Why has our society elevated LE above our own rights? I was told by a friend of mine that his CCW class told him that he should keep paperwork on him to prove he was the owner of his pistol, otherwise any cop could just take it. Keep in mind private sales of any gun (non nfa) is not regulated in MO at all. it is no different than selling your watch, granted I usually always get a bill of sale to cover myself but it is not required. I'm sorry I would not have given my ID. I've been in my buddies car and the cops asked for my ID(passenger) for a tail light out? Why so you can go see if you have a reason to bust me? I'm tired of this "government tells us what we can and can't do whether it's within the law or not" attitude. I'm sorry if people want to hide in their house and watch american idol and take no responsibility to learn their rights, and want to be victims, but me having a gun... any gun is no reason to call the cops. This entire attitude is exactly why people like loughner can get away with the crap they do, because everyone wants to be lemmings and wait for the cops to protect them. well in Kansas city the cops are way too busy sitting all over I-435 shooting radar to be of any use. whether the guy in the video was an idiot or not he didn't want to be harassed by cops and he was out to prove it. and if 50 other people in that town did the same thing, guess what people would get over it and so would LE.
Guy open carries an AK, stopped breifly by cops.
- Thread starter FourteenMiles
- Start date
- Status
I think that simply investigating situations, where people are carrying "military style rifles", is not unwise until the social climate has changed due to that very same process of investigation and subsequent manifestations of harmlessness.
fallout mike
Member
This was not a random stop. A citizen called the PD concerned about this. And this is a little out of the normal, so the police did their job. He could have been headed to the bank to make a gunpoint withdrawal and the police would have looked foolish saying that they saw the guy walking through town with the ak but didnt give it a second thought. I realize it is within his rights and I'm all for gun rights and I enjoy shooting with my 5 year old boy but some things are just asking for trouble. This being one. I really like to avoid conflict. This guy left his house with the outcome being exactly how he envisioned it. The anti gun idiots salivate over stories like these. These are big propaganda boosters to them. That guy is a poster child for them.
He's in Houston Texas. Open carry of a shotgun or rifle is entirely legal, open carry of a handgun on public property is not thanks to our Carpetbagger constitution. He is obviously well known by the HPD, so why they chose to engage him in the first place is a mystery. Is he being a total azzhat? Absolutely. Should he stop open carrying his AK? No. Most of Houston would be a better place if everyone open carried an AK.
leadcounsel
member
I'm a super pro-2A gun guy. That being said, I think there is a place for carrying guns openly and there is not a place for it, and there is also a time and place for handguns (personal self defense) and military style weaponry. All of us here would agree that an AK47 is near the top of the food chain when it comes to SHTF type of weaponry. I think that in average town USA if I were to see a guy walking around with a loaded AK47 I would expect he's preparing to rob a bank!
To compare an AK47 to a baseball bat is dishonestly; and under some circumstances I would EXPECT police to question both the guy with the ball bat and the AK47; and in some cases not. It's also about context.
But here's a thought - a man comes up to your door and rings your doorbell with a boquet of flowers. Would you treat him differently than if he were carrying an AK47 with the magazine in the weapon??
There's classy open carry for personal defense, and then there's being a jackass. I think open carry of an AK47 in the city is the latter, and does not help gun rights.
To compare an AK47 to a baseball bat is dishonestly; and under some circumstances I would EXPECT police to question both the guy with the ball bat and the AK47; and in some cases not. It's also about context.
But here's a thought - a man comes up to your door and rings your doorbell with a boquet of flowers. Would you treat him differently than if he were carrying an AK47 with the magazine in the weapon??
There's classy open carry for personal defense, and then there's being a jackass. I think open carry of an AK47 in the city is the latter, and does not help gun rights.
This will do you absolutely no good if the officer decides he is going to arrest you. At least, it did me no good, and I sat the night in jail. The cop said something to the effect of, "I know the laws, and you showing me a piece of paper you printed up at home doesn't change that."
TexasRifleman
Moderator Emeritus
Pretty big difference between coming to the front door and walking down a public sidewalk don't you think?
No question, the guy is probably doing more harm to gun rights than good. I'm just saying that he's within his rights to do so without being hassled and it bothers me that the LEO's here decided to interact with the guy with no belief that he was up to anything bad, and in fact probably knew darned well he was just showboating because he'd done it before.
