Guy open carries an AK, stopped breifly by cops.

[DPris]

In my state, and other state & municipalities have some variation of the same broad principle, we have a disorderly conduct law that can be applied to a wide range of circumstances that include activities which create fear or disruption of normal activities. Usually used in group settings and public places, it's there as a catch-all for activities that may not be specifically addressed elsewhere in statute.

This is not a blanket license to arrest just because somebody pisses off a cop, the courts keep a good eye on it, but the sight of an AK wandering through a public place and causing public alarm can certainly fall under the disorderly conduct purview.
As such, in my state, a police officer is perfectly justified in requesting ID as a legitimate part of an initial investigation into a possible crime, and if there are indications that a public alarm has been created, establishing the ID & intent of the person allows greater latitude.
There are many other situations where ID can be requested during the initial investigatory phase of early contact in determining whether or not a crime is, in fact, being or has been committed.

Detaining such a person, WITH good cause, is perfectly acceptable, as long as such detention is brief and used for the purpose of ascertaining whether or not there's a crime involved.
That may take three minutes or 30, depending on how much time's required to locate witnesses or victims, look at physical evidence encountered, and so on.

The "Totality Of Circumstances" rule also comes into play relative to obtaining or establishing identification.

The Constitution prohibits police from demanding ID from somebody just sauntering down the sidewalk at random, but does allow police to take further measures in establishing it with someone who may be involved in criminal activity.

There are many occasions where detainment results in arrest, and many where detainment results in the subject leaving under his own power.

Refusing to provide ID IF a criminal act is suspected can be another reason for further detainment.

Denis

 

[nwilliams]

He sounds like a jackass in the video as much as he is acting like one.

Personally I think the police officer in the video is handling the situation rather well. I'm sure there are some cops who would have seen this guy walking down the street with an AK and immediately pulled their gun and called for backup.

Seeing someone walking down a public street with an assault rifle is not normal and I can completely understand the police wanting to question him on his motives. If I saw someone walking down a public street with an AK I would certainly be a bit curious. If you ask me there is a big difference between someone walking around with a holstered handgun on their side and someone walking around town with an AK over their shoulder. One person is exercising his or her right to carry for protection and the other is carrying simply to be a jackass, it's not hard to figure out which is which in this scenario.

 

[FC]

DPris please cite which state and code for me.

 

[DPris]

Utah.
No, I won't do your homework for you.
Look it up.
Denis

 

[THe Dove]

I have not read every post as this is a long one. I did watch the video and from what I gather; 1. the police were called by concerned citizen(s). 2. the officers repsonded and checked the individual out to ensure he was not a threat to anyone or himself, 3. the individual checked out and was left to go on his way..........

We can break it down and disect all day long but the dude was not violating any laws, and the officers were not violating any laws by checking the individual out....

In summary, the dude got what he wanted (ie, video to post on youtube and walk away with his weapon).... I hope he is happy.

Also, I want to thank the officer's for doing thier job in a professional manner as well.

The Dove

 

[FC]

Utah.
No, I won't do your homework for you.
Look it up.
Denis

I already have. I am sorry but I was apparently under the misapprehension that you had some tie to LE, now I know otherwise. Thank you for clearing that up for me.

The code http://le.utah.gov/~code/TITLE77/htm/77_07_001500.htm

77-7-15. Authority of peace officer to stop and question suspect -- Grounds.
A peace officer may stop any person in a public place when he has a reasonable suspicion to believe he has committed or is in the act of committing or is attempting to commit a public offense and may demand his name, address and an explanation of his actions.

 

[average_shooter]

I'm very aware of people who open carry and also carry recording devices in case of police interactions. However, in large part they just go about their own business and start recording only if they feel the need arises.

This guy isn't doing that. The full video is about 15 minutes long and he is recording long before the police show up. He seems to know, suspect or be hoping that the police will show up so he can get a confrontation on video/audio.

He is very verbally combative and arrogant. The cops really aren't too worried; looks like first cop has his hands in his pockets, second cop knows the guy by name. But the guy still gets agitated and all fired up.

I would have a lot more sympathy for this guy if he were respectful and conducting himself professionally, with an AK on his back or not. I have a very low tolerance for his kind of behavior in anyone. It is simply not required in order to successfully communicate with others. He is within his rights, yes, but he also is definitely coming across as a jack*** in many of his videos.

He's just angry about something. And he acts similarly in his other videos. He also puts down and cusses out people who send him comments of support. I've been know to curse along with the best of them, but this is pretty ridiculous.

 

[DPris]

FC,
I'm a retired Utah career cop, I just wasn't going to look it up for you & provide cites. Or related statutes, Supreme Court rulings, or case law.
Or argue the "rightness or wrongness" of the principles that apply.

