UPDATE:Seized By Manchester PD For Carry - 911 & Dispatch Transcript

[sumpnz]

I do not make the connection betwen being black, and having a firearm. You cannt do harm by simply being black, but you have the potential to do so with a firearm.

You know, a lot of the racist laws and attitudes towards black people came from the ridiculous idea that black men were out there looking for innocent little white girls to rape and murder. Black men would be arrested simply for the fact that they were black in an area that contained a lot of white women. In the asinine thinking of the time they had the "potential" to do harm simply because they were black. Just like you said a gun carrier has the "potential" to do harm.

A firearm is just a tool. It is an inanimate object incapable of doing anything until a person causes it to do so. The two loaded guns in my headboard (one each for me and my wife) do not cause me to become suicidal, or make me want to go go rob the Quicky Mart. Sure, it gives me the potential to do so where I otherwise wouldn't. But I'm not a robber. It is my real actions, not my potential to commit other actions based on the fantasy that some hunk of metal will drive to do so that should be of concern to LEOs.

I have a lot of respect for police officers in general, and I have always strived to treat them better than most anyone else does. That (and a healthy amount of luck) is probably why I'm 5 for 5 on not getting tickets when pulled over while driving. I know you have a dangerous job, and more than anything, at the end of the day, you want to go home to the wife and kids just like the rest of us. I'll never begrudge you that. All I, and a lot of other people here, ask is that you be respectful of our rights when we wind up having a professional contact with you. That includes not being assaulted while legally carrying a legally owned object. That also includes not being lectured at length on why legally carrying a legally owned object is a bad thing to do (In this case, at most a passing comment to the effect that since he has a CCW permit that it would be more prudent to keep it covered in the future would have been OK).

 

[DigitalWarrior]

Thank you sumpnz. You saw my point precisely.

"Blacks rob and rape and kill, so each one must be investigated" is not a real far stretch from "People who open carry rob and rape and kill, so each one must be investigated"

I am deeply sorry that you chose option 1.

 

[EricOKC]

Just a question for the LEO's here:

If someone called into 911 and said something like:

"Oh my God! There's this guy in the bookstore and he's carrying an open cup of hot coffee! Please Help!"

What would your reaction be? Its perfectly legal. Not necessarily a good idea, but perfectly legal.

The dispatcher should have reacted with a couple questions along the lines of "Is he acting in a threatening manner?" and explained to the caller that open carry is LEGAL in that state and left it at that.

If the dispatcher still felt the need to send an officer, they could have just as easily responded by observing mvpel for a moment, recognizing he was not a threat and calmly left the scene.

He was doing nothing wrong and as such, they had NO probable cause to stop him. Its no different than pulling someone over for doing 60 in a 60mph zone just because you dont like the color of his car.

 

[DigitalWarrior]

I imagine that you open carry in while in uniform for a reason, while I am not sure what that reason may be, it may also be valid for those who do not wear a badge.

I see the biggest difference between police and the rest of society is that police have decided to make a career of defending the rights of others against predators. I like cops. In doing so they place themselves in huge danger, and are (in my opinion) seriously under compensated.

There seem to be a few police officers who have forgotten that they are suppossed to protect the rights of citizens. I have an amazing textbook for police. A huge portion of that book is dedicated to getting people to give consent, in order to bypass requirements for evidence and uniportant stuff like that. My personal favorite part of the book is where it instructs the trooper to pull over people for petty offenses, so that when they profile a car and find Drugs (OMG!), they can show that they pull people over for petty crap all the time.


Thankfully not a lot of cops I have met (they are very cool) have taken that advice

 

[DigitalWarrior]

Actually it is like pulling over a corvett that is doing sixty in a sixty zone, because they have the capacity to excessively speed and cause deadly accidents.

 

[DigitalWarrior]

[Deleted double tap]

 

[sendec]

Carrying a cup of coffee in a bookstore is a normal, everyday behavior. Wearing a gun visibly is not. Let's switch "cup of coffee" for "axe". It is perfectly legal, but it'll raise some eyebrows and I'll bet someone'll call the cops. Anybody remember Thong Guy? Just because something is legal does'nt mean it is the right thing to do.

Is'nt there a new horse to beat?

 

[DigitalWarrior]

Nothing wrong with an axe either.

 

[OF]

Yes, it is a right, however, with that right come responsibilities.

This drives me absolutely nuts. It is the weak little false 'trump-card' that all statists and apologists play when they run up against freedom and just really can't bring themselves to admit that they are anti-freedom and anti-rights.

What are you saying with this? Somehow the one exercising the right just didn't realize that they have 'responsibilities' too...responsibility to what, exactly? Not exercise their rights? What difference does it make if it 'scares' people? Who's problem is that? What if political leafleting 'scared' people, would they have their right to leaflet curtailed due to some bizarre 'responsibility' for the mental state of others? Others that are ignorant of the law and ignorant of what constitutes a threat?