And honestly, if LE really wanted to stop this they would ignore him. A couple of trips without LE messing with him he'd get bored and find something else to do.
leadcounsel
member
Fine - change the example. You see a man standing in front of your house on the public sidewalk with no visible weapons, looking right at you. Now you see the man holding a loaded AK47, still looking right at your house. Any change in your reaction?
The bottom line is that people say guns "aren't different" but talk out of both sides of our mouths. We have 4 special rules for them. We keep them (mostly) locked up. They ARE tools that are designed to make killing things easier.
We also discuss situational awareness. You'd be a FOOL to treat someone on the street carrying a loaded AK47 the same as a bag of groceries (as someone here mentioned). In fact, under some circumstances, you might even consider taking DEFENSIVE actions against the man.
When you see someone walking around in public with guns that are designed notoriously well for killing, it raises your situational awareness. And it should! I'll never advocate for gun control. But folks also have to use some individual common sense. The reason we have so much gun control is people do stupid things to demonstrate lack of control, then we get hit with stupid laws prohibiting the behavior.
So, while I am in favor of CCW, Open Carry, Constitutional Carry, you also have to do it with common sense. I would be angry if someone opened fire in a busy city/town with an AK47 (in self defense) because that's not the right tool for the job and we all know that the 7.62x39 is one heck of a traveler and penetrator, and it would endanger a lot of people.
TexasRifleman
Moderator Emeritus
As I posted earlier, as a private citizen I'd be in Condition Orange immediately. I'd be arming myself in my home and watching the guy like a hawk. You'd be crazy to act like it's nothing at all.
But I would not approach him, and I probably wouldn't call the cops unless he was doing SOMETHING other than just walking down the street carrying a slung rifle.
Again, don't misunderstand me. I would be very cautious and in self defense mode if I saw this. I'd make every attempt to get as far away as possible.
But I'm not a cop. I don't believe cops have any reason to demand ID from or detain someone who is doing nothing but obeying the law. Even if he's an idiot. From the standpoint of LE, a guy walking down the street legally carrying a rifle should not be treated any differently than a guy carrying a baseball bat.
When people panic and call 911 an officer will be dispatched of course, and the LE should observe and sure, if he wants to pull up and ask what's up that's fine too. The move to demanding ID or detaining is across the line and none of us should be willing to tolerate that.
This whole thing is a matter of balancing rights, common sense, emotion, and reality.
I'll throw out a few ideas, having been on both sides of such a situation.
Yes, you may have a right to carry an AK on the sidewalk downtown.
No, you don't have a reasonable (I said REASONABLE) expectation of doing so without police contact.
How that contact progresses and concludes depends on a number of things, which include the professionalism of the officers, the time & place, and your own demeanor.
Many years ago when I was 19, I was living in a relatively small town outside an airbase in Idaho & happened to be between cars at the moment. I had bought a .22 rifle, walked to where I picked it up from the guy selling it, and walked back home carrying it.
Broad daylight, walking along a main street, I was not waving the gun around & did not look like a threatening type.
I was stopped by an officer who briefly and professionally checked me out, found I was very cooperative, listened to my explanation, and left after about a three minute chat.
I understood & wasn't bothered in the least.
Years later, when I was working as a cop in the second largest city in my state, calls started to come in from alarmed citizens about a scraggly looking guy carrying a broadsword slung over his shoulder.
On such incidents, two cars were automatically dispatched, I was one. We found the guy, walking down the sidewalk with his sword slung.
We talked to him, he wasn't particularly friendly but wasn't belligerent and did follow instructions not to put his hands anywhere near the blade while we were there, and did provide ID. No warrants, no indications from any of the complainants that he had ever had the blade in hand or behaved in a threatening manner, and he appeared to us to not be a threat to anyone, based on his cooperative demeanor & lack of witnesses to the contrary.
After less then ten minutes of talking & running him for wants, we were all on our way.
He continued to generate citizen calls for two or three weeks, all required a response, those who dealt with him more than once just showed up, talked briefly to determine no dangerous activity was involved, and he eventually disappeared.
As a matter of individual right, yes, you can walk down the sidewalk with a weapon openly displayed if your laws permit it.
But, as a matter of reality, in today's environment where the news media plays incessantly on every nut who runs on a rampage and kills a dozen people, the citizenry at large is very nervous at the sight of a gun.
