Paranoid cops in Texas? Open-Carry violation.

[CaptainHaplo]

This goes back to the whole responsibility thing on firearms ownership....

There are people that do this JUST to interact with le and create videos - and you know what - in doing that they are acting irresponsibly. A firearm is a right AND a responsibility - and they are showing they are not up to that side of it.

There is no purpose in it other than to try and get harassed. Guess what - if you go looking for trouble, trouble will find you. That doesn't mean the cops were in the right, but he was just as much in the wrong.

Open carry is a legal right in many states. Then again - carrying whether OC or CC is generally done for defensive purposes or to exercise your 2A rights. Those are fine - but doing so just to get a youtube video .....

[garren]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

This goes back to the whole responsibility thing on firearms ownership....

There are people that do this JUST to interact with le and create videos - and you know what - in doing that they are acting irresponsibly. A firearm is a right AND a responsibility - and they are showing they are not up to that side of it.

There is no purpose in it other than to try and get harassed. Guess what - if you go looking for trouble, trouble will find you. That doesn't mean the cops were in the right, but he was just as much in the wrong.

Open carry is a legal right in many states. Then again - carrying whether OC or CC is generally done for defensive purposes or to exercise your 2A rights. Those are fine - but doing so just to get a youtube video .....

Nobody should be getting stopped by the police at all for simply carrying a firearm in this country. It's a constitutional right. So tired of cops stopping people and asking them for their papers. This is not Nazi Germany and if there's no reason to suspect the person carry the weapon has committed a criminal offense there's no probable cause to stop them and doing so if a violation of that persons rights and is actually a criminal offense by the police. They should tell these people who call to complain that it's a right to carry a firearm in this country and inform them that if they have witnessed the person committing a crime then that's a different matter.

[Red October1984]

Originally Posted by garren

Nobody should be getting stopped by the police at all for simply carrying a firearm in this country. It's a constitutional right. So tired of cops stopping people and asking them for their papers. This is not Nazi Germany and if there's no reason to suspect the person carry the weapon has committed a criminal offense there's no probable cause to stop them and doing so if a violation of that persons rights and is actually a criminal offense by the police. They should tell these people who call to complain that it's a right to carry a firearm in this country and inform them that if they have witnessed the person committing a crime then that's a different matter.

+1

Firearms are too much automatically associated with crime. Sadly, I don't see that changing.

[CaptainHaplo]

Originally Posted by garren

Nobody should be getting stopped by the police at all for simply carrying a firearm in this country. It's a constitutional right.

Yes it is - but every right we have should be exercised with responsibility and consideration.

So tired of cops stopping people and asking them for their papers. This is not Nazi Germany and if there's no reason to suspect the person carry the weapon has committed a criminal offense there's no probable cause to stop them and doing so if a violation of that persons rights and is actually a criminal offense by the police.

The fact that they received calls may give them probable cause under the law (depending on what the calls report). While we agree can it shouldn't - it does and we have to deal with the situation we have vs wishing for what should be.

They should tell these people who call to complain that it's a right to carry a firearm in this country and inform them that if they have witnessed the person committing a crime then that's a different matter.

I agree - but your expecting the police to teach the public what the law is - and that isn't their job. Heck, many le's don't even know what the laws are when it comes to carrying firearms. A sad thing to be sure.

As a gun owner who does carry - its important to exercise our 2A rights in a responsible way that does not further reinforce the negative image of firearms and those of us who do choose to carry. Wandering around to make a video interacting with leo's and being an asshat is not. If we don't want society to look at us as if ownership and carrying automatically make us suspicious, then we ought to conduct ourselves in a more respectful and responsible manner. People who fear firearms and those of us who carry them see idiots like in the link and we all get associated with being disrespectful morons - who own guns... No wonder there is a negative stereotype.

[Red October1984]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Yes it is - but every right we have should be exercised with responsibility and consideration.



The fact that they received calls may give them probable cause under the law (depending on what the calls report). While we agree can it shouldn't - it does and we have to deal with the situation we have vs wishing for what should be.



