You must watch this video
- Thread starter Dr_2_B
- Start date
- Status
bkjeffrey
Member
My opinion on the video....Hmmm
I feel that the pedestrian was unnecessarily being uncooperative with the officer for no reason other than to try and prove a point. I do not know what his motives for not properly identifying himself were. As soon as the officer acknowledged his right to carry and returned the firearm he then had no reason to be standoffish.
The officer did everything properly in my opinion and treated the pedestrian with courtesy, the pedestrian should have returned the favor.
In my opinion we live in a society that has an "us vs them" attitude, and when a police officer is doing his job to "protect and serve" with a common courtesy for man and his liberties we should be willing to adhere to their requests to form an alliance with authority. But I bet now that officer got in his car and probably thought "man, that guy was being a butt-head". I know I did. If I was the pedestrian I would have taken the opportunity to make amends with the officer in hopes that we as people with rights can form an alliance and understanding of cooperation with local law enforcement.
This is my opinion again, but I bet if in the future that officer ever pulls that guy over for J-walking he wont let the "its my right" excuse fly with the way he advertently denied the officers request for information.
I believe honest gun owners should make efforts to portray themselves as cooperative and courteous law abiding citizens and not show blatant disregard for authority just because we want to make a point. Thats exactly what the pedestrian did.
I feel that the pedestrian was unnecessarily being uncooperative with the officer for no reason other than to try and prove a point. I do not know what his motives for not properly identifying himself were. As soon as the officer acknowledged his right to carry and returned the firearm he then had no reason to be standoffish.
The officer did everything properly in my opinion and treated the pedestrian with courtesy, the pedestrian should have returned the favor.
In my opinion we live in a society that has an "us vs them" attitude, and when a police officer is doing his job to "protect and serve" with a common courtesy for man and his liberties we should be willing to adhere to their requests to form an alliance with authority. But I bet now that officer got in his car and probably thought "man, that guy was being a butt-head". I know I did. If I was the pedestrian I would have taken the opportunity to make amends with the officer in hopes that we as people with rights can form an alliance and understanding of cooperation with local law enforcement.
This is my opinion again, but I bet if in the future that officer ever pulls that guy over for J-walking he wont let the "its my right" excuse fly with the way he advertently denied the officers request for information.
I believe honest gun owners should make efforts to portray themselves as cooperative and courteous law abiding citizens and not show blatant disregard for authority just because we want to make a point. Thats exactly what the pedestrian did.
Lawdawg45
Member
I've seen this video on several other forums, and the Officer's actions/responses were textbook academy training, kudos to him. The civilian however was a juvenile mindset looking for a confrontation or attention that mommy never gave him. This goof is the worst possible spokesman for 2nd amendment rights:banghead:.
LD45
LD45
lead slinger
Member
bkjeffrey and lawdawg45
your both dead on. there was no reason to not give your last name
your both dead on. there was no reason to not give your last name
Mike1234567
member
No question in my mind that they were both posturing a just little bit... very minor but it's there none-the-less.
easyg
Member
As nice as this police officer appeared to be, we have to ask:
Would the police officer had stopped the pedestrian had the pedestrian not been carrying a handgun?
If open carry is legal in that cop's state, then why was the pedestrian stopped at all?
Stopping anyone for doing something that is perfectly legal is not good policing....it's the early beginnings of a "police state".
Would the police officer had stopped the pedestrian had the pedestrian not been carrying a handgun?
If open carry is legal in that cop's state, then why was the pedestrian stopped at all?
Stopping anyone for doing something that is perfectly legal is not good policing....it's the early beginnings of a "police state".
lead slinger
Member
I think in the start of the video the cop said a call came in about some one carrying a gun
Lawdawg45
Member
"As nice as this police officer appeared to be, we have to ask:
Would the police officer had stopped the pedestrian had the pedestrian not been carrying a handgun?
If open carry is legal in that cop's state, then why was the pedestrian stopped at all?"
If I remember correctly, this childish experiment took place in California where every County, City and in some cases local department jurisdictions differing in their handgun rules, so the laws for concealed carry or open carry differ vastly. If open carry was only legal with an unloaded weapon (the impression I get from the video), the Officer was well within his S.O.P.'s to determine this. Bottom line is that this little boy got some much needed attention and his video made viral on YouTube.
Would the police officer had stopped the pedestrian had the pedestrian not been carrying a handgun?
If open carry is legal in that cop's state, then why was the pedestrian stopped at all?"
If I remember correctly, this childish experiment took place in California where every County, City and in some cases local department jurisdictions differing in their handgun rules, so the laws for concealed carry or open carry differ vastly. If open carry was only legal with an unloaded weapon (the impression I get from the video), the Officer was well within his S.O.P.'s to determine this. Bottom line is that this little boy got some much needed attention and his video made viral on YouTube.