The sight of a handgun, much less obvious, is one thing. The sight of what the majority of non-gunnies see as a fullblown assault rifle is pretty much guarranteed to result in a police response.
Something most people don't realise is that once Man With A Gun phonecalls start coming in, the dispatcher has no choice but to assign a response. He or she can't make the determination to "no-case" it, or clear it out on his or her own authority without followup. One or more cars MUST be dispatched. It could be anything from a kid with a BB gun to the beginning of an armed bank robbery.
Once dispatched, the responding cars can't refuse the assignment on their own authority, for the same reasons, plus a legal liability that attaches if they clear the call without responding & somebody gets killed.
On arrival, officers have a wide area of latitude and discretion in handling the situation, but they do have to make contact, however brief, and make a determination regarding the necessity for any further action. If none, everybody goes their own way.
Time wasted for all concerned, but that's just the reality of modern life.
Situational context does make a difference.
Guy carrying an AK on the downtown sidewalk of the capitol city of ANY open carry state at any time of day is an automatic police response to citizen calls. Count on it.
Guy carrying a hunting rifle to a neighbor's house in the back streets of Smalltown America probably isn't.
Guy carrying an AK from the gunshow to his car several blocks away will probably not generate a call to police.
Guy carrying an AK down the street at 3 AM probably will.
I view this as more of a common sense issue than a personal liberty issue.
Under the Constitution you have the right to walk into a biker bar and loudly yell "Anybody who rides a Harley is a sissy!"
Doing so just to assert that right is idiotic, and almost certainly quite painful.
It's unfortunate that society has become so fearful of those who display a gun, but again- it's the reality.
Even when not dispatched, in today's climate of fear (which is too often fueled by incidents of multiple deaths by deranged individuals) most cops WILL stop to check out somebody they encounter in a public place with something as beyond-the-norm as a rifle.
Society on the whole demands order, police are mandated to maintain it, and while YOU may know you're a perfectly innocent good guy just going for a walk and coincidentally excercising your right to open carry, the public doesn't know that, and the police don't know that. Not without stopping to have a little chat.
We can go on all day about asserting open carry rights.
But, those who insist they should be able to tote any weapon they want publicly anytime & anywhere they want without any type of "hassle" by police are not living in the real world.
As for the "slippery slope" thing, view it from the angle of John Q. I-Ain't-Got-A-Gun Citizen. Pit bulls occasionally make the local news when one runs amok & injures somebody, but neither they nor baseball bats make days and weeks of national news headlines for killing ten people in one endlessly publicized incident.
In the mind of the public, it's GUNS that kill, in the hands of a psychotic individual. It's GUNS that hit banks and convenience stores, not pit bulls or bats.
A hundred years ago, the sight of a gun was much less of a panic-inducer than it is today.
Even in much of rural America it's not that big a deal.
In downtown Bigtown, it is.
Don't blame the police for over-reacting, blame those who shoot up schools and political gatherings for creating a societal environment where the open display of firearms, particularly of a militaristic type in an urban setting where such things are way beyond the norm, is so forcefully associated with death and injury.
Walk your dog past somebody who doesn't like dogs, and as long as the dog behaves itself the cops don't get called. Dogs are a normal part of society in public places.
Carry a bat to the bookstore or grocery store, and you may get a few raised eyebrows, but if you present no appearance of intent to brain anybody with it, the cops probably won't get called.
Sling an AK over your shoulder & go for a burger at McDonalds and see what happens.
It's public mind conditioning.
People see "Man With Gun Kills Eight At Crowded Mall!" on the 10 o'clock news.
They do not see "Man With Gun Saves 30 When Crowded Bus Runs Off Bridge Into River!"
It's necessary to get past the emotion. You may be perfectly within your right in your locale to carry openly, but the practical matter is that you have no reasonable expectation of not drawing police attention if you choose to do so.
Right or wrong, as Stumpy said after playing with his pet crocodile (which he had a perfect legal right to do), that's just the way things go.
Denis
I'll throw out a few ideas, having been on both sides of such a situation.
Yes, you may have a right to carry an AK on the sidewalk downtown.
No, you don't have a reasonable (I said REASONABLE) expectation of doing so without police contact.
How that contact progresses and concludes depends on a number of things, which include the professionalism of the officers, the time & place, and your own demeanor.
