Traitors amoung us; Cop threatens to shoot OC in the head

[smogmage]

TarDevil
Other than threats to "shoot in the head," I thought the policeman was courteous to those kids. I know a lot of folks in the forum think we should actively exercise our right to carry, but I agree with the cop these stunts hurt our 2A cause (think back to the long discussion about Starbucks). I personally think he did a good job trying to make that point.

Actually Starbucks never took a stance on the issue. Their "policy" change isn't supposed to be enforced or declared. It's simply a "leave us out of the issue" statement. They are a business and they will do whatever it takes to promote and ensure their business succeeds.

The whole concept of "using your Rights will lead to us losing them" is just plain wrong. Our Rights come from a power greater than our government. Furthermore they are Civil Rights and to deny them is a crime against humanity. They can never be taken away from us, you certainly can however give them up yourself.

I would argue that it has been the Disuse of our Rights that has led to these situations many are running into. As in the past, open carry was the norm and concealed carry was for criminals, crooks and bandits.

Now we have to play their game in which we need to be licensed to exercise a Right clearly enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

And further evidenced by the old adage "your rights: use em or lose em"


I'd like to thank everyone that has already sent messages to the town of Neenah and hope that others continue to do so. I know many of us sit the fence and wait for things like this to happen to us, lets go after them before they get to us. I have no idea who these two individuals are but I know if I were them, I'd love to have support from like minded people near and far.

 

[steelerdude99]

... have checked the IDs of both to see if they are not felons, and that's it.

That in itself is illegal if open carry is a lawful activity in WI. (I know Washington law much better) and a police officer here cannot detain a person for engaging in a lawful activity just to check to see that they're not felons. The minimum standards to seize a citizen and demand ID are laid out plainly in the officer's guide to Terry Stops.
...

As far as I can tell after several BING/google searches, one is not required to show id in my state (VA) OC.

chuck

 

[twofifty]

Ironically, this abuse took place as Old Glory -a symbol of freedom- fluttered overhead.

 

[Mike1234567]

Ironically, this abuse took place as Old Glory -a symbol of freedom- fluttered overhead.

That is indeed interesting, isn't it?

 

[TarDevil]

Oddly enough the job of the police is not to go around detaining people to make them listen to their opinion.

Agreed... and that's not why the police stopped them. When a complaint is filed, they don't have much choice but investigate.

 

[HOOfan_1]

When a complaint is filed, they don't have much choice but investigate.

which leads to

Once they ascertained the intent of the open carry individual, they should have been on their way.

 

[TarDevil]

Originally Posted by HOOfan_1 View Post
Once they ascertained the intent of the open carry individual, they should have been on their way.

... and the young men went on their way.

 

[Sam1911]

After having literally been given to believe the cop was so unhinged or terrified by the presence of a weapon in the possession of a mere citizen that he needed to threaten to SHOOT THEM IN THE HEAD if they moved toward their guns.

You know, there is a certain implicit understanding that if you threaten a cop he might shoot you (though few would actually take a head shot in such circumstances ... leaving a hanging overtone of execution) but to go so asininely overboard as to give voice to that threat is just insulting -- to someone who had committed no crime and who gave the officer no reason to believe HAD committed a crime.

So in the end, it really is a forced detention to listen to a lecture on one cop's opinions.

Just because the "young men went on their way" and he didn't, like, actually KILL them doesn't make it all ok, or right, or proper.

 

[TarDevil]

After having literally been given to believe the cop was so unhinged or terrified by the presence of a weapon in the possession of a mere citizen that he needed to threaten to SHOOT THEM IN THE HEAD if they moved toward their guns.

You know, there is a certain implicit understanding that if you threaten a cop he might shoot you (though few would actually take a head shot in such circumstances ... leaving a hanging overtone of execution) but to go so asininely overboard as to give voice to that threat is just insulting -- to someone who had committed no crime and who gave the officer no reason to believe HAD committed a crime.

So in the end, it really is a forced detention to listen to a lecture on one cop's opinions.

Just because the "young men went on their way" and he didn't, like, actually KILL them doesn't make it all ok, or right, or proper.

I agree, Sam. I apparently failed in my attempt to make that clarification.

 

[Robert]

Please keep all comments focused on the video at hand. Blanket generalizations do not help anyone and will be deleted.

 

[ChaoSS]

My thought is that you should just reverse it, and see how reasonable it seems. What happens if a cop walks onto my property, to ask if I know anything about something that happened recently, and I start ordering him to keep his hands where I can see them, inform him that if he moves toward his gun I will kill him, and demand ID so I can check to see if he is who he purports to be. I don't think many people would view this as a reasonable thing to do.


If there is a report about a MWAG, they don't have to investigate it, any more than they have to investigate a report about someone walking down the street eating an ice cream cone. If there is a report that someone is brandishing a gun, then they should investigate it, but, if there is no evidence of wrong doing, they should be on their merry way.

 

[GI_Jared]

Anymore police departments tend to recruit ex military who have been trained to look at civilians as all being threats. This is what they were trained to do when on patrol in what ever third world hell hole they were in.

