the guy that was OC is like randomly pulling over a car for suspicion of murder/car accident/running...just because he/she's operating a car...

Its like a cop saying: "Because you're driving a car I suspect you've broken a law.

Or

"Because you're OC I suspect you've committed a crime."

Without PC its an unreasonable/unlawful stop.

Its BUNK!

kermit315
August 14, 2007, 09:57 PM
i dont think anybody was talking about breathalyzers. the issue at hand(at least now) is whether he legally would have had to produce ID in your state under similar circumstances.

from what i have read posted, he would not have had to.

just my opinion.

also, if i could OC here, i would. I wouldnt need any other reason than i want to do it. trying to make somebody provide a reason for wanting to exercise a right is the same as making them ask permission to use it.

you should never need permission to exercise a right.

Jamie

Sistema1927
August 14, 2007, 10:32 PM
Wanna tell me what freedoms we've lost?
The freedom to walk down the street while carrying out perfectly legal activity without the intrusion of law enforcement wanting to make sure that you are not up to mischief.

It used to be that we were innocent until proven guilty. Now we need to prove that we are "worthy" of having a few privileges, never mind exercising rights.

Sad that you don't see it.

ScottS
August 14, 2007, 11:06 PM
Hey Ford,

you gave up your right to refuse a breath test as well as your right to counsel before a breath test for a license. Why is this so hard to understand? If you want to keep your DL you will surrender it upon request per the DMV regs in Kansas.
Jesus Christ, I've been painfully watching this, thinking you're going to come to your senses about this, but you're just not. So, you have to have your driver's license with you at all times, or you'll lose it? If you're swimming, and the cops say, "Show my your DL," you jump out of the water and then what? You don't have it to show to the officer, and you lose your driver's license? Yes, you give up your right to refuse a Breathalyzer--while driving, for God's sake. You think you can be sitting in a freaking restaurant, and they can come up and order you to take a Breathalyzer, and if you don't, they take your driver's license away?? How on Earth do you not get this?

DadaOrwell2
August 15, 2007, 01:35 AM
Arright sorry for the slow response here. But I wanted to answer some of the questions/comments posted on this thread and elsewhere, regarding my open carry incident.

First, in response to the folks who are defending the police....I half agree with you. The police and trooper acted in a fairly restrained manner compared to what would happen in other states. This is because others have gone before me over the last couple years, and open carried at much greater risk. Now Manchester Police Department is fairly used to it. They were probably only there because the state trooper called them. I've sent notes to Manchester's Police Chief and to Colonel Booth, New Hampshire's head state trooper. The note to MPD praises two of the responding officers but includes constructive criticism. The note to Col. Booth praises Trooper Copponi, who in all fairness had only thirty seconds to make his stop decision....and refused to cross certain lines which a bad cop might have raced over. I also would like to mention something no one else has brought up: Copponi's course of action wasn't necessarily the easy way out. It may have been dictated partly by a willingness to risk his own well-being in what he e considered the pursuit of public safety.
Courage, wherever it is suspected, should always be respected.

Anyway, both notes urge both departments to relax about open carry, and they are attached below.

With regard to the criticism of "Mr. Striped Shirt," who you see raising so much heck over my being stopped...There is a reason why he is so hostile to MPD folks. Only three people that I know of have the guts to demonstrate outside the hated "free speech zone" when Mr. Bush is here....and continue doing so even after they are informed it will result in their arrest. In 2006 Russell stood on a completely public street corner with an unremarkable anti-Washington sign....and MPD arrested him for it. Just because the Emperor was coming to town.

His response in this video isn't precisely what I'd advocate. I do agree that you shouldn't bait officers or try and humiliate them. I'd rather win them over to our side, and I genuinely like most of them. It makes me uncomfortable that Trooper Copponi probably left the situation miffed at us; I'd rather see these things end in good feeling.

