Traitors amoung us; Cop threatens to shoot OC in the head
- Thread starter smogmage
- Start date
- Status
But it isn't up to you to make that determination. The state government decided what is legal and what isn't. Anything beyond that and the police are the ones breaking the law. It doesn't matter one whit what they think. It only matters what they law says. Do they get to decide if you can exercise your free speech or not? Because I guarantee that I can cause more of a stir by the things I say than those guys did carrying a gun. We have to draw the line somewhere and that is what governments do. And that line has already been drawn. It isn't up to the cops to change it in any way. They are not little kings running around making up their own laws as they see fit. They are enforcing the state's laws and those laws are very clear. And nowhere in those laws are cops permitted to harass people for exercising their constitutional rights. And that bull about "this day and age" sounds like my grandmother complaining about long hair. I remember when cops actually harassed people about their hair. Is that the kind of state you want? There's a name for that BTW - it's called a police state.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
So?
Honestly, he was probably looking for the officer to do something criminally bad ("Harless" bad we might call it) and make a nice chunk of bux off it.
Would that make it better?
W.E.G.
Member
Walking around town with a slung long gun may be legal, but it's not too bright.
You're guaranteed to meet lots of people that way.
Your life, your reputation.
Make what (mess) you want of it.
You're guaranteed to meet lots of people that way.
Your life, your reputation.
Make what (mess) you want of it.
smogmage
Member
The "this day and age" or "social climates have changed" and "isn't prudent" arguments are null and void. Did the Law Change? Your opinion doesn't matter, the officers opinion doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is THE LAW and what the two individuals were doing was clearly Lawful. Follow the law, that's all is required. Don't like the law? Work to get it changed. Unjust Law? Personal moral choice, but realize there might be consequences, just like anything else.
Reaching for a dog is a bit different than reaching for your gun...
Like I said I am not a fan of JBT but the LE officer only told the guy calmly that until they made sure he was just practicing his second amendment rights they were responding to a legitimate call and any moves toward his guns were going to be met harshly... Anyone involved in the Open carry movement KNOWS they are likely to be stopped and it will be nerving to both parties for a bit....
BTW ya reference asking for the dogs I.D- where did the officer ask for the guns information/ID?
Also in some areas some dog breeds do require licences and it is not uncommon to be stopped and asked for the paperwork...
The officers in this case to me did not seem overly stressed nor emotional like some stops I have heard... other than the "preaching" which should have been during coffee between them and not under the "official" stop.
What "determination" did I make? I agreed that "shoot you in the head" is over the top, and I opined that the cop was otherwise courteous and that I PERSONALLY don't agree with OC activism.
I'm entitled to an opinion. Please don't read extra into what I type.
Last edited:
smogmage
Member
There was Nothing calm about the encounter. They were held at gunpoint under threat of being shot in the head if they moved, while the officer went on a rant about his personal opinions. Which sadly was just a fishing expedition and a time extension so the officer could "invent" a reason to arrest him. You can hear the two officers towards the end trying to stretch 1000ft to a school zone, or just "reclassify" an establishment as a school. Frankly its shocking and disgusting.
If an officer came into my front yard and I did the same thing to him, holding him at gunpoint while threatening to shoot him in the head if he moved in a manner I didn't like, I would end up going to jail.
"Assault with a Dangerous Weapon:
A person can be charged with assault with a dangerous weapon even if another person was not hurt during the incident. To be clear, assault does not have to involve any injuries whatsoever, it is merely invoking fear or threatening someone of committing violence with a deadly or dangerous weapon."
Citizens legally open carrying do expect at some point in time, some sort of encounter with Law Enforcement. That's not to say that they wish for these encounters, but simply an acknowledgement of how society and LE do not respect the Constitutional Rights of others.
Mike1234567
member
To those who think legal open carry is "asking for trouble": What if you attend a political event and you need to ask a valid question of a candidate to clear the air on something extremely important. But it's been made clear that "challenging questions" will be viewed as dissension and a verbal threat. Those who dare will be forcibly removed and arrested. Will you ask your question anyway?
