NH: Vid of my latest open carry incident

[Byron Quick]

I just had a chance to view the tapes. The man followed the state law. The state trooper was ignorant of the law and was therefore, however inadvertenly it may have been, intruding into a private citizen's life with no legal justification.

And the guy thus accosted is supposed to halt his activities such as talking on the phone for this? He's supposed to do things not legally required by law?

I don't think so.

I've got a clue for some here. If your state law requires you to hand over your ID upon demand, you need to start action to get state law changed. If you think you need accede to every request whether within the law or not of a policeman, you need to examine your concept of liberty for it has drifted from what our forefathers envisioned.

In 1972, I was at a roadblock manned by Georgia state troopers. Hair down past my shoulders. Beard. Fat state trooper with mirrored sunglasses was stomping his way to my car while shouting,"Hippy &#%)) this, long haired son of a *$^^, that" with each stomp. When he saw the 1911 .38 Super lying on the seat next to me(in open view in accordance with Georgia law) he said,"May I see your driver's license, sir?"

Amazing change of manner wouldn't you say? I became a fervent supporter of the Second Amendment that day.

Respect, yes. Civility, yes. Subservience, hell no. For your edification, respect and civility do not require me to cease legal activity which a policeman has no legal justification to intrude upon.

 

[scubie02]

well, I haven't had a chance to view the video yet, but based on comments I can see two sides.

My first comment, before I forget, is wasn't there some court case just recently where they basically said you have no right to refuse ID? I do not agree with that, of course, but it's something to keep in mind.

I will also say that many police and court officers are woefully ignorant of gun laws. I had my own experience a few years back with law enforcement where I had been headed to the range and had two handguns with me in the vehicle, one in a case and one on my person. Someone looking to stir up trouble had called in "man with a gun" and cops showed up with weapons drawn. I was cuffed etc but will say that given the call they had received and not knowing the circumstances initially the officer was really pretty professional. He obviously did NOT really know the gun laws though since even though he was very calm and polite because I had stayed calm and turned over the weapons and cooperated I was still taken in for "having a loaded firearm in the vehicle", even though I explained that my pistol permit meant I could carry a weapon on my person and loaded let alone in my vehicle in ny, and the no loaded weapons referred to long guns. Once at the station they had to go through several people before it was confirmed that yes, it was fully legal for me to carry my weapon loaded in a vehicle since I had a permit, and upon further investigation it came out that the other person had made this call trying to cause trouble, and THEY were the one in trouble, since I in fact had done nothing wrong. The initial police officer who responded was very apologetic and said he hoped I understood given the call that they had received why they had responded as they did, and even gave me back my pistol loaded, which spoke volumes to me as far as how they now viewed me. In truth I do NOT really blame him at all since he was very polite and simply responding to a call, and it was clear that they weren't really used to dealing with someone legally carrying a handgun.

AFTER that incident I did actually start to carry much MORE often, however, even though it is concealed, thinking that if officers come across this more often it will be viewed less as an oddity and that they will also become aware of what the actual laws are. The episode was unpleasant in many ways, but at the same time numerous officers involved became aware of what the laws actually were, and saw a gun owner who was polite and not confrontational and not some kook, so all in all maybe a good thing to have happened in some respects. I also should point out that my best friend is a cop and so I can out myself in their shoes and understand caution and realize that they deal with the scum of the earth every day and are more used to dealing with that sort of person than somebody NOT looking for trouble with a gun.

I do think what you do has an educational value to it. I also think it is VERY important that such interactions be as polite and reasonable as possible, since you want police officers (who in most instances are going to be showing up not knowing what the situation was because they were sent out on a call of "man with a gun") coming away with a feeling of "well, that person was an ok guy and seems reasonable, I can see his point of view" rather than "another freaking jerk I get to deal with every day". This is important since it will affect what happens the NEXT time he encounters a legal gunowner. Will he think " that last guy was ok, so this one probably is too", or will he think "that last guy was a @#$%, and I'm going to see if I can watch and come up with some probable cause so I can harass this guy and then maybe make a weapons thing out of it too". Human nature is human nature, people don't like to be embarrassed or threatened or given a hard time, they just want to do their job and get through a day with a minimum of drama. The first cop from what it sounds (again haven't seen the vid yet) may have been happy to have an "out" and walk away once he realized you weren't a criminal, but not wanted to look like a "wuss" in front of his gung ho friend. Doesn't hurt to give a person that extra opportunity to walk away and save face.