Many years ago when I was 19, I was living in a relatively small town outside an airbase in Idaho & happened to be between cars at the moment. I had bought a .22 rifle, walked to where I picked it up from the guy selling it, and walked back home carrying it.
Broad daylight, walking along a main street, I was not waving the gun around & did not look like a threatening type.
I was stopped by an officer who briefly and professionally checked me out, found I was very cooperative, listened to my explanation, and left after about a three minute chat.
I understood & wasn't bothered in the least.
Years later, when I was working as a cop in the second largest city in my state, calls started to come in from alarmed citizens about a scraggly looking guy carrying a broadsword slung over his shoulder.
On such incidents, two cars were automatically dispatched, I was one. We found the guy, walking down the sidewalk with his sword slung.
We talked to him, he wasn't particularly friendly but wasn't belligerent and did follow instructions not to put his hands anywhere near the blade while we were there, and did provide ID. No warrants, no indications from any of the complainants that he had ever had the blade in hand or behaved in a threatening manner, and he appeared to us to not be a threat to anyone, based on his cooperative demeanor & lack of witnesses to the contrary.
After less then ten minutes of talking & running him for wants, we were all on our way.
He continued to generate citizen calls for two or three weeks, all required a response, those who dealt with him more than once just showed up, talked briefly to determine no dangerous activity was involved, and he eventually disappeared.
As a matter of individual right, yes, you can walk down the sidewalk with a weapon openly displayed if your laws permit it.
But, as a matter of reality, in today's environment where the news media plays incessantly on every nut who runs on a rampage and kills a dozen people, the citizenry at large is very nervous at the sight of a gun.
The sight of a handgun, much less obvious, is one thing. The sight of what the majority of non-gunnies see as a fullblown assault rifle is pretty much guarranteed to result in a police response.
Something most people don't realise is that once Man With A Gun phonecalls start coming in, the dispatcher has no choice but to assign a response. He or she can't make the determination to "no-case" it, or clear it out on his or her own authority without followup. One or more cars MUST be dispatched. It could be anything from a kid with a BB gun to the beginning of an armed bank robbery.
Once dispatched, the responding cars can't refuse the assignment on their own authority, for the same reasons, plus a legal liability that attaches if they clear the call without responding & somebody gets killed.
On arrival, officers have a wide area of latitude and discretion in handling the situation, but they do have to make contact, however brief, and make a determination regarding the necessity for any further action. If none, everybody goes their own way.
Time wasted for all concerned, but that's just the reality of modern life.
Situational context does make a difference.
Guy carrying an AK on the downtown sidewalk of the capitol city of ANY open carry state at any time of day is an automatic police response to citizen calls. Count on it.
Guy carrying a hunting rifle to a neighbor's house in the back streets of Smalltown America probably isn't.
Guy carrying an AK from the gunshow to his car several blocks away will probably not generate a call to police.
Guy carrying an AK down the street at 3 AM probably will.
I view this as more of a common sense issue than a personal liberty issue.
Under the Constitution you have the right to walk into a biker bar and loudly yell "Anybody who rides a Harley is a sissy!"
Doing so just to assert that right is idiotic, and almost certainly quite painful.
It's unfortunate that society has become so fearful of those who display a gun, but again- it's the reality.
Even when not dispatched, in today's climate of fear (which is too often fueled by incidents of multiple deaths by deranged individuals) most cops WILL stop to check out somebody they encounter in a public place with something as beyond-the-norm as a rifle.
Society on the whole demands order, police are mandated to maintain it, and while YOU may know you're a perfectly innocent good guy just going for a walk and coincidentally excercising your right to open carry, the public doesn't know that, and the police don't know that. Not without stopping to have a little chat.
We can go on all day about asserting open carry rights.
But, those who insist they should be able to tote any weapon they want publicly anytime & anywhere they want without any type of "hassle" by police are not living in the real world.
As for the "slippery slope" thing, view it from the angle of John Q. I-Ain't-Got-A-Gun Citizen. Pit bulls occasionally make the local news when one runs amok & injures somebody, but neither they nor baseball bats make days and weeks of national news headlines for killing ten people in one endlessly publicized incident.
In the mind of the public, it's GUNS that kill, in the hands of a psychotic individual. It's GUNS that hit banks and convenience stores, not pit bulls or bats.
A hundred years ago, the sight of a gun was much less of a panic-inducer than it is today.
Even in much of rural America it's not that big a deal.
In downtown Bigtown, it is.