But Russell has guts, and I appreciate him being there. You have to admit nearly no one would be talking about the video otherwise. Look at my other open carry incident, the one that went so amicably:

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

Hardly anyone watches that. Hardly anyone debates the issues because of that video. In a sloppy irreverent way, Russell got more people talking about key questions:

Does New Hampshire have a more restrained police community than other states? When is it appropriate to cooperate with police or give them information about yourself? What are the capabilities of New Hampshire's liberty community? Do those capabilities constitute a potential umbrella under which local freedom lovers may protect themselves against government abuses?

How many freedoms do we have left in America? Do we have freedom of the press when some of the nation's least sadistic cops tell a professional videographer to stop filming them on a public corner? Do we have freedom of communication when my cell call is brought into question? Do we have freedom of assembly if police in the freest state can try and stop you from having more than three people standing on a corner? Do we have freedom to walk the streets without identity papers, and if so is that freedom exercised often enough to keep it secure? And lastly do we have freedom of self defense if we are questioned by police merely because of a lawfully borne firearm?

In this brief video you see every one of those freedoms threatened, by some of the *least* bad cops in America, in full view of crowd and camera.

Now...I'd like to respond to some of your questions and comments. One opinion runs something like this:

"These cops were obviously entrapped. I don't believe these libertarian freaks just happened to be prepared for the stop."

That kind of comment is the biggest backhanded compliment of the year... To reiterate: The video was not planned, no cops were baited or entrapped....the explanation for the rapid response and high quality of the video is not that hard to swallow.

1) Free Staters meet up in Manchester every week
2) They wear guns, often openly, to these meetings.
3) If a cop drives by, they will see guns.
4) If that freaks them out, they will stop one of us
5) If the people inside the meeting see the stop, they will not cower but will go to the scene!
6) Some of our participants carry video cameras. A couple of them are professional videographers. If they see something interesting happening...they will videotape it!

It is true that Porcupine 411 is not yet fast enough to trigger a response this rapid...the people simply saw this event through the window of the restaurant and out they flew.

However if you still think this was staged...research it. Most of the people who witnessed the actual event can be contacted...by you. Just post any questions you have, to forum.nhfree.com. If you don't trust the freedom lovers there, maybe you will trust our trolls.

Another common response goes something like this: "Open carry is a bad idea because it just shows criminals where your gun is, and they might steal it."

Tactically, I see where folks are coming from with this argument. However, suppose my goal is not tactical but political and social? Suppose I want to:

1) Remind harmful criminals that Manchester is a heavily armed city, where many, many law abiding citizens are packing
2) Inspire more New Hampshirites to open carry
3) Continue the process of mainstreaming open carry, so that police continue to get more used to it. Yes, I know Russell didn't act very mainstream. But by and large MPD is much more calm about this now than they were in 2004...sometimes they're even supportive. This is because of nice people like Michael Peltier who went out and started DOING it.

None of that is possible by carrying concealed...and for all you know...that Glock on my hip is just an empty decoration to divert thugs from the revolver on my ankle. Besides, there aren't very many thugs in Manchester.

We have to go out, live as though we were free, and inspire others to do the same.

I realize this sort of thing is controversial, but we don't need majority support for success. If this video alienates 70 percent of the people who see it but 1 percent are inspired to join up with us, or fight harder for their freedom, that is a win. If one freedom fighter moves to New Hampshire because of this video, that is a win. Virtually all that needs to happen for freedom to be re-established within America, is a couple thousand liberty activists moving to New Hampshire. Google the words "New Hampshire Liberty" and decide for yourself whether the two hundred fifty early-moving Free Staters have had a positive impact completely out of proportion to their numbers. Decide for yourself whether a number eight times that size would be decisive.

Here's another response that sticks in my mind:

"As posted before, The OP was in the legal clear. So should a black man eating at predominantly white eatery also be under suspicion because it is out of the norm? Or a black woman who dares to sit at the front of a bus? A person displaying an anti-war sign?"

I've been hearing this comparison over and over again, between what we're doing and what the early civil rights activists used to do. It's always an honor to hear, and especially cool to hear it so much more as a result of this video.

Yet another response...some folks say we shouldn't open carry because that might scare NH voters/lawmakers into outlawing open carry.