Even if the two guys exercising their open carry rights were demonstrating dissension, so what? Dissension is very often a good thing.
DISSENSION: A disagreement that causes the people in a group to argue about something that is important to them.
Even if the two guys exercising their open carry rights were demonstrating dissension, so what? Dissension is very often a good thing.
DISSENSION: A disagreement that causes the people in a group to argue about something that is important to them.
DT Guy
Member
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2003
- Messages
- 1,846
Tallpaul,
You seem to be OK with deadly threats offered to a law-abiding citizen. I've tried to make a point by analogy, but I don't think it worked.
One final try-your wife is doing something lawful (shopping, singing, whatever) in the street, and a police officer approaches her, tells her to stop while he 'investigates' and threatens to shoot her in the head if she reaches into her pocket.
Would you be OK with that? How about if he was fairly calm and even jovial while he said it?
Yes, a gun is different from a dog, but both are legal to have with you on a walk. I agree it's unwise to OC, but it's not illegal, and if we surrender that right we lose it.
Larry
You seem to be OK with deadly threats offered to a law-abiding citizen. I've tried to make a point by analogy, but I don't think it worked.
One final try-your wife is doing something lawful (shopping, singing, whatever) in the street, and a police officer approaches her, tells her to stop while he 'investigates' and threatens to shoot her in the head if she reaches into her pocket.
Would you be OK with that? How about if he was fairly calm and even jovial while he said it?
Yes, a gun is different from a dog, but both are legal to have with you on a walk. I agree it's unwise to OC, but it's not illegal, and if we surrender that right we lose it.
Larry
lobo9er
Member
It should be fairly easy to see these guys are not threatening anyone and there is no need to remind them they will be shot in the head over and over. And no need to lecture them. Wasn't the worst clip I have seen but still ridiculous and then looking for a reason to arrest them for being 1000 ft near anything.
ares338
Member
I get it! A LEOs job has dangers but in reality a crab fisherman, a firefighter and a loggers job is more dangerous. So get over yourselves!
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Ok, then he's completely successful. They found a cop who doesn't know how to handle these situations properly and they've used a powerful social tool to bring light to that matter in the hopes of correcting it.
Kudos to them!
With that kind of threat verbalized, wouldn't it constitute reasonable fear for one's life?
Were the OCs in violation of any law?
Did the officer have probable cause to threaten deadly force?
How far does a badge go to protect the wearer when he engages in criminal behavior?
DT Guy
Member
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2003
- Messages
- 1,846
I know LEO's have been prosecuted for 'reckless endangerment' (or its equivalent in the particular state's code) for pointing guns at people without sufficient cause in the past. I think this might be the case here, although I'm not sure they actually pointed their weapons; maybe 'assault' (in Illinois, at least) for verbal threats of physical harm.
HoosierQ
Member
I hardly think the LEO's behavior makes him a traitor for crying out loud!!! That is absolutely absurd. It is that kind of crazy language that gets us labeled gun nuts in the first place. Maybe if "we" didn't go around calling people we disagree with "traitors", there'd be a little more trust that we're not crazy and thus the occurance of such incidents as shown in this video would decrease.
We have done very well in the area of Concealed Carry. I suspect Open Carry will be more of an uphill battle in urban settings.
But using the word "traitor" is going to get nobody nowhere!
We have done very well in the area of Concealed Carry. I suspect Open Carry will be more of an uphill battle in urban settings.
But using the word "traitor" is going to get nobody nowhere!
Baba Louie
Member
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2002
- Messages
- 3,831
Well said PabloJ. OC for no particular reason is certainly going to allow one to meet new people and have interesting recorded conversations at the very least.
An interesting video. Walking around with a long gun but not going hunting or to the range? Hmmmm.
LEOs verbal warning about shooting beats getting shot tho' (the very recent 13 year old AK/airsoft tragic incident for all involved comes to mind).