My point was that in some jurisdictions under some circumstances ID can be demanded.
Denis

 

[TexasRifleman]

My point was that in some jurisdictions under some circumstances ID can be demanded.

That's not what the law says that was quoted. It says LE can demand name and address. There is a big difference. Being able to demand ID means that if someone is unable to produce ID they may be detained further.

77-7-15. Authority of peace officer to stop and question suspect -- Grounds.
A peace officer may stop any person in a public place when he has a reasonable suspicion to believe he has committed or is in the act of committing or is attempting to commit a public offense and may demand his name, address and an explanation of his actions.

 

[FC]

FC,
I'm a retired Utah career cop, I just wasn't going to look it up for you & provide cites. Or related statutes, Supreme Court rulings, or case law.
Or argue the "rightness or wrongness" of the principles that apply.

My point was that in some jurisdictions under some circumstances ID can be demanded.
Denis

I didn't figure you would have to look it up! Being a cop I would think that you would know what law you were making use of to perform stop.

Just how long ago did you retire anyway? The code I cited was "Enacted by Chapter 15, 1980 General Session" so it's not exactly new.

 

[suzukisam]

Cops don't know the law as a general rule. A friend of mine runs a private security company and teaches lw to academy instructors. And he warned me that I better know the law and my rights because he has seen time after time people being arrested and dragged through when they even broke a law to start with.

Everyone keeps saying this guy was an a hole and maybe he is I don't know him. Maybe he is finally sick and tired of a sherrifs department deciding whether he has the right to protect himself or not and he has just decided to be as over the top as they are. You can google many instances of liberal sheriffs jacking with permit apps. This MAY be one of those. And if all my assumptions are the reality of the situation then I give him kudos for showing restraint with cops and not telling them which end to kiss. If he was denied because he some sort of felon, then that is a whole different story, however him having a legal ak gtends make me think the latter is not the case

 

[DPris]

TR,
Not following you.
If you're splitting hairs and interpreting the wording indicating VERBAL name & address can be demanded, but not an ID card, you're just splitting hairs.

FC,
I started in '76, retired in early '99.
I do not have the numbers of the entire Utah State Criminal Code memorized now, and I didn't then.
I knew the wording, I knew what the DA would prosecute, and I knew what the courts upheld.
It was entirely possible to do the job without memorizing the numbers for everything in the criminal code book.

When I made an arrest or issued a citation, I looked up the applicable number on what we called a "cheat sheet", which was a list of the most commonly applied statutes & ordinances, for the applicable paperwork.
If it involved a more esoteric violation, I hauled out the book & looked it up.

Denis

 

[TexasRifleman]

TR,
Not following you.
If you're splitting hairs and interpreting the wording indicating VERBAL name & address can be demanded, but not an ID card, you're just splitting hairs.

It's not splitting hairs, it could potentially mean 2 different outcomes to me. There are many legitimate reasons a person might not have physical ID on them. If the law requires physical proof of ID then they can detain even if the person has a good reason for being without the card (lost etc).

If the law says they can demand name and address that's easily provided verbally.

Seems like 2 different things to me anyway.

Anyway, it's side tracking from the topic so I'll stop now.

 

[FC]

TR,
I knew the wording, I knew what the DA would prosecute, and I knew what the courts upheld.

If you actually stopped someone and demanded ID without reasonable suspicion of a crime having been committed or about to be committed you broke the law.

You stated

In my state, and other state & municipalities have some variation of the same broad principle, we have a disorderly conduct law that can be applied to a wide range of circumstances that include activities which create fear or disruption of normal activities.

and you are 100% wrong. Hence the reason I asked for the cite. No prosecutor would go after anything that was so far from the actual law.

This is no longer just about questioning something you said DPris. It's about the need for people to know their rights and laws as it is apparent that some LE at least doesn't feel that to be in their job description.

 

[FROGO207]

It all comes down to there is a good way to prove your point and a poor way to prove your point. The person may be legally correct and whatever but allowing the rest of us that strive to promote the 2nd Amend. appear in a bad light by association is bad for the lot as a whole. He was correct but was he a great example?:banghead: I would hope to come off as an intelligent, caring, and passionate advocate for the 2A cause if I was ever in a remotely similar situation. The AK was used purely for shock factor and a poor choice IMHO.

 

[DPris]

Establishing identity is an element of the initial phase of investigating a crime, or possible crime.
Here, police can demand ID for the purpose of establishing identity under certain circumstances, as noted.
If any type of official "card" (DL, state ID card, etc.) can be & is produced, the process can be & frequently is resolved fairly quickly along those lines.

If no ID can be produced, or a subject refuses to produce one, that COMBINED WITH OTHER FACTORS such as the nature of the stop, the demeanor (threatening, intoxicated, etc.) of the subject, the determination that a crime probably has been committed, the necessity of determining if the subject is the committer or the victim, and so on, certainly can prolong the detainment.

