WI:Appleton Officers Violate Rights of Two Open Carriers on Tape

[Bubba613]

Who was shooting? No one. Yet. But you don't wait for shooting to start before intervening. Perhaps they over-reacted. Maybe they didnt. But I wouldn't want to be standing in front of a judge trying to explain that I was "exercising my rights" on 9/11, scaring a bunch of people to death. It's possible a judge will be sympathetic to that. But I doubt it.
Police would be derelict in their duty not to at least check out thoroughly a situation like that.

 

[Warp]

So..as pro 2A folks we should simply agree with you to make things easier for you to debate?

Reality is what it is. Do as you choose, but, please don't bitch about the end result when you've seen the same situation play out time and time again.

Reality is that you do not have the Right to do something if you get disarmed, cuffed, and detained by LE from doing it.

Thank you for so perfectly illustrating the problem.

The problem is LE not following the law. And that, by its very nature, is a very serious problem

 

[Warp]

Who was shooting? No one. Yet. But you don't wait for shooting to start before intervening.

:banghead:

 

[Bubba613]

Are you charged with a crime, tried and jailed/fined? No. Then you have a right to do it. You want to exercise your right and be hassled? Go right ahead. But no one said it was supposed to be easy.

 

[Warp]

Are you charged with a crime, tried and jailed/fined? No. Then you have a right to do it. You want to exercise your right and be hassled? Go right ahead. But no one said it was supposed to be easy.

The biggest problem here is that you seem to support detaining people simply because it is theoretically possible that they could commit a crime at some point in the future.

This is mind boggling.

Though a very close second is being okay with disarming, cuffing, and detaining people for exercising a supposed Right.

Actually, I may have that backwards...I'm not sure which one is worse.

 

[Bubba613]

It's not theoretically possible. It is possible. It would appear probable. Did they have means? Yes. Did they have motive? Yes. Did they have demonstrated intent? Maybe. That's going to add up to probable cause in someone's mind.

 

[S&W620]

Reality is that you do not have the Right to do something if you get disarmed, cuffed, and detained by LE from doing it.

Thank you for so perfectly illustrating the problem.

The problem is LE not following the law. And that, by its very nature, is a very serious problem

Would it be ideal if all LEO knew the laws where they worked? Sure. Will these goofs see disciplinary action? Probably. Of course that's simply not the reality.

While these folks are free to do as they please, they may have to deal with uniformed LEO's. Just part of the game IMO. Not saying I am OK with it, but it is what i is.

I'm just saying there are easier ways to 'skin the cat' in regards to personal self protection.

 

[Sam1911]

Are we free to do so? Sure.

Does that mean it'll be easy? No.

You have a right to do a great number of things that might end badly for you.

However, one of the goals and principles of a free society is that the government does not harass you if you do not violate the law. Your fellow citizens may do whatever they choose, within the law, but the agents of the government should not act against you unless you are BREAKING the law.

Detaining someone (in cuffs no less) for no reason other than doing something they clearly have a right to do is harassment.

Were they looking for such a confrontation? You decide.

I'd say they were prepared to face it, but the real goal is to act as they did WITHOUT harassment. One way to pursue that goal is to act and then punish those agents of the government who react in ways they should not.

This time they got harassed. Next year, they won't. (If the example of states like VA is anything to go by.) It is not just the non-sworn citizen who learns through the unpleasant results of his/her poorly chosen actions. Police officers and departments do, too. (Again, ask the VCDL about that.)

Most states offer a CCW program that would afford the individual similar protection while virtually eliminating these encounters.

Of course. But that would miss the point entirely. Again, the object here is not to go armed and hiding, but to be free to go armed without the subterfuge.

Open carrying a rifle, while lawful, is nothing more than an invitation to harassment from local PD's, whether right or wrong.

I'd take that a step further. Open carrying a rifle is an expression of a right. Being harassed and taking firm action in reply may be part of establishing that such a right does indeed exist. Open carrying a rifle next time -- absent the harassment -- will be "nothing more" than a demonstration that the right is fully recognized.

Reality is what it is. Do as you choose, but, please don't bitch about the end result when you've seen the same situation play out time and time again.

I rather like the way that "reality" has been playing out in recent years. Plenty of great examples around of agencies and local governments doing a crisp about-face when a few citizens bring their attorneys to bear.

 

[Sam1911]

Then you have a right to do it. You want to exercise your right and be hassled?

I think that black people should have the right to be served in any restaurant in town. But I think it would be ok if the police handcuffed them and checked their identity cards to "just check" that they don't have any outstanding wants or warrants first.

No body said it was supposed to be easy. You with me, Bubba?

 

[Bubba613]

No, Sam, I fail to see any form of comparison whatsoever. Black people eating at a counter do not present a threat to the public. People carrying loaded rifles might. They are like chalk and cheese.