Things could have gone south in a heartbeat and we all know it. (unstable person, P.O.d ex employee or spousal unit with a grudge, etc) I personally thought the Coppers did a pretty good job actually. EVERYONE went home safe and alive. A good thing.
Even tho I'd bet dollars to donuts the Coppers involved had a buttload of paperwork to fill out as a result of this encounter and have taken some heat ever since. Ask yourself, if you were the Copper, what would you do or say while you were in his shoes that day? (rhetorical in nature as I don't care but it's an exercise I go thru, like the "what ifs")
Mainsail
Member
PabloJ said:
When we first began to open carry here people called the police all the time. We were threatened, harassed, and experienced all manner of unbecoming conduct by the police. We just kept right on with it. We wrote letters, called police chiefs, and when it was warranted we got our lawyers on them.tarosean said:
Now it is rare for the police to bother anyone for OC, even in <deleted> Seattle. I was sitting at home one afternoon and heard an open carry exchange on the scanner; dispatch sent two officers to investigate- the first cop on scene radioed in that it was just an open carrier and cancelled the other car. He never got out of his car.
It's not the callers so much as the police (from chiefs to dispatch to individual officers) that need to change their mind.
If you were sitting in starbucks typing a response to this forum and someone called the police, and the police officer demanded to see your ID to make sure it was legal for you to be doing so- while threatening to shoot you- our opinion might be different.
Last edited by a moderator:
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Not so.
All we have to do is convince the police chiefs and administrators to educate their officers correctly. There is ABSOLUTELY nothing about a 911 call they might have received which requires the responses of this officer.
The young fellows in that video would have nothing to show (of a negative sort) if the officer did a simple drive by to check out what was going on, or even stopped and said hello and chatted with them for a moment respectfully before heading off to other matters.
The VCDL and other groups around the country have been having tremendous success at getting police better educated about these matters and properly handling such encounters without offending or threatening the lives of anyone.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
I gathered that the "traitor" tag came about because of his own claim that he's a 2nd amendment fan or whatever. Not the right term ... more like hypocrite.
xxjumbojimboxx
Member
I think the cop is in the right to encounter the suspect... guns at the ready if he feels necessary.. but an 18 minute gun point lecture to someone whos not breaking the law? That borders on harassment... its my thought that this officer played out the situation to try and get a rise outta the guy so that he could disarm him... the citzen played it well... dont loose your cool fellas! And keep recording.
Mainsail
Member
Baba Louie said:
xxjumbojimboxx said:
Not well said at all actually. Gregory Casad was walking down a street in Port Angeles with two rifles wrapped in a towel and someone called the police. The police stopped him at gunpoint, discovered he was a felon, and arrested him. They discovered drug paraphernalia in his backpack. The case was dismissed. Why? Because the police did not have reasonable suspicion that there was a crime afoot and thus had no legal authority to stop him. That meant all the evidence they discovered was inadmissible. You see, it's not unlawful to carry a rifle in public.
The State tried all manner of law twisting to appeal the ruling in support of their officers, but the State Appeals Court disagreed.
If you have the desire to be educated, read the opinion here. If not, feel free to continue on in your ignorance.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Uh, sure. I mean he didn't actually kill anyone and that's about the best we can hope for from our police officers...right? Are you suggesting cops aren't confident enough, or socially adept enough, or mentally capable enough to do anything but this quasi-homicidal dominance display in the face of someone who hadn't broken the law or threatened any harm to anyone?
If so, wow, you've got a terrible opinion of those who are supposed to be serving and protecting!
Oh, how about, "Hi guys, good morning! We got a call about two guys with guns and we just have to check out every call, you know? Everything ok? What are you all up to? The law says (X,Y,Z) just so you're clear. If everything's good, I'm going to take off. Have a nice day..."
That would have worked JUST fine and met every possible duty the officer and his department have in such cases...and probably more.
- Status