Of course not.

It would not matter if 99.99% of Manchester was scared of the sight of an open handgun: the law is clear. Open carry of a handgun is perfectly legal. The police have NO AUTHORITY to accost someone engaged in a perfectly legal activity ! No more so than they have to accost someone just walking down the street minding their own business. Someone's potential for harm (which if they have a gun is outweighed by their potential for good) is IRRELEVANT. Everyone has potential for harm. Basing your assault on that line of reasoning is anti-freedom. Period.

If the citizens of Manchester do not want open carry of firearms in their city, there are legislative measures they may take to try and curtail that right. Yelling 'OH MY GOD' to the police and having people engaged in a perfectly legal activity harrased at their whim is NOT ACCEPTABLE.

The proper response for the police is to inform the complaintant that there is no crime being committed and if they continue to sic the cops on law-abiding citizens for no reason other than they are 'scared' of their own shadow they will be brought up on charges!

The duty of the Manchester police is to PROTECT THE RIGHTS OF THE CITIZENS. The man in question here was within his rights, therefore he should not be the object of assault, the complaintant should!

There are responsibilities with rights: the responsibility to be held responsible for your actions. The man has the right to openly carry a firearm, that right does not come with the 'responsibility' to consent to being man-handled by the police.

:banghead:

 

[FedDC]

TO all my fellow LEOs- Don't even try to explain the way the world works on this bord. It will always end up the same: JBTs trampling the "Rights" of gun owners who know what they think are their "Rights"... although often they seem to be blissfully unaware of what their rights actually are. Some people see what they want to see whether it is there or not and it goes both ways.

This has been beaten to death and I tried to explain that in the LE world, to question an armed man is suicidal... that whole Action Beats Reaction thing and how he could draw, move, and fire before the LEOs could react thereby endangering the LEOs and the general public which is why we disarm the people we are interviewing as potential suspects...

I think that the disconnect seems to be that folks on here want us to treat everybody we meet as if they are Medal Of Honor winners and not ever raise our voice until they start shooting at us...as opposed to just disarming them upfront and thereby avoiding the whole gunfight.

What people need to realize is that LE Tactics must be based, not on the assumption that people will comply and not try to kill us, but on the 5% of people that we meet who intend to do us harm. We do that in order to stay alive and it is just that simple. It is better to offend a few people and be safe when we meet the one that intends to send us home in a box, than be super nice and end up dead.

 

[FedDC]

The rights vs responsibility is simple, if you do not utilize a right responsibly, you will loose the support of the people who decide what your rights are and those voters will remove what you believe to be your "Right".

 

[ojibweindian]

Fed

You need to find a new job if you can't handle it.

 

[OF]

I've got an idea, why not just implant everyone with some kind of neuro-inhibitor at birth that can be activated by police? Whenever you have to speak to one of the 'citizens', you just press a button and they're paralyzed from the neck down for the duration of the 'interview'.

Sure would cut down on officer injuries.

How could anyone have a problem with that? No lasting effects, only the police would have the controls. It's not only safer for the officers, but for the citizens as well. 'Interviewing' citizens is dicey, anyone could have a hidden weapon - there just isn't any way to tell who the good guys are. So a little unobtrusive measure like this, while expensive for sure, would go a long way towards reducing officer injuries, officer-involved-shootings and other LEO-public interface problems.

In the end, the public is better off, the officers are safer and no one has had their 'rights' unnecessarily infringed. If there isn't a problem, the citizen goes on his/her way and no harm done.

What do you think?

- Gabe

 

[OF]

The rights vs responsibility is simple, if you do not utilize a right responsibly, you will loose the support of the people who decide what your rights are and those voters will remove what you believe to be your "Right".

Talk about a disconnect. What is a 'right', FedDC? Define it for me.

- Gabe

 

[FedDC]

Obi-

You need to try something before you go around spouting an uninformed opinion. It is easy for you to be brave at your keyboard. Try that same theory in SE DC with echoing gunfire in the background as I have and then I'll give your opinion some weight. Until then...soldier on there Chairborn!

 

[Sindawe]

FedDC said:

What people need to realize is that LE Tactics must be based, not on the assumption that people will comply and not try to kill us, but on the 5% of people that we meet who intend to do us harm. We do that in order to stay alive and it is just that simple. It is better to offend a few people and be safe when we meet the one that intends to send us home in a box, than be super nice and end up dead.

So does that same apply for us who are not LEOs when encountering LEOs for what ever reason? There are a small fraction of LEOs who are powermad jerks drunk on their own authority. Some of them are dirty as mud in a pig sty and mean us non-LEOs ill intent. Would *I* be justified in treating all LEOs I may encounter as possible threats to my life? If not, why not? Seams to work for you FedDC.

 

[FedDC]

Gabe-

The debate of what actually constitutes a right would best be served by another topic so as not to derail this discussion. For the purposes of my point, I was referring to the rights as codified into Law here in the US.