 

[Sam1911]

It's not theoretically possible. It is possible. It would appear probable.

Armed men walking in public means it is PROBABLE they're in the act of, or about to commit a crime? ...

Ok, so you're obviously kidding about that. Please?

Did they have means? Yes. Did they have motive? Yes.

Wait...WHAT? Did you just say they have a MOTIVE? For a crime? How in the blazes would you possibly establish a MOTIVE for a crime in this case? That would be the grossest, most absurd speculation imaginable! You might as well pick someone off the street who looks well-off and detain them because they clearly have the MOTIVE to embezzle from someone.

Did they have demonstrated intent? Maybe.

Now you're just goofin'. A demonstrated intent to WHAT? Walk down the street?

Do we need to identify some special definitions of the words, "motive," "demonstrated," and "intent," so that this statement makes sense?

That's going to add up to probable cause in someone's mind.

And that's the sort of thinking guys like this are helping to drum out of our police corps.

 

[S&W620]

You have a right to do a great number of things that might end badly for you.

However, one of the goals and principles of a free society is that the government does not harass you if you do not violate the law. Your fellow citizens may do whatever they choose, within the law, but the agents of the government should not act against you unless you are BREAKING the law.

Detaining someone (in cuffs no less) for no reason other than doing something they clearly have a right to do is harassment.

I'd say they were prepared to face it, but the real goal is to act as they did WITHOUT harassment. One way to pursue that goal is to act and then punish those agents of the government who react in ways they should not.

This time they got harassed. Next year, they won't. (If the example of states like VA is anything to go by.) It is not just the non-sworn citizen who learns through the unpleasant results of his/her poorly chosen actions. Police officers and departments to do. (Again, ask the VCDL about that.)

Of course. But that would miss the point entirely. Again, the object here is not to go armed and hiding, but to be free to go armed without the subterfuge.

I'd take that a step further. Open carrying a rifle is an expression of a right. Being harassed and taking firm action in reply may be part of establishing that such a right does indeed exist. Open carrying a rifle next time -- absent the harassment -- will be "nothing more" than a demonstration that the right is fully recognized.

Very good post Sam.

I agree that the 'Gov't agents" should be punished as they showed they cannot follow simple laws/rules. This is not up for debate IMO. They were wrong, plain and simple.

That said, to view this as a surprise is asinine. This is par for the course, so to speak.

As others have stated, play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

 

[Sam1911]

No, Sam, I fail to see any form of comparison whatsoever. Black people eating at a counter do not present a threat to the public. People carrying loaded rifles might. They are like chalk and cheese.

Oh really? What if those black people are armed? They might be you know! Could be some of those concealed weapons. Really best to check, don't you think?

What is it we like about hidden weapons that we can't stand about plain-view weapons?

People who are hiding guns are presumed GOOD folks. People who don't hide are probably BAD folks. Sounds like probable cause to me!

 

[Sam1911]

That said, to view this as a surprise is asinine. This is par for the course, so to speak.

Oh, I don't think anyone's surprised, exactly. Frustrated and angry, but not surprised.

If these dudes were really SURPRISED, well...they weren't.

As others have stated, play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

But it isn't at all a "stupid" game. It is a tactic, and kind of a SMART one that has proven to work across the country.

 

[FROGO207]

If these two guys were in the act of walking across town from one guys house to a shooting spot and did it this way because neither of them had a means of transportation and this happened-----would you guys that are complaining still be OK with the result shown?? Or OC on a motorcycle because that was all you had to get to the range/gun store/home?? Would that be a problem to you also?? OC is OC and if it is legal, good on those two for standing up to what appears to be blatant disregard of the LAW AS WRITTEN. Make a poor choice and you get the reward you deserve. As the officers involved should soon learn. IMHO you have to train others how to treat you. Oh I OC rifle or hand gun around here at times and now few seem notice, but that was not always the case.:banghead:

 

[arizona98tj]

For those participating in this thread who believe it is OK for someone to get stopped and hassled for exercising their 2A rights.....bear with me for a bit as I reflect on what has changed in the past 4 decades.

During my last year of high school (1972-73), I took multiple long guns to school, throughout the year, to blue in the hot metals shop and refinish the stocks. I carried them to and from school via the public school bus. The only "attention" I got was a question from the bus driver ensuring the firearm was not loaded.

Fast forward to today.....my grandson can get suspended from kindergarten if he draws a picture of a gun.....or maybe nibbling his Poptart into the shape of a gun like another child recently did (yeah, it was in the news). This zero tolerance policy concept is way off the deep end, IMO.

The way I see if....this country has gone down the tubes FAR too much in the past 4 decades in regards to gun rights. If I follow your way of thinking which will result in my rights being further trampled by LEOs that "don't like" something I might be legally doing, in another 4 decades, we won't be having this discussion because we won't have any guns to carry.

