A Policeman does it Right

[RBid]

Officer Estes handled this very gracefully. These kids were obviously baiting situations, and trying to generate drama. There were a number of opportunities for them to handle things in a less confrontational way, while still publicizing or educating. For example, they could easily have offered ID, while also vocalizing that they were doing so of their own volition, rather than being obliged to do so. A person does not have to refuse in order to make it clear that they have a choice to refuse.

 

[c4v3man]

We have lost a lot in the last generation. I'd like to get it back.

The problem is that (as far as we know, based on what their stated purpose is) is that they were carrying solely to exercise their rights. Your examples indicate that even children were carrying firearms "back in the day". The difference is that they were carrying them for use, to shoot either at the school firing range, or on the way home from school if they lived in the boonies.

There's little reason to carry an AR15 downtown, miles away from the nearest location you could legally shoot it. They were intending to cause a scene, and test the police's reaction to their actions.

I can understand pistol open carry at all times without purpose as there is a legitimate defensive purpose that can be understood by a neutral party. I can understand rifle open carry WITH PURPOSE, heading to a location where it can legally be used. Walking around a Mall or downtown corridor with a slung rifle serves no purpose, other than to urge neutrals and anti's to contact their representative to stop such behavior. Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should.
That's my opinion. Everyone has a right to their own, that's just where I draw the line.

In regards to the actual video, they should have stopped wasting his time and simply asked if they were being detained, and if they are free to go. If you're not going to answer questions, why act like you're going to have a conversation? The cop seemed pretty understanding, and does seem like a "gun guy", beyond being a level headed individual. I'm bothered by the cop's desire to know if the rifle is loaded, since it's legal in either condition, why wouldn't you assume it was loaded and go about your business? I'm assuming he was going to take down the serial number, but who knows. I certainly wouldn't hand over my weapon unless being detained, and even then would likely ask the officer to remove it from me personally.

Also I can see the cop being given a hard time for offering to hand over a full auto weapon, in a public area, with little security. I'm not sure I'm comfortable with that. At the range, sure. Otherwise, seems like a bad judgement call in a public area, regardless of how neat it'd be. For one thing, the person in question is carrying an AR already, and without a pat-down, you don't know for sure they don't have a space mag available, so unloading it doesn't seem to be enough "safety" in my opinion.

EDIT: In regards to the full auto paragraph above, I'm not implying that he shouldn't have handed over a full auto rifle because it's some kind of weapon of mass destruction. Even if it was a 12guage shotgun, it just doesn't seem necessary, and seems to create unnecessary liability for the citizens he represents.

 

[smalls]

Officer Estes handled this very gracefully. These kids were obviously baiting situations, and trying to generate drama.

And if people stopped making such a big deal about something do stupid, there wouldn't be a point in this "baiting".

Take the oxygen away from the fire and it dies.

 

[RustHunter87]

I only watched half of it because those meat head kids made it painful to watch.

 

[RBid]

And if people stopped making such a big deal about something do stupid, there wouldn't be a point in this "baiting".

Take the oxygen away from the fire and it dies.

Is it your belief that we can reasonably expect that people will stop making a big deal out of open carry? Do you believe that there is a reasonable chance that this video will win over anyone outside of the gun community? Do you believe that these videos do more to promote or hinder our rights?

 

[smalls]

What I'm saying is that if people stop making a big deal about OC, then there's no reason for people to "bait" officers into videos like this and scream "MY RIGHTS ARE BEING VIOLATED!!!!!".

Or, in Internet terms: stop feeding the trolls.

 

[TCB in TN]

Officer Estes handled this very gracefully. These kids were obviously baiting situations, and trying to generate drama. There were a number of opportunities for them to handle things in a less confrontational way, while still publicizing or educating. For example, they could easily have offered ID, while also vocalizing that they were doing so of their own volition, rather than being obliged to do so. A person does not have to refuse in order to make it clear that they have a choice to refuse.

Of course the officer handled it gracefully, and the kids were baiting him. But they were 1st of all within their right to do so. BTW I love how you put the "confrontation" on them. They didn't stop him, he stopped them. I wouldn't consider it a confrontation, but if it was one, the he instigated a it. He stopped them without any reason other than they were armed in public. Since he initiated the conversation then why would they be obliged to be less confrontational. (It is also sad that to see people consider using your rights as being confrontational)

As for offering ID, they had no reason to do so, and made it clear. He made it clear he understood they didn't have to, but continued the conversation, in an effort to get them to give it to him. I suspect that he enjoyed the give and take from his demeanor and his comments, and wanted to see how good they were are not giving him any information, or perhaps if he was better at his job than they.

 

[61Woody]

Holstered handgun I understand but not a rifle. OK, so these guys do this enough to be known around town( there are multiple videos from this guy) so folks get used to it and then some whacko does it and walks into somewhere and pops someone then the statehouse starts getting hundreds of calls to change the laws.