I am a civilian
The cop acted appropriately, he knew he was being filmed, albeit he did a fine job.
The civilian was within his rights, he wasn't belligerent but not forth coming. Who says he has to be forthcoming??? No One.
No harm, No foul. Both did fine.
The cop acted appropriately, he knew he was being filmed, albeit he did a fine job.
The civilian was within his rights, he wasn't belligerent but not forth coming. Who says he has to be forthcoming??? No One.
No harm, No foul. Both did fine.
unless of course there is no legal requirement to give your last name......in which case, why offer more information than needed.
just because the cop was friendly, doesnt make him your friend.
suppose he gave his full name, the officer runs the name....and suppose someone with the same name has a warrant out for his arrest.....well, hows the officer supposed to know the difference between the two......that means his day gets a whole lot more inconvenient.
also to the people claiming the guy was "looking for attention"........suppose this encounter had gone differently....suppose the cop was belligerent and assaulted him........would you have the same opinion then?
now i have some doubts as to whether this officer was genuinely a nice guy...or whether he is smart enough to know that if he does wrong, everyone will know.......but the way he handled the situation should be a model on how to handle these encounters.
Last edited:
KodiakBeer
member
The cop was polite, but he was still detaining a citizen with no probable cause whatsoever. Are you suggesting that we should be polite when we are illegally detained, searched and disarmed?
I wonder if the cop would have been polite if he wasn't being recorded?
I wonder if the cop would have been polite if he wasn't being recorded?
Ruddie
Member
..... So, let me get this straight, law enforcement get ridiculed for stopping the guy to simply ask him some questions?
If the guy was open carrying, I would have asked him for id too. He could have been a violent person or just a guy on a stroll. How are we to know? Just talking to him can give an idea on his mind set. Unless you think its ok for crazy people to wield guns and not be bothered by an officer.... I'm sure that would be our fault as well.... "why didn't the cops stop the crazy guy walking down the street with a gun on his side"
If he would have taken this video and then killed someone, it would have been our fault for not stopping him in the first place....
It's whatever though.
If the guy was open carrying, I would have asked him for id too. He could have been a violent person or just a guy on a stroll. How are we to know? Just talking to him can give an idea on his mind set. Unless you think its ok for crazy people to wield guns and not be bothered by an officer.... I'm sure that would be our fault as well.... "why didn't the cops stop the crazy guy walking down the street with a gun on his side"
If he would have taken this video and then killed someone, it would have been our fault for not stopping him in the first place....
It's whatever though.
As far as I am concerned, the cop was doing his job. Although California still allows open carry, but it is legal ONLY if the gun is unloaded. The cop validated that and was on his way. I don't have the whole of the California penal code memorized, but I don't think that stopping a person excercising open carry to check that the firearms are in fact unloaded constitutes illegal detainment.
While we will never know whta Officer Lyons would have done had the camera not beemn recording, we do know that with it recording, he was polite and professional.
Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
"I think in the start of the video the cop said a call came in about some one carrying a gun."
If the cop is indeed responding to such a call, he is obligated to determine the reality of the situation. That open carry is legal in no way means that the carrier cannot be questioned--at least briefly.
To believe that the investigation was a violation of the carrier's rights in this situation is saying that a concerned citizen should have been quiet and unconcerned about an unusual event. No matter what Keyboard Kommandos think, Nervous Nellies and Little Old Ladies have rights also.
If the cop is indeed responding to such a call, he is obligated to determine the reality of the situation. That open carry is legal in no way means that the carrier cannot be questioned--at least briefly.
To believe that the investigation was a violation of the carrier's rights in this situation is saying that a concerned citizen should have been quiet and unconcerned about an unusual event. No matter what Keyboard Kommandos think, Nervous Nellies and Little Old Ladies have rights also.
In my opinion LAWDAWG45 is spot on . This gentleman could have been a felon. Every region laws are different for open carry protocal. The officer did his job. The man carrying was being prickish. There is no reason for him to withhold info if he did not do anything wrong. I Personally feel that when you open carry you open yourself to this type of thing.
easyg
Member
In the United States Of America we have a legal system based upon "the presumption of innocence".
Of course we don't "know" if any given person is a violent criminal of not, but any given person in this nation is presumed innocent of being a violent criminal until that person actually gives reason to presume otherwise.
If carrying a handgun is legal then there is no reason to presume the person is a violent criminal.
The police in the U.S.A. are not supposed to stop people engaged in legal activities just to see if they have a history of violent crime.
Unless the person in question is acting in a "crazy" manner, or a highly suspicious manner, or committing a crime, then the mind set of any given law abiding citizen is none of the officer's business.