I agree - but your expecting the police to teach the public what the law is - and that isn't their job. Heck, many le's don't even know what the laws are when it comes to carrying firearms. A sad thing to be sure.

As a gun owner who does carry - its important to exercise our 2A rights in a responsible way that does not further reinforce the negative image of firearms and those of us who do choose to carry. Wandering around to make a video interacting with leo's and being an asshat is not. If we don't want society to look at us as if ownership and carrying automatically make us suspicious, then we ought to conduct ourselves in a more respectful and responsible manner. People who fear firearms and those of us who carry them see idiots like in the link and we all get associated with being disrespectful morons - who own guns... No wonder there is a negative stereotype.

I have to +1 this post too.

Gun Rights need to be promoted in positive ways.

[garren]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Yes it is - but every right we have should be exercised with responsibility and consideration.



The fact that they received calls may give them probable cause under the law (depending on what the calls report). While we agree can it shouldn't - it does and we have to deal with the situation we have vs wishing for what should be.



I agree - but your expecting the police to teach the public what the law is - and that isn't their job. Heck, many le's don't even know what the laws are when it comes to carrying firearms. A sad thing to be sure.

As a gun owner who does carry - its important to exercise our 2A rights in a responsible way that does not further reinforce the negative image of firearms and those of us who do choose to carry. Wandering around to make a video interacting with leo's and being an asshat is not. If we don't want society to look at us as if ownership and carrying automatically make us suspicious, then we ought to conduct ourselves in a more respectful and responsible manner. People who fear firearms and those of us who carry them see idiots like in the link and we all get associated with being disrespectful morons - who own guns... No wonder there is a negative stereotype.

I can agree with most of that. I don't think this guy in this particular video was trying to be a problem to the police however. He was on a hike with his kid and was smart enough to record it with his camera. He could have tried to remain more calm than he was but he was pissed and I can't really fault him for that because they did screw up badly with him. But it didn't make his situation any better with the cops being mouthy with them either. It's one of those things where you're best of just letting them violate you with your mouth closed and obedient to their commands. Then you sue the hell out of them when you got an attorney on your side.

[CaptainMattJ.]

Actually the police have the right to stop and ask anybody anything they want. I could be walking down the street in broad daylight and a cop has the right to stop me and ask me questions. They call them "field interviews". They can't ask me for certain things unless they plan to arrest me but based on these suspicions he has the right to "detain" (asking me to stay usually, not necessarily cuffs) me and ask me questions to confirm or calm his suspicions. I had a cop do one the other day because i was walking down the street at midnight. He was being annoying but he was in the right.

Justification for Conducting a Field Interview Law enforcement officers may stop individuals for the purpose of conducting a field interview only where reasonable suspicion is present. Reasonable suspicion must be more than a hunch or feeling, but need not meet the test for probable cause sufficient to make an arrest. In justifying the stop, the officer must be able to point to specific facts which, when taken together with rational inferences, reasonably warrant the stop. Such facts include, but are not limited to, the following:

1. The appearance or demeanor of an individual suggests that he is part of a criminal enterprise or is engaged in a criminal act;
2. The actions of the suspect suggest that he is engaged in a criminal activity;
3. The hour of day or night is inappropriate for the suspect's presence in the area;
4. The suspect's presence in a neighborhood or location is inappropriate;
5. The suspect is carrying a suspicious object;
6. The suspect's clothing bulges in a manner that suggests he is carrying a weapon;
7. The suspect is located in proximate time and place to the alleged crime; or
8. The officer has knowledge of the suspect's prior criminal record or involvement in criminal activity.

Suspicious object in this case is a firearm. The officer has the right to ask you if you have your license to carry and own a firearm, especially rifle-caliber. When dealing with individuals carrying firearms its really annoying but necessary to detain the individual and/or separate him from his weapon until the interview or arrest is over.

The guy was also being loud and getting angry with the officer, which does nothing for anybody except get the cop pissed off. Realistically you should always keep your cool and be cooperative. Know EXACTLY what you're doing before you refuse to cooperate with certain orders, make absolutely sure you're exercising your rights correctly.