 

[PedalBiker]

Who was shooting? No one. Yet. But you don't wait for shooting to start before intervening. Perhaps they over-reacted. Maybe they didnt. But I wouldn't want to be standing in front of a judge trying to explain that I was "exercising my rights" on 9/11, scaring a bunch of people to death. It's possible a judge will be sympathetic to that. But I doubt it.
Police would be derelict in their duty not to at least check out thoroughly a situation like that.

Perhaps I'm scared by the way you drive.

 

[NavyLCDR]

Kinda like how that white stripe down a skunk's back draws attention.

Oh man, I love that! That is PERFECT! Can I use that one in the future, please?!?

 

[JTHunter]

As everybody here knows, Illinois just passed a CC law. However, the State Police have yet to even certify any instructors AND they can delay the start of the application process until Jan. 2014.
When all is said and done, the soonest the first CC permits could be issued would probably be April 2014.
And we STILL cannot OC!!

Considering the OP's problem, think of how much fun we are going to have here considering how long our rights have been strangled! Then, we have idiots like this LEO in Shicago shooting off his mouth about having his officers react negatively to anybody found carrying in "his" town. :banghead:

 

[NavyLCDR]

Sure.

I don't see the need to resist any and everything simply because I can. If I'm driving and get pulled over and the cop asks to look in my trunk, have at it. I'm not concerned about some dude checking out my tire iron and jack. I'm a law abiding citizen and have nothing to hide.

Same goes for criticizing the government. I see no real point in wasting my breath most of the time.

People claim that the "open carry activists" are doing more harm than good. But, I've got to ask, are the people who will submit just because they think there is no reason not to hurting "the cause" as well? If a police officer stops 5 people and they all let him look in the trunk just because he asks, what happens with the 6th person stopped who says no? Do the actions of the 5 previous people who willingly waive their rights to officers at their first request affect the reaction of the officer to the 6th person who refuses to waive his rights?

Just because I have nothing to hide is not a legitimate reason for me to waive my rights. Just because I have nothing to hide is no guarantee that they won't find something.

 

[NavyLCDR]

No, Sam, I fail to see any form of comparison whatsoever. Black people eating at a counter do not present a threat to the public. People carrying loaded rifles might. They are like chalk and cheese.

How about people carrying loaded guns in holsters? Might they present a threat to the public as well? Seems to me like most of the people on this forum carry handguns in holsters in normal life. So why does that not make all of us an equal "possible" threat to public, and...therefore... we should be treated equally by the police according to your standards then, right? Only a small percentage of murders in this country are committed using rifles compared to those committed using a handgun. Seems like it is the people who carry handguns are the ones who are more likely to be the criminals, according to the statistics, so shouldn't it be the people carrying handguns that actually fall under more suspicion?

It's not theoretically possible. It is possible. It would appear probable. Did they have means? Yes. Did they have motive? Yes. Did they have demonstrated intent? Maybe. That's going to add up to probable cause in someone's mind.

Since the majority of murders in this country that are committed with firearms are committed using handguns, does that mean that those people carrying handguns have motive and possible demonstrated intent? And, heck, the act of concealing that handgun should even be more indication of motive and intent then, right? After all, as S&W620 likes to say, "If you are a law abiding citizen and have nothing to hide....."

 

[denton]

I must be getting old.

I distinctly remember when a group of teenage boys, with 22 rifles over their shoulders and a sack of empty cans, walking out to the gravel pit on the edge of town, were regarded as fine upstanding youth, on their way to engage in a worthwhile, responsible pastime. If the police intervened at all, it would be to wave hello and remind them to follow the safety rules.

Dear Lord, what has happened to us?

As to the legal issues, regardless of how rude or polite, sensibly or irrationally you are acting, the police have the right to detain or arrest you only if they have reason to believe that you have, are, or are about to break the law. Until and unless they legally detain or arrest you, they have no right to search you and definitely no right to seize your property. Like anyone else, a police officer can ask anyone any question. You are under no obligation to reply. Those officers who abuse their authority do run the risk of getting up close and personal with 42 USC 1983. These undoubtedly will.

 

[powder]

Were they looking for such a confrontation? You decide.

No, they were examplifying dissent, acting with civil disobedience, and they got documentation as to their own civility.

If YOU want to stand on the sidelines and referee, don't be complaining later when you cannot find your spine/rifle/pistol.

The APPs (Armed Prohibited Persons) are having their doors kicked in, in CA right now, by local LE paid with Federal monies to confiscate now and ask questions later. Now is NOT the time to be playing devil's advocate and manipulative troll, unless...

 

[Coop45]

People like S&W620 are the problem. Afraid to exercise a constitutional right because it's not easy.

 

[S&W620]

People like S&W620 are the problem. Afraid to exercise a constitutional right because it's not easy.

So you're saying you open carry a rifle through town?