Those rights were all voted on and can be voted on again if the will of the people demand it...so yes, the 2nd amendment could in theory (God Forbid) be erased just as prohibition went south after it lost popular support.

 

[Sindawe]

FedDC said:

Until then...soldier on there Chairborn!

Gee, so I guess this is gonna devolve into another round of name calling eh?

 

[ojibweindian]

Fed.

Seriously, you sound stressed out. You need to find a new job before you go and permenantly deny a citizen the right to breathe. After all you've been through, and the exaustion of worrying about getting zapped by all of us middle-aged fatsos trying to kill you, you might legitimately mistake a Tootsie Roll for a gun and...

 

[OF]

Actually, the Bill of Rights is inviolate, and not subject to revision or revokation. But the interpretation thereof is certainly varied. My point is, that the 'right' is currently enshrined and respected in NH law. Open carry is legal, he has the right to do so. Whther if that scares people they will move to have that right abridged is another argument. But as of this incident, it is very clear that the man was within his rights to carry that firearm as he was carrying it.

I think we agree on that at least?

So that said, where does the PD derive it's power to accost those who are carrying openly?

The complainant? Some nebulous and subjective 'officer safety' concept? Who decides what is allowable? Doesn't the law dictate what powers the police have? In NH, you don't get to lay your hands on someone carrying a firearm any more than you do to someone just walking down the street or as was said earlier, driving a car within the speed limit.

He was within his rights. Whatever your definition, that much is true. Agreed?

- Gabe

 

[FedDC]

Was he whithin hs rights? YES, he was. However, he was not arrested and he was not assaulted in the eyes of the law so his rights were not violated.

This is one of my cheif complaints, lack of knowledge when it comes to legal terms. The term here is "Investigative Detention" and maybe a "Terry Stop" both of which allow LE to Disarm the subject and ask him/her questions. If it is determined through the course of the investigation that a crime was commited, the subject becomes a suspect and goes to jail...or as in this case, he is told to have a nice day and that is that.

We talk to a LOT of people every day, many of which are frisked for weapons...much less an obvious openly carried weapon and often they are not arrested.

As was stated earlier, no LEO can ignore a 911 call and god help the guy that told a citizen to shut up and ignore what they thought to be a crime. We are duty bound to go to the scene and investigate...so, in order to investigate, we must make the scene safe which includes disarming a potential suspect. This is 101 level stuff.

As to why we are careful-

http://odmp.org/

On that page, you will see memorials to a lot of brave men and women who died, some of which bc they did not follow good officer safety procedures like disarming potential suspects.
Look at the "Survived By" parts and you will see why we are careful

 

[Penforhire]

This discussion does not need to devolve so much. Why not stick to the particulars of this case? I know we're only hearing one side of events, MVPEL's, excuding the off-site 911 info. Why not accept his account and respond to that?

People on both sides are painting with pretty broad brushes. No all LEO's are JBT's. Some LEO's are JBT's. How's that? Can we agree on both statements?

I'll grant LEO's have standard practice to disarm during investigation. The manner of disarming is what many here, myself included, object to. NEVER forget MVPEL he was doing something that was legal to do. It really doesn't matter how unusual it is. The lack of other circumstances should require greater than normal courtesy, not less. Why wasn't this a five-minute non-event: no warrants, no witnessed complaint, no broken laws? The manner of the responding officers made this an event.

 

[FedDC]

I thought this was a non event?

They showed up, disarmed him (And no, you would never ask someone to hand you their gun for obvious reasons), did some checking, found out he was not violating any law, gave him his gun back and told him to have a nice day...

Seems open and shut to me... I don't think they took him out back and gave him some stick time

 

[sumpnz]

FedDC - I can't speak for anyone but myself, but I do think that most of here were not outraged by the fact that mvpel was disarmed during his encounter with the Manchester PD. It was the manner of the disarming (physical assault on a non-threatening individual) coupled with the lecture he recieved while being illegally detained that steamed our collars. If a cop were to calmly approach me (with his partner positioned to quickly intervene if I did turn violent) in a similar situation while I was armed and politly requested that I disarm for the duration of the encounter, I would hand him my weapon in its holster. At the end of the encounter (hopefully a very brief one at that) I would take it back and all would be well with the world. Then the cop would find the individual who phone in the complaint and arrest him/her for filing a false complaint and haul her off to the pokey. Well maybe that last part wouldn't happen, but it should.

 

[EricOKC]

...the people who decide what your rights are ...

That has to be, without a doubt, the most disturbing thing you've said so far.

Tell me, oh enlightened one of the years of law school and law enforcement experience, who decides what my rights are?

I'd really like to see you back yourself out of that corner, sir. When a government functions under the misguided belief that it decides what rights people have or not, that government has forgotten its job.

The people decide what their rights are - government is explicitly tasked with protecting said rights.