 

[joab]

I understand that you need to represent yourselves and stand up for your rights, that's obvious, and commendable. His presence made me feel a little like this was a publicity stunt though. Maybe he wants it to be. Who knows.

I can agree with DadaOrwell's grandstanding
I can also agree with the way he handled himself during the incident

However Mr/ Stripey shirt simply strengthens a popularly held opinion about these FreeStaters

Bystanders watching this would have been distracted from the message by his sophomoric tantrum
They would also would have gone away with a general disapproval of the group if they saw him as the main representative instead of Dada
If the purpose is to educate why distract that with counter productive juvenile tactics

As I stated in my original post, if not for the camera and cellular telephone, this situation would have ended very different. The friend's rude intervention would have been "...obstruction...", and the failure to cooperate would have been the same. That acknowledged, two wrongs not one right make.

As you stated in a subsequent post

We don't need emotion; any fool can exhibit emotion. We need facts.

 

[scubie02]

ok, I did just get to watch it so let me amend and say the cops were in the wrong here, and fishing to get out with some dignity at the end in a somewhat sorry fashion. The ONLY critique I would give is the one guy shouldn't have waived his hand in the one cop's face, that was pretty provocative, but otherwise nicely handled. I actually DIDN'T think that cop was acting aggressive--he was standing at that point with his hands in his pockets, which isn't really an aggressive stance. I thought the first cop had more aggressive body language actually.

The bust the girl scouts thing was pretty funny haha

 

[scubie02]

one other comment--couldn't always hear the dialog--at any point did you politely ask what it was that caused you to be stopped? Did you ask "what about my behavior or demeanor did you find suspicious? This puts them in a position to have to say "well, you had a gun" or some up with something else. If he says you had gun, then you could-again, very politley-ask what it was about wearing an openly carried and holstered gun that seemed suspicious to him. After all, a bad guy, NOT wanting to have any more interaction with law enforcement than necessary, is NOT likely to openly carry a holstered gun. Only someone who has nothing to hide is going to do so generally I would think. There is that small chance then that, even if they don't want to acknowledge the truth to that at the time when it's a confrontational situation, as he's laying there in bed before drifting off to sleep that night in his own mind he might think "ok, he had a point there...maybe I should think about that next time"

much of what we do is instinctual reaction, after all, and upon reflection we might act differently the next time

 

[Geno]

Go back and re-watch the video...officer number two had hands in his pockets, rather relaxed. Watch his body language as the provocateur continues. Who is it that takes the officer's demeanor to bulldog-like alertness? But, on whom does the officer focus?!

As I said, I have not detailed even 1/3 of the video's content facts, heck, not even a 10th! That video is information-rich, rather a pot of gold in situation awareness. There is much to be learned from it, Re: all parties' deeds.

Doc2005

 

[AntiqueCollector]

Sometimes plenty of publicity is needed to stop police (or other authorities) from wrongly infringing on rights, in order to end such infringements.

 

[scubie02]

exactly, the second officer didn't look overly concerned or confrontational to me to start with with his hands in his pockets, it's not until the jerky second guy starts ranting and waving his hands in his face that he takes his hands out of his pockets and crosses his arms--this is simple self defensive sort of a posture in my book. Go up to any person standing with their hands in their pockets and
wave your hand in their face or act provocative in some way and see how long it takes for their hands to come out of their pockets, or have someone do it to you and see what your instinct is. That second guy was NOT really helping the situation. If he had calmly and quietly talked to passersby or any gathering crowd "this guy was just walking by with a holstered gun, minding his own business, which is perfectly legal, and now they are harassing him" that might have been helpful. Once he starts out with the waving hand and constant ranting it is...less helpful...