 

[smalls]

So what you're saying, 61woody, is that we shouldn't enjoy our rights? We should have them, but shouldn't be able to exercise them?

Maybe we should just give then up. We won't be needing them, anyway.

 

[RPRNY]

Cop was cool. Dudes were wankers. Luckily, they were such obvious dufuses that he was able to immediately identify them as non - threats. Open carrying ARs in town does way more harm than any imagined good. It's one thing to exercise your rights. They needed to exercise better judgment.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

 

[General Geoff]

It's one thing to exercise your rights. They needed to exercise better judgment.

Freedom means not having to explain yourself for pursuing harmless activities. Police asking for ID from people who aren't doing anything illegal, is a slap in the face.

It doesn't matter if they did it to 'bait' the police into violating their rights, or if they just did it because they wanted to look cool. Their reasons are their own, the government (and the police, being agents of the government) should not be questioning them.

 

[cyclopsshooter]

Props to the officer.. the OC guys.. well.. mixed feelings on going out and making stinks like this.

 

[smalls]

Freedom means not having to explain yourself for pursuing harmless actvities. Police asking for ID from people who aren't doing anything illegal, is a slap in the face.

This.

Who says its bad judgement? The sheeple?

It's a RIGHT. They're meant to be exercised. Not tossed in a closet and forgotten about.

 

[Dnaltrop]

It really is fascinating listening to the police scanner when this sort of thing happens.

Last time here in Portland the guys got met in Gresham if I recall (not sure if same group but same actions) and the officers were radioing ahead to different jurisdictions , and preparing for an uptick in 911 calls while blanketing the airwaves with the message that the carriers were breaking no laws as of yet.

 

[beatledog7]

A whole lot of people in this country simply freak out if they see someone carrying a gun because they have no ability to even conceive of a person carrying a gun without having some nefarious purpose in mind and being an imminent threat to peace and good order.

Calling the police is what they're programmed to do if they see a person with a gun.

Sad.

 

[dmancornell]

That's not doing it right. Doing it right is telling the sheeple to take a hike.

 

[BobTheTomato]

Maybe the cop should go to some sort of gathering of people can collect their names also. You know he is so interested in finding out these guys names I mean he should be concerned about what rights others are exercising. Next he can do a shake down at the library. Get all those names also. I should start calling it in when I see people milling around the library.

Who says its bad judgement? The sheeple?

It's a RIGHT. They're meant to be exercised. Not tossed in a closet and forgotten about.

Bingo.....everyone here going on about what a bad idea it is or that they should bend over for the cops do not understand rights. Being in a free society means that what others do at times will make you uncomfortable or scared.

If cops wanted to enforce the law they should tell people calling to get a life and that what those people are doing is legal.

 

[fanchisimo]

Is it really so bad that police stop to check and make sure an abnormal situation is okay? He didn't try to stomp on their rights, or dissuade them from doing OCing. He was making sure that the OC'ers weren't dangerous. He told them several times they didn't have to give him their ID's or names and even told them they were free to leave at any time. The conversation between Officer Estes and the Three Dweebs lasted only as long as the three wanted. If you open carry somewhere where there is no purpose, I think a casual check doesn't hurt anybody.

 

[itsa pain]

So what you're saying, 61woody, is that we shouldn't enjoy our rights? We should have them, but shouldn't be able to exercise them?

Maybe we should just give then up. We won't be needing them, anyway.

in America we have many rights, just don't get caught trying to use them

 

[itsa pain]

Cop was cool. Dudes were wankers. Luckily, they were such obvious dufuses that he was able to immediately identify them as non - threats. Open carrying ARs in town does way more harm than any imagined good. It's one thing to exercise your rights. They needed to exercise better judgment.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

yes the kids should have gotten on their knees and licked his boots

 

[Browning]

Of course the officer handled it gracefully, and the kids were baiting him. But they were 1st of all within their right to do so. BTW I love how you put the "confrontation" on them. They didn't stop him, he stopped them. I wouldn't consider it a confrontation, but if it was one, the he instigated a it. He stopped them without any reason other than they were armed in public. Since he initiated the conversation then why would they be obliged to be less confrontational. (It is also sad that to see people consider using your rights as being confrontational)

As for offering ID, they had no reason to do so, and made it clear. He made it clear he understood they didn't have to, but continued the conversation, in an effort to get them to give it to him. I suspect that he enjoyed the give and take from his demeanor and his comments, and wanted to see how good they were are not giving him any information, or perhaps if he was better at his job than they.

I'm surprised no one else really picked up on that.

Personally I think that there were a few different things going on in that conversation.

1) The thing is he was called there and was responding to multiple complaints called in by passers-by. Regardless of whether open carry is legal in that State or not since it is kind of unusual these days for someone to go walking around with an AR strapped to their back. If police are called (especially to anything involving a gun) they have to go check it out. To think that any dispatcher is going to risk their job by telling people 'don't worry about it, it's legal to walk down the street with a rifle' when many people call in a man with a gun complaint is kind of naive. Especially since the dispatcher can't see what's going on and can't see the context of why they called.