Don't blame the police for over-reacting, blame those who shoot up schools and political gatherings for creating a societal environment where the open display of firearms, particularly of a militaristic type in an urban setting where such things are way beyond the norm, is so forcefully associated with death and injury.
Walk your dog past somebody who doesn't like dogs, and as long as the dog behaves itself the cops don't get called. Dogs are a normal part of society in public places.
Carry a bat to the bookstore or grocery store, and you may get a few raised eyebrows, but if you present no appearance of intent to brain anybody with it, the cops probably won't get called.
Sling an AK over your shoulder & go for a burger at McDonalds and see what happens.
It's public mind conditioning.
People see "Man With Gun Kills Eight At Crowded Mall!" on the 10 o'clock news.
They do not see "Man With Gun Saves 30 When Crowded Bus Runs Off Bridge Into River!"
It's necessary to get past the emotion. You may be perfectly within your right in your locale to carry openly, but the practical matter is that you have no reasonable expectation of not drawing police attention if you choose to do so.
Right or wrong, as Stumpy said after playing with his pet crocodile (which he had a perfect legal right to do), that's just the way things go.
Denis
just like to state that some places have open identification statutes that allow officers to ask anyone to show ID for ANY reason and it is mandated that individuals of the legal age of 18 carry said ID anywhere "public" like a highway
I don't know if where he was has this law
and seriously put yourself in the officers shoes...
If you saw a guy with a rifle slung you would at minimum ask him a few questions
and if someone calls it in they HAVE to go its not a matter of choice
imagine if there was a robbery in progress but they know the same guy robs this same 7 11 all the time they cant just go... oh its only jimmy its fine
even if it is a ridiculous call like "my husband left me and took HIS car and I want it back" the car is legally the husbands but the dumb woman calls them anyway and the poor officer goes to deal with a silly nonsensical woman that thinks cops "just arrest people" on anyone's whim but he still HAS to go.
this guys attitude is just garbage though
if he acted like a human being instead of a self righteous prick he would get allot further in his journeys
the police are not our enemy
there is no reason what so ever for him to act as a child and call people sheep or idiots or anything else
those are terms of emotion and not the facts that he needed to convey to make people take him seriously
we don't need the overemphasis of "I don't care if they are scared!!" all he needed to say was that he was exercising his rights and that people will have to become used to it without shouting or getting excited like a 3 year old when mom says no you cant have that toy
he acted guilty...
he became excitable at the first moment the police show up and remained defensive and overly excited through the whole experience like a kid caught in the act and trying to explain it away to mom and dad
there really was no need to be overbearing with his knowledge
the "I'm smarter than you routine" doesn't help his case either
nobody likes a smart ass with a condescending attitude
whether you wear a badge or not if you act like a know it all jerk people want to punch you in the face and that's how he came off
I know personally when people gloat about knowing more than me instead of helping me understand i want to pummel them and say wow you knew so much about "insert whatever here" but you didn't know much about taking an butt whooping did you?
those types are just pompous and annoying
When I was a kid, in a small town, my brother and I spent countless miles/hours with Marlin 60's slung over our shoulder while riding our bicycles... we were quite young (10-15) and were never once stopped or even blinked at by cops.
Different era's I guess....
Strykervet
member
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2010
- Messages
- 1,610
Good job on not bending over for the police. Police do not ask questions in order to ascertain innocence, rather, they ask questions in order to substantiate their suspicions, i.e., to build their case against you. YOU CANNOT HELP YOURSELF OR SITUATION BY TALKING TO THE POLICE, outside of normal conversation. Know your rights. In most places, unless you are under investigation for a possible or suspected crime (from a broken tail light to murder) you do not have to hand over ID. A better question, when confronted for no reason as this man was, is to reply: "Am I being detained?" If yes, why. If no, then leave. You cannot be detained unless you are under investigation or are party to an ongoing investigation. I have heard this from an Army brief in basic and again from a law professor and visiting police chief --yes, a police chief said this. The above only parrots what they said.
We (my local area) recently went through this exact same scenario a few months ago at Starbucks. A guy walked in with a pistol on his hip and someone called the cops. But this guy ended up handing over the ID. He didn't have to, and it spurred a protest where many showed up with pistols. The cops showed up to watch, but this time they weren't so eager to coerce IDs when confronting a group with cameras. Later a statement was issued to the local department in order to get them all on the same page.