ID is considered fairly important by the courts, to at least try & ensure the subject cited, warned, or booked is actually who he or she says they are. A verbal name & address not supported by paper just takes longer for everybody to sort out & frequently results in either the wrong body getting a "contact" or criminal record, or the right body skating.

I can recall two separate cases where I had to book two constitutionalists (please, no filthy letters, not interested) instead of releasing them on misdemeanor cite promises to appear at the scene, when they had no ID and I had no way of determining who they really were. Once booked, the jail would try to work that out before releasing, or ensure they were taken before a judge.
They didn't believe in ID cards or DLs, unfortunately society & the legal system do.

And, I'm sidetracking, too.

Bottom line is if you deliberately stick your hand in a piranha tank, you can't expect to get it back out with skin on it.
You want to go ahead & do it, fine. It's your right & your hand.
Denis

 

[jonmerritt]

I will not condem him for what he is doing, and those that do, wish they had the guts to do it. Would I do that? I don't know. He is in accordance with the law, period.
And any right not exercised, is a right lost.
So yes he would be considered a hero for standing up for his, and our rights!
It's amazing that those who purport to support and fight for our second amendment rights, condem the act of exercising that very same right.
Though I may not agree with everything he did in this video, he is a 2nd amendment hero, like it or not!

 

[DPris]

FC,
You can make all the presumptions you want about me, and about prosecutors, without ever having worked my job in my state, and it will change nothing.
As long as the required elements of the crime were present and the proper foundation laid, an arrest & prosecution could & did follow.

I don't know what you're reading in my statements, but it's not what I'm writing.

I said there had to be a reason for the stop, after which IN CONJUNCTION WITH OTHER FACTORS detainment pursuant to determining whether a crime was being or had been committed was permissable. Under such circumstances, ID can be demanded.

I said nothing about just stopping somebody for fun & demanding ID without the possibility of a criminal act being involved.

Again- Here an officer may detain & demand ID from a subject WITH reason to do so, and that can fall under the Disorderly Conduct Statute, a littering ordinance, or a major car crash where only one person is found standing there looking at the car sitting halfway inside the wall of a house.

There has to be a reason for the stop, and it can be as much as a bloodstained butcher knife in hand on a public sidewalk or as little as an AK slung over the shoulder at a pizza joint parking lot.
Your definition of reason & the courts' definition may differ, but if it comes to a clash, don't be surprised if yours isn't the winner.

Denis

 

[dayid]

AKs are known by most Americans as a "terrorist" weapon thanks to video games, movies and the media.

So what?

If ignorant people get the idea from movies that all cell phones are actually doomsday devices, should you stop carrying one?

If people begin to give up their own rights for the comfort of others, how soon is it before no rights are left? The comfort of the ignorant is a poor reason for anyone to leave themselves defenseless or halt their tongue.

As I said on another blog that posted this same event - how embarassing would it be for the police to stop him for being black and walking down the street? How about being a woman? Perhaps they should stop him because he's wearing a christian cross? No? Then why treat him any differently for doing something that holds the same (constitutional) protection?

Is seeing people walk down the road with an ak normal? No Should cops check out things that are out of the norm? Yes

Even if you go down that path (that they can stop people for any reason) - why did they continue to practice their "right" (laugh) to lecture him once they realized who he was and that he was completely legal? At that point it was harassment.

What this man has done is elevate the paranoia of the uneducated masses.

Would you like to be held responsible for the ignorance of others? That is - unless you're given their childhood to teach them and their time in school to make sure that they actually get an education.

But here's a thought - a man comes up to your door and rings your doorbell with a boquet(sic) of flowers. Would you treat him differently than if he were carrying an AK47 with the magazine in the weapon??

It depends, are they both gifts for me?

 

[FC]

Again- Here an officer may detain & demand ID from a subject WITH reason to do so, and that can fall under the Disorderly Conduct Statute, a littering ordinance, or a major car crash where only one person is found standing there looking at the car sitting halfway inside the wall of a house.

There has to be a reason for the stop, and it can be as much as a bloodstained butcher knife in hand on a public sidewalk or as little as an AK slung over the shoulder at a pizza joint parking lot.
Your definition of reason & the courts' definition may differ, but if it comes to a clash, don't be surprised if yours isn't the winner.

Denis

You are reaching now and that's fine, enjoy your retirement. Just because some LEO got away with it doesn't make it legal.


Sorry for the thread-jack.

All things considered it's impractical to carry an AK around town at best but I wouldn't find cause for alarm over a guy walking with it slung. If a guy was walking around with his finger in the trigger guard carrying it leveled I would definitely be concerned.

Someone made the analogy of someone walking up to your door with flowers, bat or an AK47 and I would be equally alarmed to see a guy walking to my door with a bat in his hand as i would a rifle slung. Walking down the street I wouldn't bat an eye over though.