 

[mr102075]

Great Job!!!!!

I think I am going to do something like this over here in Utah. Once again congratulations!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Geno]

scubie02:

You're nailing it, my friend! We need to assess the video, frame-by-frame, and look objectively at it. We need to look at the legal and the sociologic issues, the action-to-reaction effects. Only by doing that, can we really benefit from what this video can teach us. Then, we need to take the best and carry it forward, and drop the worst.

After all, we also do not need intentional confrontation. It is counter-productive and will lead to either case law or legislation against us to toward “protecting” LEOs (albeit needlessly). In sum, we have more to lose than to gain if we are not careful in how and where we exercise our rights...and our "fights".

Mr102075:

Before you run head-long into conflict, I would encourage you to educate yourself. The originator of this video would have netted FAR more benefit, and far less resistance if he had been able to cite the specific laws that he claimed to protect him. Knowledge of the specific laws is power! Because LEOs are to uphold the laws, if the gentlemen had cited the specific laws, they would have shut down the confrontation faster than a slamming door. Because the gentlemen drew only upon generality of the laws, the interaction degenerated into confrontation and therein lingered, and grew needlessly out-of-proportion to its genuine merit. Furthermore, regardless of intent, they came across as looking for confrontation. We do not need confrontation.

Doc2005

 

[Mannix]

What your friend did was perfectly legal. I'm not saying I approved of it, but I believe he has every right to be an impolite prick to police(or anyone) without fear of arrest or being assaulted.

That said, if the point of this type of confrontation is to change people's minds about open carry, having your friend be verbally combative with police officers is NOT the way to do it, though I'm sure that wasn't your idea(at least I would hope so). You may have educated a couple police officers in the process, but any fence sitters looking on probably would not have come away with a positive view of your organization, and people who open carry in general. The CORRECT way, IMO, to change people's mind about open carry is to be the model gentleman while standing firm about the exercise of your rights, and you did that quite well. However, I feel your friend's attitude detracted from that, at least from the perspective of a passing pedestrian/motorist.

I would LOVE to do something like that here, but unfortunately to open carry around here you need a permit(the law makes no differentiation between concealed and open), along with a photo ID, and must produce them upon request of a police officer. So I guess after I get my permit, I'll just have to be content with open carrying, although I'm pretty sure that will make quite the splash anyway.

One step at a time, one person at a time, one right at a time. That's how we got here, and that's how we're getting back.

 

[Geno]

Mannix:

Good point. How many fence-sitters walked or drove by and thought, "Thank God the police were there! That guy had a gun strapped it!" The fact is, we will never know.

Doc2005

 

[scubie02]

yep, and let's face it, at this point Manchester is deep in enemy territory. I lived in southern NH before moving back to NY to be closer to family, and I can tell you that southern NH has already been largely been taken over by people from Massachusetts, and we all know where that state has headed. The original poster is in the same position as us upstate NY'ers--gradually being made to feel out of place in their own state because city folks are taking over. I don't know what the answer is. Maybe we need to start a breeding campaign! But the long and the short of it is you are going to be playing to a hostile crowd alot of the time, and you need to present a "today it's us, tomorrow it might be you" perspective to these folks to make them see the light. The end part where they were ready to go tell the girl scouts they better watch it was the PERFECT segue for that, btw--let them leave, then mention to the gathered crowd how it looked like the Girl Scouts were next...that brings it home and into THEIR reality, even if they are not gun owners

 

[Docgmt]

By not showing an ID DaraOrwell2 is following the law, if you consent to showing id then that is what you will end up doing all the time whether it is the law or not. Even if the whole thing had gone away with showing ID doing so just perpetuates the notion that this is the norm, a requirement and that is one less right you have. The loss of rights is due to consent by the people. Point two the by-stander is in the insipid stages of cranial rectal inversion in my opinion.