In my state, if it isn't explicitly illegal, then it is legal. Period.
We (my local area) recently went through this exact same scenario a few months ago at Starbucks. A guy walked in with a pistol on his hip and someone called the cops. But this guy ended up handing over the ID. He didn't have to, and it spurred a protest where many showed up with pistols. The cops showed up to watch, but this time they weren't so eager to coerce IDs when confronting a group with cameras. Later a statement was issued to the local department in order to get them all on the same page.
In my state, if it isn't explicitly illegal, then it is legal. Period.
Strykervet
member
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2010
- Messages
- 1,610
Brandishing is a different story though, and it can and probably will be investigated (and usually it will end with the cop handing back your ID and saying thanks). We are in the process of getting the brandishing language changed in order to support open carry.
While fixing the language is great, and open carry is fine, there should be some precautions necessary to prevent loss of a firearm in public. I've seen too many people open carry with no retention. Not wise... No retention = concealed carry in my book.
While fixing the language is great, and open carry is fine, there should be some precautions necessary to prevent loss of a firearm in public. I've seen too many people open carry with no retention. Not wise... No retention = concealed carry in my book.
LawScholar
Member
This guy makes gun owners look very very bad to the American voting public. You know, the ones we need to persuade that gun owners are reasonable and normal?
This guy's attitude and actions do nothing but hurt the cause
This guy's attitude and actions do nothing but hurt the cause
RedAlert
Member
This seems to me to be a "Pushing the envelope" type of scenario. Yes he is legal. But the envelope he is in is society in general. A percentage of those folks support the Second Amendment, and use their First Amendment rights to support it. For sure there is a larger percentage that fears guns and all laws allowing guns. Eventually if done right, by properly exercising our OC rights, we can expand the envelope of public acceptance. Notice I said properly.
How about having a rally, backed by local gun clubs, police, NRA, etc to show the public what is right, legal and proper about OC?
Locally here in Washington State there were a few rallies by OC proponents gathering and buying coffee, etc at Starbucks. Starbucks had been under fire for allowing OC patrons to enter and purchase coffee. There are some folks here who don't support the Second Amendment and figure Starbucks shouldn't allow OC. I'm happy to say Starbucks said it would adhere to the gun laws in place and not enact store rules that went against the State Laws. It all transpired peacefully.
It all boils down to educating the public in a manner that doesn't get them all riled up unnecessarily. Too bad gun education isn't a part of school education. Think of all the lives that might be save if kids knew enough to treat all weapons as loaded, etc.
How about having a rally, backed by local gun clubs, police, NRA, etc to show the public what is right, legal and proper about OC?
Locally here in Washington State there were a few rallies by OC proponents gathering and buying coffee, etc at Starbucks. Starbucks had been under fire for allowing OC patrons to enter and purchase coffee. There are some folks here who don't support the Second Amendment and figure Starbucks shouldn't allow OC. I'm happy to say Starbucks said it would adhere to the gun laws in place and not enact store rules that went against the State Laws. It all transpired peacefully.
It all boils down to educating the public in a manner that doesn't get them all riled up unnecessarily. Too bad gun education isn't a part of school education. Think of all the lives that might be save if kids knew enough to treat all weapons as loaded, etc.
Gouranga
Member
To teroseans point, the reason he is stopped, it is an unusual sight. It is perfectly legal for me to carry an axe down the street. However, in downtown Charlotte, you do not see very many people carrying an axe down the street. Cops will key into the unusual. Doubly so if someone calls them about a "crazy/suspicious man with a gun.". If it was ordinary to carry a firearm openly in that manner, as in a lot of folks did it, no the officer probably would not have stopped him. i think as long as it is out of the ordinary for such a scene on the street, he will continue to get stopped.
The guy in the vid seems as though he is deliberately trying to start crud. It is in his tone, and demeanor. While I support the right to OC, I also recognize that it can bring you attention and I am fine with that. So long as the officer is respectful, and lawful, I am fine.
The guy in the vid seems as though he is deliberately trying to start crud. It is in his tone, and demeanor. While I support the right to OC, I also recognize that it can bring you attention and I am fine with that. So long as the officer is respectful, and lawful, I am fine.
Michigan has no stop and identify statute and even if it did, reasonable articulable suspicion of a crime committed or about to be committed is a requirement of such statutes. Hunches do not apply.
- Status