As someone who has done many a patrol in different third world hell holes I can attest that this is not how we are trained. We are trained to assess threats not just blanket everyone as a threat. In Afghanistan if I saw someone walking down the street with an AK-47 slung over the shoulder I would have done nothing. The civilians in Afghanistan are allowed to open carry without any problems. In fact they are less harassed by the U.S. military than our own citizens are by the police here in the states.

 

[George Dickel]

Anymore police departments tend to recruit ex military who have been trained to look at civilians as all being threats. This is what they were trained to do when on patrol in what ever third world hell hole they were in. They have also become increasingly militarized with automatic weapons.

If the job is too dangerous then quit.

Bob, I don't know where to start on your comment about the military. What is your credible information source that verifies police departments are actively recruiting ex military? What is your source for the statement that military personnel consider civilians as a threat? Have you ever been in the military Bob? Do you even know more than maybe 1 or 2 ex military? I'm retired from the Army with 21 years service and I never received any training or heard of any doctrine that stated civilians should be considered threats. I live in Clarksville, TN where the 101st Airborne Division is stationed and I know a whole lot of active duty, retired and ex military and have never heard anything like that from any of those people. It is quite obvious that you have a great dislike for military members and police officers. Yes, there are bad apples in every organization and you can generalize that all of them are bad so that means I can also generalize that every one named "Bob' is an idiot.

 

[CSC_Saint]

Seriously Bob? As a scout in the army, one of the most aggressive jobs in the Army, I have never, I say again, never been trained, instructed, or told to view civilians as a threat. You maintain your situational awareness at all times as there is a constant threat, but the civilians are not the threat. It's target acquisition and identification. We don't go out on a daily basis looking to smoke someone, and if they don't want to be shot at they have to demonstrate that they aren't a threat. We go out everyday with goals and objectives to complete and hope we don't get lit up. Prepared to engage any threat, yes. Looking to find reasons to call someone a threat, no.

Yes, many police forces are recruiting prior service, for many reasons, all civilians being a threat is not one of them. They are recruiting us because we are accustomed to odd schedules, hard training, physical training, austere environments, high stress environments, judgement calls under duress. Veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan possess many of the skills that a police officer needs to survive, and instead of having to learn them post academy graduation, they show up to work day one knowing how to survive when the poo hits the fan. All a police force has to train is the laws it will be their duty to enforce, and their procedures for operating.

And, your timing for that post was just in bad taste. The day before veterans day? Yeah, poke those bears in the eye when their service is foremost on their minds.

 

[NavyLCDR]

Another point to ask the police is "Are you going to preach or give me a ticket? One or the other, you don't get to do both." That will force their hand, to either shut them up, or get on with the arrest.

Having been in the situation of being harrassed by a police officer for nothing more than having a holstered handgun on my belt in a restaurant while eating dinner at dinner time - I agree. After 10 minutes of lecturing, I said, "Look, either write me a citation for whatever law you think I am violating, or I am going to go back in there and finish my dinner." He let me go back inside, and then retrieved a waitress who wasn't even old enough to serve beer and used her as the "authority" in the restaurant to kick me out or be subject to tresspass.

When the owners of the restaraunt found out about the incident the next day, they called me and apologized profusely and said they did not call the police, no employee of the restaurant had called the police, and they would have no desire for me to leave and I was welcome to come back with my family, friends and our firearms . Which we did the following weekend, even invited the police for a social gathering, but they never showed up. Gave the restaurant the business of about 20 of us for lunch, though!

The police chief of that town has since been fired and replaced with the most professional and supportive law enforcement officer that I have ever met.

 

[NavyLCDR]

As far as I can tell after several BING/google searches, one is not required to show id in my state (VA) OC.

chuck

In Washington we are required to show a driver's license upon demend when operating a motor vehicle, we are required to show a Concealed Pistol License (but not real identification) upon demand, but we are not required to possess the CPL unless we are concealing a firearm or have a loaded handgun anywhere in a vehicle.

Upon arrest, we are only required to show ID if we are going to receive a citation for something, and the only penalty in law for not providing ID if we are going to receive a citation is that the officer can detain us only long enough to determine our identity.

In the case of the video (as described, because I can't watch it out here at sea), there would be no justification in Washington law for the officers to require the persons to identify themselves. According to the letter of the law, if the officer asked them for a Concealed Pistol License, they would have to produce it, but only if they were actually carrying their CPL at the time - which they would not be required to carry.

 

[herrwalther]

Anymore police departments tend to recruit ex military who have been trained to look at civilians as all being threats. This is what they were trained to do when on patrol in what ever third world hell hole they were in. They have also become increasingly militarized with automatic weapons.

Look at civilians as a threat in third world ugly? Yes. Treat them like a threat? No. Not until they give me reason to treat them as such. I laughed with many Afghan police officer who felt it was pretty to paint his AK pink, but never threatened to shoot one in the head without a reason to.