 

[scubie02]

You DO notice however that the supervisor cop or whatever that shows up at the end semi tries to entrap him by going "well, it looks like you're doing some sort of informational sort of thing here...is, that what you're doing?" sort of conversationally, and the guy goes "well no not really I was just on my way to a party" or some such thing and the cop goes "well 'cause that would be against the law" or something to that affect, so he was trying to get him to say "yeah, that's what we're doing" which just by his tone you would have tended to agree with him at first, which is semi smarmy.

It's also somewhat alarming that he seemed to be saying if 3 or more people were gathered there it would be a problem (I realize he was reaching for SOME situation where he'd have authority over the poster) and he'd be harrassing him for that, which sort of shats on a basic liberty as well.

The guy having the fit still comes off the worst I think, though, which is unfortunate. I understand he may be sick and tired of how things have degenerated in this country but still. You could hear part of the conversation with the one other guy who had come out of the bar who clearly was sympathetic and said he came out to see what was going on but was also basically saying chill out.

 

[XavierBreath]

I find it humorous that the supervisor stated that if three people blocked traffic on the sidewalk, they would be breaking the law. It seems blocking the sidewalk is what three officers were doing at that point.

DadaOrwell2, thank you for what you are doing. It takes guts, and you did it very well, in each video.

I agree that your friend in the striped shirt is not helping things.

I also agree that in many areas, this kind of peaceful affirmation of rights would land you in the pokey. In some areas, such as New Orleans, you could expect much worse, whether it was being taped or not.

While the officers were in error, I applaud their professionalism, in each instance.

 

[Scorpiusdeus]

Let's establish a set of facts:


5) The back-up officer exhibited the attitude of a bulldog-on-alert, emotionless and intimating "You twitch; I shoot; you die!" Frankly, of all involved here, I found that the most unprofessional of all.

6a) A gentleman, who was witness, pulls attention to the bull-dog-like officer emotionlessness, by waiving his hand.
6b) Some may assert the witness was foolish. He broke no law.

Take your best observational facts swing.

Doc2005

Right up to #4 I'm with you. #5, is 1) highly speculative, and 2) in accordance with most police training and correct. He stood off a bit to observe and protect the other officer and he did not get involved unless needed. YOU may not like his stance, but as you say "it's not illegal and has noting to do with professionalism or the lack there of.

As to 6A and 6B, I, not knowing New Hampshire law, must assume interfering with an officer in the performance of his duties is not against the law in that state. Here in CA it is and he would have been arrested.

The citizen and the officers were all polite and respectful. That's it. Sure, the officer might have shot this citizen if the camera weren't present, but they didn't.

I think that the OP staged this incident, waited for an officer to notice him knowingly had people standing by. How fortuitous that there was a video camera there. How fortuitous that you just happened to be going to a club meeting of like minded folk. OH PLEASE!!!

While within your rights, I think this is little more than asking for trouble and when you get it, recording it.

The OP was within his rights, but I'm annoyed that he acts as if he got any less than what he was out for that day.

You exercised you rights, you educated some police officers just like you intended to and they treated you with respect. End of story.

 

[Scorpiusdeus]

If any of you watch the other videos you'll see that this guy and his little group also support not paying your taxes.

In addition to this in the other video, the young officer is very nice and mentions that the Police department has received four other calls about this guy.

So to make your statement that open carry is legal, you provoke situations that pull limited police resources off the street so you can make a point? Nice.

Why don't you just hand out flyer's to officers and citizens?

I don't think you just open carry, I think you make a spectacle out of yourself hoping to provoke calls the police and waste their time.

All of these videos are set ups and you make sure the police will become involved.

Sad. You're not much better than Cindy Sheehan.

 

[Telperion]

So to make your statement that open carry is legal, you provoke situations that pull limited police resources off the street so you can make a point? Nice.

Why don't you just hand out flyer's to officers and citizens?

I don't think you just open carry, I think you make a spectacle out of yourself hoping to provoke calls the police and waste their time.

You are now the second person in this thread to claim the OP was wasting police resources. Humor me and explain your position in the following context:

- The OP did not call the police on himself, either somebody else called or the first officer stopped him on his own
- The OP was involuntarily detained
- The first officer called two other officers to the scene in response to a lawful activity

How is DadaOrwell2 responsible for wasting police resources when he never requested their presence? If anyone is to be blamed, it is the caller and the responding officers. They are the ones who chose to direct police resources to investigate a lawful activity.