Does this mean that a crazy person might somehow get a gun and shoot someone out of the blue with no warning signs whatsoever?
Yes.
That is the price we pay for our freedoms.
Easy
Last edited:
easyg
Member
If open carry is legal, then it does not matter if someone called the police about a guy carrying a gun.
Why should an officer respond to investigate perfectly legal behavior?
Do you think that the police should stop a pedestrian if someone called and reported to the police "Hey, there's a guy walking around my neighborhood and he has a cellphone on his side. I want you guys to come and check him out to make sure he's not some kind of criminal"?
Again, the police in this nation are not supposed to stop law-abiding citizens, who appear to be breaking no laws, for no good reason.
This violates our Constitutional Right against unwarranted search and seizure.
"Nervous Nellies and Little Old Ladies" do have rights, just as you said. But they do not have a Constitutional Right to have another person investigated by the police simply because they don't like the legal behavior of that person.
Easy
Last edited:
Cop Bob
Member
Unfortunately it is not quite that simple, when the police are called, especially in weapons related calls, they are obligated to respond, and to investigate. An honest man/person has nothing to fear from police presence, or their invesitgation, as this video proves.
And yes, officers, all over this country have countless man hours spend investigating what often, more often than not, legal activity.. Little old ladies and concerned citizens call all the time about strange vehicles parked in a drive, that turn out to be relatives visiting, or a new yard man.
This young man could just as easily could have been up to no good. And know one would know unless the stop was made and the questions were asked. . It went well, the officer did his job. just as thousands of officers, in every city in this country do each and every day...
Open carry has it's benefits, and it's draw backs. While civilians and those who MAY have thought of making you into a victim will look elsewhere. A drawback may be that the police, well, it just may "Arouse their Professional Curiosity". In making the choice to engage on open carry, you also may invite the opportunity to meet and greet some police officers you never met before...
As far as the young man that was stopped, well, he is fortunate.. Attitude is everything, especially in dealing with Law Enforcement.. Lucky for him he wasn't in Canton...
And yes, officers, all over this country have countless man hours spend investigating what often, more often than not, legal activity.. Little old ladies and concerned citizens call all the time about strange vehicles parked in a drive, that turn out to be relatives visiting, or a new yard man.
This young man could just as easily could have been up to no good. And know one would know unless the stop was made and the questions were asked. . It went well, the officer did his job. just as thousands of officers, in every city in this country do each and every day...
Open carry has it's benefits, and it's draw backs. While civilians and those who MAY have thought of making you into a victim will look elsewhere. A drawback may be that the police, well, it just may "Arouse their Professional Curiosity". In making the choice to engage on open carry, you also may invite the opportunity to meet and greet some police officers you never met before...
As far as the young man that was stopped, well, he is fortunate.. Attitude is everything, especially in dealing with Law Enforcement.. Lucky for him he wasn't in Canton...
KodiakBeer
member
I guess I missed the part about the cop responding to a complaint, so in this case I'd cut him some slack. He did as he was obligated to do, and did it politely and professionally.
If it had been otherwise, the cop merely witnessed a person carrying a gun and rousted him I'd say we had a bad cop. There's not much difference between rousting an armed citizen and rousting a person of color because they happen to be in a white neighborhood (to pull an example out of my behind).
If it had been otherwise, the cop merely witnessed a person carrying a gun and rousted him I'd say we had a bad cop. There's not much difference between rousting an armed citizen and rousting a person of color because they happen to be in a white neighborhood (to pull an example out of my behind).
Lawdawg45
Member
"The cop was polite, but he was still detaining a citizen with no probable cause whatsoever."
Kodiak, you're confusing Alaska with California. First, you need a score card to keep up with the handgun regulations which vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and in this particular region open carry is only legal with an unloaded weapon. The Officer was dispatched there and had a legal obligation to establish the weapon was indeed unloaded, and had all the PC he needed. Even in your home state an Officer may engage a pedestrian who is open carrying to determine the person isn't intoxicated or impaired in some fashion. I can tell you that if this kid had refused to identify himself here in Indiana, he would have bought a trip to central processing to await a fingerprint ID, and then face additional charges for refusing to identify.
LD45
Kodiak, you're confusing Alaska with California. First, you need a score card to keep up with the handgun regulations which vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and in this particular region open carry is only legal with an unloaded weapon. The Officer was dispatched there and had a legal obligation to establish the weapon was indeed unloaded, and had all the PC he needed. Even in your home state an Officer may engage a pedestrian who is open carrying to determine the person isn't intoxicated or impaired in some fashion. I can tell you that if this kid had refused to identify himself here in Indiana, he would have bought a trip to central processing to await a fingerprint ID, and then face additional charges for refusing to identify.
LD45
- Status
Similar threads