There is some risk that the NH House could restrict our gun freedom slightly, but in New Hampshire, attempting to ban open carry would just backfire. The gun movement here is huge and powerful. 500 people turned out this year just to kill an anti-terrorist amendment to the concealed carry laws. And killed it was, right out of the chute. In 2005 the House decisively squashed a bill to ban guns in public schools. That's right...we remain one of the few states where a parent can lawfully wear a pistol to her daughter's classroom. Many of the reps and senators themselves lawfully carry guns with them to the legislature, as do their constituents.

With regard to Porcupine 411 I'm hoping it can develop into a true private 911 type service for folks to report government-related emergencies. Help, I'm being pulled over...help, there are Marshalls at my door, etc. Right now it's a little slow for that but still impressive.

Lastly, as an update...there is scuttlebut to the effect that MPD was not happy about the State Trooper making this stop. And there is other scuttlebutt to the effect that they are not happy with *us.* The restaurant/bar outside which this incident occurred...is expected to come under increased scrutiny. Not sure why MPD would want to go after a building when their quarrel (if any) is with me. But they are presumably aware that harassing a successful business treasured and frequented by hundreds of scrappy Free Staters, owned in fact by some of them....that would be a bureaucrat's nightmare. And free publicity for the bar.

Anyway those are all my thoughts; as promised here are copies of my notes to MPD and NHDOS, neither of which generated a response.

-----

Sent by e-mail to MPD chief on aug 7

Dear Chief Jaskolka: I wanted to express appreciation for officer J. Kelly's calm handling of my Saturday open carry incident on Elm St. The Sergeant who responded also conducted himself well, and I was happy to hear his point of view. Of course, I look forward to the day when open carriers are not stopped at all without probable cause. I assume this stop would not have happened were it not for the fact that a State Trooper was driving by.

In my experience your officers have handled open carry well, so well in fact that I usually don't even bother getting their names. It's important for liberty lovers to keep perspective and remind ourselves that the MPD response is at least superior to the panic that would happen in most states.

Open carry is an essential tool for citizens, as it puts fear into the hearts of harmful criminals...reminding them New Hampshire is a dangerous place to try and harm others.

I do take exception to the fact that one of your officers tried to stop a man from videotaping him and, when he couldn't find more ways to exert authority over us, chose to go after a hapless group of car wash kids for posting a sign.

If you are having a problem with litter, because of fallen signs or what not, call me at the number below, tell me which area you want cleaned and I will schedule a citizen trash cleanup.

There has been some speculation among officers that we plotted this encounter, but that is not the case. Our people just tend to open carry on their way to meetings. Where there is a meeting there is usually a camera and a squadron of people looking out for each others' rights.

Respectfully yours,


Dave Ridley
NHfree.com



Note to head of state troopers
Aug 8, 2007

Dear Colonel Booth:

Sorry for my slowness in getting this message to you. However I wanted to express my respect for trooper L.A. Copponi's calm handling of my Saturday open carry incident in Manchester. Although I object to police making stops of pedestrians simply because of open carry...I do recognize that trooper Copponi had under half a minute to make his stop-or-don't-stop decision. If he's anything like most cops, he probably does not deal very often with citizens who responsibly exercise their right to open carry. At least he approached the situation with an open mind.

It's important for liberty lovers to keep perspective and remind ourselves that the NHDOS response is at least Superior to the panic that would happen in most states.

Open carry is an essential tool for NH citizens, as it puts fear into the hearts of harmful criminals...reminding them New Hampshire is a dangerous place to try and harm others. It's not as useful for defense as concealed carry, but if we don't use this tool and exercise this right...we will lose it. More New Hampshirites are doing so, and your men will see more of us as time passes. Soon I hope you will come to see us as a routine thing.

You may also be aware that I exercised another generally atrophied right during the stop, the right of a pedestrian to refuse police requests for identification cards. Again, I assume it's not super common for people to exercise this right, but that is why it is so important to exercise. It too needs to become more common. There are only a few rights left which government recognizes, thus we must exercise them well and often. Otherwise we'll lose what few of them remain.