 

[DWARREN123]

I truly enjoyed that. I do not believe the LEO's would have been quite as nice without the phone, crowd and camera. I am happy to see it turn out to the good!

 

[average_shooter]

Why don't you just hand out flyer's to officers and citizens?

They HAVE done the flyer thing, and have been harassed just as much for that, too.

 

[AndyC]

Good to see that it all ended well - nicely done.

 

[03Shadowbob]

Why do a lot of people think the cops would have acted any differently without cameras there? What is your professional opinion, that is, if you are a professional trained in reading peoples minds. That one "bully" cop didn't have the body language or facial expressions of a cop bent on torque-ing someone. If anything to me, he looked disinterested in being there. He did show great restraint for not slamming that loudmouth to the ground. That guy wouldn't be so lucky in most other cities regardless of cameras.
Personally, I am all for exercising your rights but I don't buy for one second that this wasn't made out to be a spectacle in the first place by the OP, just like Cindy Sheehan (as mentioned above).
As far as that obnoxious guy in the striped shirt, he appears to me to want to provoke the cops into doing something so he can get "payback" for the way he and his wife were treated however long ago by whichever agency it was. He appears to be a bandwagon rider.
I would choose better people to be around. Why wasn't he open carrying, since he appears to have so much to say about it? Why wasn't anyone else from his group open carrying? Is the OP the poster child for his group on open carry?
Here's what I do know, Doc, as far as facts:
1) The OP's holster should be updated
2) Wearing white tube socks pulled up while wearing shorts is not "in" right now
3) Those cops mustaches kick ass!
4) Those girlscouts should be fined for littering

 

[AntiqueCollector]

If any of you watch the other videos you'll see that this guy and his little group also support not paying your taxes.

In addition to this in the other video, the young officer is very nice and mentions that the Police department has received four other calls about this guy.

So to make your statement that open carry is legal, you provoke situations that pull limited police resources off the street so you can make a point? Nice.

Why don't you just hand out flyer's to officers and citizens?

I don't think you just open carry, I think you make a spectacle out of yourself hoping to provoke calls the police and waste their time.

All of these videos are set ups and you make sure the police will become involved.

Sad. You're not much better than Cindy Sheehan.

Umm, your first comment is a red herring, but regardless, haven't you heard of the free state project before? It's about freedom, not only in regards to carrying of firearms but taxes, etc., that should not exist, cutting down the government's size, and so forth, starting in one state.

As for the rest, the above posters stated it well, they didn't call the police. The police in that particular area (and others with large numbers of MA types moving in) from what I understand have a habit of harrassing those open carrying, therefore, this kind of action is necessary to end it. Eventually, either the police learn their lesson, or a lawsuit will force them to.

 

[joab]

Sad. You're not much better than Cindy Sheehan.

I'm sorry but that little ad hom is definitively short sighted and simplistic
The police responded to a call about a man walking down the street with a holstered gun
That makes as much sense as them responding to a call about a man walking a leashed and muzzled Pit Bull down the street
If they respond they have wasted their own time

Personally I am tired of reading VCDL (?) he said she said accounts of open carry incidents
They are all written with a definite slant towards the open carriers and we never get the other side of the story
I agree with what they are doing and applaud their efforts but there is just so little to back up their stories

This way we have a video account of exactly what went on
And perhaps the video crew did have an effect on the officers demeanor, forcing them to behave and actually listen to what was being said thereby getting that much needed on the spot education
Those are two officers who will not make the same mistake again and it will cause some locker room accounts that will educate other officers

If DaDa was walking down the middle of the street intentionally drawing attention to himself by yelling at passing cars or holding a sign that said "I got a big gun right chere" you may not be so far off with the Shehan attack

But simply committing a codified lawful act, even though you know it will draw police attention and even if you have friends nearby because you are aware of the possibility of police attention, is reprehensible how exactly?