2) Once he approached I think the officer sized up the situation pretty well. 3 younger guys out to make a statement. However he still has a job to do, part of that job is to keep an eye out for future trouble, to document contacts (which includes ID's) and I think he did enjoy the give and take.

3) After he sized up the situation I think he decided to play 'Good cop' and tried to show that he's a gun guy as well and to try and give these guys the message that not all cops are bullies with a badge. He did this by being knowledgable about guns, firearm laws in carrying on the street and the NFA process, cases available at gun shows, knowing not to overstep bounds in demanding ID's and the issue of Constitutional Rights. Protestor types from all sides of the political equation have the potential for violence at some point later on down the road, so by making a good impression and being polite he might be saving some future cop some trouble. Probably not these three guys, but stranger things have happened. Being polite in almost any situation is never wasted.

If he's not trying to do play that role and be a good guy and show them he's on their side why show them his AR?

He handled it pretty well I think, but there were a few different themes being played out in that conversation if you listen closely.

 

[Chris-bob]

If I had the time, I would gladly sling a .50bmg over my back and carry it everywhere I went. And I would carry a camera on me live the entire time so I could prove I never threatened anyone. Because we all I is that in this country you are actually guilty until proven innocent.

 

[X-JaVeN-X]

Use some common sense people and apply it to reality...Yes those kids had the right to strap an AR to them and walk around, but REALITY is that that is an unusual practice in most places these days. It's an officer's job to be wary of unusual behavior. For all he knew, those kids could have walked around the corner and robbed the local bank. Now, obviously he needs a reason to suspect such an action to detain them or acquire their ID forcefully, but really...just give him your ID and let him go on about his duties. Don't be a knob just to try and prove a point...you'll hurt your cause as much as you think you're helping it by doing that.

I understand the point the kids are trying to make, but there are much smarter ways to do so and bring about awareness to your cause. I think the officer handled the situation well enough....but as soon as he realized what they were doing...he should have went about his way instead of continuously trying to obtain ID. The kids should have stated their point that they didn't have to show ID (to which the cop would have acknowledged) but then showed him their IDs just as a show of cooperation to let the officer get back to more important issues.

Doing it this way, the kids get their point across to their viewers, and the cop gets to do his job of ensuring that nothing funny was going on (again...this is noting that strapping an AR to your chest is not "normal" this day and age)

 

[Bruno2]

I understand where a lot of people are coming from. I don't have to prove to the police that I didn't steal the candy bar I am eating while walking down the sidewalk. The police don't have to respond to man with a gun calls unless there are claims that they are pointing ,threatening or shooting people. The 911 dispatcher could simply ask a couple of questions and determine that the call was a non starter. The only reason I see these type of calls even being investigated would be to mutually harass the OC person.

 

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

Everyone is forgetting the fact that none of us know what the caller actually said on 911 to the dispatcher. The dispatcher only knows what the caller tells them and the officer only knew what dispatch told him until he got to the scene and started finding out for himself. For all we know the caller could have been hysterical and blowing it out of proportion. Maybe the caller told dispatch he was threatening people. Maybe not. Maybe dispatch then told the officer that it probably wasn't a big deal but he should check it out to make sure. Maybe not. Maybe the officer is required to respond to all assignments from dispatch regardless if he thinks it's a big deal. Maybe not. Maybe dispatch is required to treat all calls as emergencies even if it seems like it's not. Maybe not. Maybe that department's policy is to attempt to get IDs from all involved parties in a call for the sake of documentation. Maybe not.

That's a lot of maybes. And we don't know the answers to any of them. Did you hear the 911 call? Did you listen to what dispatch told the officer? Did you read the local dispatch SOP? Did you read the department's SOP? If you answered "No" to any of those, you really have no place to assume anything. All we know is the officer responded to a call, like cops are supposed to, and he handled it calmly, politely, legally, and tactfully.

To assume anything else is purely you projecting your own bias on the officer. And if you really stop and think about it, you'll realize that's true. So stop it.

If police are called (especially to anything involving a gun) they have to go check it out. To think that any dispatcher is going to risk their job by telling people 'don't worry about it, it's legal to walk down the street with a rifle' when many people call in a man with a gun complaint is kind of naive. Especially since the dispatcher can't see what's going on and can't see the context of why they called.

THIS

If anyone got arrested, I would hope we would make a big about it. If anyone even got handcuffed I would hope we would make a big deal about it. But cops are supposed to go find things out.. It's called investigating. No arrests were made, no property was siezed, no one was detained, hurt, insulted, or deprived of their rights in any way. Cops are allowed to ask questions. They're supposed to ask questions. NO, asking questions does not deprive you of your rights. They can ask all they want. You have the right not to answer. They even have to tell you that based on what questions they're asking and when. But cops are most assuredly allowed to walk up to you and ask your name and what's up. No, that's not trampling any rights.