Relating back to the video, the police officer makes the declaration to the man to not touch his weapon. A reasonable request of a police officer who is probably not wearing his vest and getting shot isn't what he wanted on his way to wherever. The issue is the threat of a head shot, taken a bit too far when faced with a non violent and compliant citizen.

 

[Field Tester]

Having been in the situation of being harrassed by a police officer for nothing more than having a holstered handgun on my belt in a restaurant while eating dinner at dinner time - I agree. After 10 minutes of lecturing, I said, "Look, either write me a citation for whatever law you think I am violating, or I am going to go back in there and finish my dinner." He let me go back inside, and then retrieved a waitress who wasn't even old enough to serve beer and used her as the "authority" in the restaurant to kick me out or be subject to tresspass.

When the owners of the restaraunt found out about the incident the next day, they called me and apologized profusely and said they did not call the police, no employee of the restaurant had called the police, and they would have no desire for me to leave and I was welcome to come back with my family, friends and our firearms . Which we did the following weekend, even invited the police for a social gathering, but they never showed up. Gave the restaurant the business of about 20 of us for lunch, though!

The police chief of that town has since been fired and replaced with the most professional and supportive law enforcement officer that I have ever met.

If that had happened to me I would have plastered it all over my Facebook, local gun forums, and gun club meeting. That restaurant would never have problems meeting rent. We need to continue to support business like these whenever possible and often.

 

[tarosean]

So in the end, it really is a forced detention to listen to a lecture on one cop's opinions.

Yes, but it was exactly the type of encounter these kids are looking for. The kid that walked off the cruisers screen had a camera. Im guessing his vid is uploaded somewhere on the net.

 

[ChaoSS]

I can't speak for the guy who said that the military view civilians as threats, but I would imagine that a few of you have misunderstood him. In fact, one of you made the point when you said that they have to demonstrate that they are not a threat.

If you are in the military right now, if you have served any tours in the middle east, fighting against forces who do their best to blend in to the civilian population, of course you are going to view civilians as potential threats. You won't have a good chance of survival if you don't. That's not to say that anyone is out there looking to get trigger happy, or that you are going to gun anyone down just because. It just means that you accept reality, but if you come from that to a more civilized world, not everyone does a good job of shutting that off, or subconsciously accepting that you are now in a different reality.

Again, don't think I can speak for him, but I don't think he meant it the way some of you are taking it.

 

[Edarnold]

Sadly, this confrontation must be considered fortunate. The worst case would be what happened in Santa Rosa, where a call to the police about a 'man with a gun' resulted in the death of a 13 year-old with a replica AK. Broad daylight, the kid was bringing the toy back to the friend from whom he had borrowed it. The police pull up, call in 'a man with a rifle' to the dispatcher. Ten seconds later the dispatcher gets a call of 'shots fired': sixteen rounds into the kid because the cop felt threatened.

Personally I feel anyone making a point by open carry is putting their life on the line to no purpose. There seem to be too many police officers these days who are running on the ragged edge, maybe because of too many overtime hours like Chicago, and too many stories from fellow officers of surviving deadly encounters. Training for neutralizing terrorists emphasizing shooting first to survive results in a 'Let God sort them out' attitude. Whatever the case, grandstanding with a rifle, especially an 'assault weapon' , is asking for trouble. The media report of your demise, is not going to mention anything supporting Second Amendment rights, and the officers poor judgement will haunt them for the rest of their lives.

 

[OldMac]

I have mixed feelings. I dont see any advantage to oc except to reverse the hysteria resulting from anyone seeing a gun. If they become commonplace, the hysteria may go away and we will have a safer environment. However, carrying for self defense is best concealed to preserve the element of surprise. It seems likely that a criminal would pop the oc first during a robbery or whatever to control the situation. This officer clearly went overboard to scare these kids straight in his mind. I dont think Barney ever threatened repeatedly to shoot someone in the head (of coarse he only had one bullet). Thats uncalled for and should be corrected at next roll call.

 

[tallpaul]

I am by no means a fanboy and am the first to call agrressive LE idiots- other than the "lecturing" and saying a rifle slung over the shoulder is an active threat just because its there and takin a long time I don't think they were too bad here....

 

[az_imuth]

I believe that officers with mindsets like this one should take a lesson from some of our game wardens. Many of the people that game wardens approach during their day are carrying loaded arms of one form or another. I have never heard of a game warden reacting toward a hunter in this manner and threatening to "shoot them in the head". And to top it off, wardens usually have to approach these armed individuals while working alone in the boonies with no backup or witnesses if things go south, which they rarely seem to do. If that officer is so fearful that he has to treat "civilians" with such disdain, then he should find another line of work.

 

[DT Guy]

Tallpaul:

Imagine if you were walking down the street with a licensed, leashed dog, and a policeman approached, asked for your ID and the dog's ID, and then told you he was going to shoot you in the head if you reached for the dog?

What they were doing was legal, even if you disagree with the idea (and I do, by the way); making death threats against a law-abiding citizen SHOULD rankle you, and I urge you to reassess your view of your liberty and our laws if it does not.


Larry