 

[vaherder]

Why does he need to be more respectful towards LE?

Sorry LE needs to earn respect its not given just because they have a badge or gun.

They need to treat the citizens and taxpayers they way they would like to be treated.

Cop has attitude he or she gets attitude from me. I am sorry if they missed the fresh hot donuts. Attitude from you just means your day got worse.

The general public should never have to deal with cops with attitudes. You are a public servant and if you cant handle quit.

Now this guy really needs to be transparent and disclose why his CCW was denied and post his arrest record if he has one. His arrest record is a public record and not covered by the PA.

Va herder

 

[BLB68]

The police can ask you for an ID for any reason. Just like they can ask you if they can search your vehicle. In this case, the guy was under no obligation to give them the ID, and he didn't. The officer didn't demand the ID or arrest him for failing to produce it.

The first officer gave no indication that he knew who this guy was in the video. That was the SECOND officer. Since an ID card or DL is an expedient way to establish identity, I can't see the first officer asking for the ID as a big deal.

Was "AK47 Master" detained too long or "hassled"? No, his intent was to hassle the police, and had he shut his mouth and responded to the officers instead of babbling on like a moron and lecturing them condescendingly, he'd have been on his merry way much faster. HE is the one who prolonged the encounter, not the police.

Should they have stopped him? They responded to citizen calls about the guy. We don't have any ideas of what they said to the police. For all we know they could have been anything from, "Oh, there goes a nice young gentleman exercising his 2nd Amendment rights down Main Street," to "Hey, there's a scruffy dude walking down Main Street waving a huge gun around and talking to himself."

Whatever was said, they had to respond. The first guy responded and was getting a lot of lip. He seemed to be a less experienced officer than the second and lost control of the conversation. For that matter, he really didn't seem to have a game plan for his questioning of the AK Master. The second cop showed up, and knew the guy and what his agenda was, smoothed things over, and got him on his merry way.

One of two officers knowing the guy does not mean every cop in town knows who this chuckle head is.

I'm surprised there's been so much debate over another mall ninja/sheepdog/YouTube attention whore with a hugely negative attitude harassing his local police.

He may have been within his rights, but the police did their job. The first guy needs to work on his IPC skills, but nobody had his rights violated there. It was a manufactured incident set up by a d-bag with a huge chip on his shoulder.

 

[straybullet]

The internet is full of people trying to provoke a recordable offense by police for notoriety purposes. Negative publicity of this nature only can hurt us in the future by creating negative public veiws on gun carry as a whole. The people in many of these open carry videos and articles (like copblock) are in it for their 15 minutes of nightly news fame in my opinion.

 

[DPris]

FC,
Unless you majored in LE in Utah, took courses on criminal law from a sitting trial judge at one and the same well-respected defense attorney at the other who also taught law at the state academy for many years, graduated first in your academy class in Utah, worked behind a badge in this state for over two decades, and were a Field Training Officer for several years, you don't have a clue in dismissing me so lightly as "...just because some LEO got away with it..."

But, try as you might to make this about my credibility, the primary theme remains.

The open carry topic always generates heated commentary.
Regardless of whether you're in the "Hero" or "Idiot" camp, and despite the beliefs you may have regarding whether or not any governmental entity has any right whatever to dictate to you in any form whatsoever, and totally aside from the "All cops are just stupid" mentality, we're left with the fact that this world does not revolve around your core beliefs, in some areas the societal power structure disagrees, and when it compromises to some degree (by statutorially permitting carry at all, which IS a compromise in their eyes) there are still consequences involved in open carry (particularly such IN-YOUR-FACE-I-DON'T-GIVE-A-DAMN-WHAT-YOU-THINK! carry as with an AK) in heavily populated areas.

Blanket statements such as "Cops don't know the law" and "I got my rights, nobody else has any business messing with me" don't change that, any more than a statement by me that "Gun forum posters are morons" makes that one true. There's SOME basis in fact on all three, none are absolutes.

Right or wrong, it's the world we live in. Doesn't matter what you think it SHOULD be, what matters is the way it is.
You chose the risk, you deal with the consequences.

I've given you some things to think about on the issue, it's not as simple a matter as "It's legal, leave me alone!"
If you choose to disregard, that's fine.
Attacking my credibility won't change the way the nation runs.

Denis

 

[BLB68]

Why does he need to be more respectful towards LE?

For the same reason you show ANYONE common courtesy. If he'd have talked to me the way he was to them, he'd have been told to get out of my face or have the AK jammed somewhere dark. There's no excuse for his behavior. Bad manners are bad manners.

For that matter, all he had to do was ask the officer if he was being detained, and if he was told that he was not, then he could simply walk away from the interview. Quickest way to end a police interview.