Respectfully yours,


Dave Ridley
NHfree.com

Sniper X
August 15, 2007, 05:36 PM
I was once told by the owner of one of my two favorite gun shops that if I was going to open carry here in NM where it is ALSO legal to do so, that I should be "ready to be tackled by a cop"! WHAT! I asked him if he got this from LEO and he said no but felt they would tackle and ask questions later. I felt this was a very strange feeling on his part, but since I have known him since we were about 14 I asked him to clarify. He told me that police officers prefer those of us who did carry to carry concealed, which was still illegal at the time since we had no CCW then. I was floored! He said they prefer this because most citizens do NOT know it is legal to open carry here, and has been even before CCW so they call police if they see someone walking around with a holstered gun. This is of course BS in my opinion because I ALLWAYS open carry and NEVER am even looked at a second time by LEO.

I asked if he thought for a second what I personally would do if tackled by cops while doing nothing against the law, and he said you would probably sue the city, and he laughed until he noticed I wasn't laughing because he was right.

I think the guy in the video is both a hero of sorts, and lucky as heck because I feel if he didn't have the support of the others there, and the guy on the phone, and especially the guy with the video camera, he would have been put down and had to sue the police departments.


I can Tell you I still open carry even though I hold a CCW but still never get a second look and have never been stopped or questioned as to why I have a gun.

Once after being pulled over by a Texas State Trooper for doing 65 in a 60....yeah I know, he asked if I had a gun because I had a Black hawk holster on my hip. I said I did and it was locked in the center console because I was going back to NM from Texas, he asked to see the firearm, which I let him do, he called it in brought it back gave it back and handed me a ticket for expired insurance but said nothing but NICE GUN! about the firearm!

It was a Springfield Champion all custom housed out....he liked it.

the only thing I wondered about was his right to ask about the firearm, except under law I suppose the holster constituted probable cause for him to ask....does it in Texas? Is this kosher in Texas to ask a motorist about a firearm if there has been no complaint?

Again to the poster, Kudos!

Blackbeard
August 16, 2007, 10:09 PM
the only thing I wondered about was his right to ask about the firearm, except under law I suppose the holster constituted probable cause for him to ask....does it in Texas? Is this kosher in Texas to ask a motorist about a firearm if there has been no complaint?

I'm no legal expert, but I believe he can ask anything he wants. We do still have mostly free speech in this country. You can ask him about his gun too.

Come on, people, let's not get overly sensitive about what cops can ask you. Do you have to give him permission to run your plates to see if they're reported stolen? Check your license for oustanding warrants? Why would you object to him checking to see if your gun is stolen, too?

When cops ask you stuff they're really looking for your demeanor as much as your answers. Same reason poker players ask each other about their hands -- to see if you're hiding something. I'm sure they stopped the OP because A) OC is unusual in that area, and B) to see if he had the demeanor of a man on his way to shoot someone. The "I don't have to show you ID" remark most likely did NOT eliminate B, so that's why it took longer.

bkjeffrey
August 16, 2007, 11:16 PM
Hoo-effin-ya!!!

Sistema1927
August 17, 2007, 07:05 PM
When cops ask you stuff they're really looking for your demeanor as much as your answers. Same reason poker players ask each other about their hands -- to see if you're hiding something. I'm sure they stopped the OP because A) OC is unusual in that area, and B) to see if he had the demeanor of a man on his way to shoot someone. The "I don't have to show you ID" remark most likely did NOT eliminate B, so that's why it took longer.

I guess that it is routine for Illinois police to stop people and question them hoping to discover a bad demeanor so that they can charge them with something when they have no probable cause that any crime has been committed, but in the free parts of the country this isn't the norm.

Same thing goes for cops wanting to preempt crime by looking for bad demeanor. Just exactly what does a "man on his way to shoot someone" look like? Maybe Illinois police are mind readers, and can determine intent to commit crimes.

coyote_jr
August 17, 2007, 07:30 PM
this one is still going?

If you enjoyed reading about "NH: Vid of my latest open carry incident" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!