[mookiemookie]

Just because you can doesn't mean you should.

[Platapus]

So lemme see if I understand the point under discussion.

If the police receive calls from a citizen reporting a suspicious person carrying a firearm; and when the police arrive they see a person carrying a rifle, we really don't want the police to stop and ask this person questions because the state has open carry laws?

I want the police to ask questions. We are a long way from "let me zee your papers". But there has to be some moderate middle ground between two undesirable extremes

1. Police can not talk to citizens without legal probable cause. There is a huge difference between arrest and field interrogation.
2. Police demanding to see citizenship papers and having the citizens dragged away in a dark van.

A field interrogation is not the same as a custodial interrogation which has a much higher standard of probable cause. This is why, when being talked to by the police, one can (and should), politely ask the officer, "am I free to go?"

If the answer is no - you are in custodial interrogation.
If the answer is yes, you are in a field interrogation.

Unfortunately, depending on the jurisdiction, statements you make during a field interrogation may be used in legal proceedings. In other jurisdictions they are not. This is an area of much debate.


You do not have to stay during a field interrogation. However, the reality is that it may be a lot easier to defuse the situation by cooperating. The fact of life is that if you piss off a cop, they WILL find "something" to justify their actions. Unfortunately, the courts usually side with the actions of the police officer when it comes to a "he said, he said" argument.

It ain't right, it ain't fair

I have been "field interrogated" several times, and in all cases, I cooperated and the situation ended right there.

Was I "kow-tow-ing" to The Man? Probably. But at least I did not end up in a holding cell waiting for a lawyer.

[garren]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

Just because you can doesn't mean you should.

So people shouldn't practice their rights? ... But didn't you just do that with your comment here (freedom of speech)? You know, there's more danger in words than guns after all. A gun never started a war, but speech certainly has. So perhaps if people shouldn't carry guns they shouldn't talk either? I mean, this is your feeling after all... right?

[u crank]

Originally Posted by garren

Nobody should be getting stopped by the police at all for simply carrying a firearm in this country. It's a constitutional right.

So what you are saying is that anyone, including criminals can walk the streets with an AR 15 strapped to their back and this is not a cause for concern. When this happens then you will really have cause to be worried about your constitutional rights.

no reason to suspect the person carry the weapon has committed a criminal offense there's no probable cause to stop them and doing so if a violation of that persons rights and is actually a criminal offense by the police.

So until I walk through the bank door and level my weapon at the teller I'm above suspicion? Wouldn't that be great?

They should tell these people who call to complain that it's a right to carry a firearm in this country and inform them that if they have witnessed the person committing a crime then that's a different matter.

There are lots of things that arouse the suspicion of the police. Carrying an automatic weapon should be one of them. The day when it is normal for people to walk around with automatic weapons and the police do nothing is the day your country becomes Somalia.

[garren]

Originally Posted by u crank

So what you are saying is that anyone, including criminals can walk the streets with an AR 15 strapped to their back and this is not a cause for concern. When this happens then you will really have cause to be worried about your constitutional rights.

Criminals already carry firearms illegally and will continue to do so if we (law abiding citizens) lose our rights to carry them. So this point is invalid and been debunked about a zillion times already. There will be less criminals shooting people if more people carry firearms. Notice how they shoot up people in places that are "Gun Free Zones" most of the time, and notice how most victims of gun violence were unarmed? They tend to shoot people who can't shoot back. Guns deter violence just like Nukes deter war.

So until I walk through the bank door and level my weapon at the teller I'm above suspicion? Wouldn't that be great?

I bet you wouldn't do that if you knew that most bank tellers were armed and that you'd never be able to kill more than one before getting killed yourself. Not too many people barge into police stations and shoot at the cops either unless they have a death wish. The same would be true if banks armed all their tellers and it was well known that you'd never get out of the bank alive with any money.

There are lots of things that arouse the suspicion of the police. Carrying an automatic weapon should be one of them. The day when it is normal for people to walk around with automatic weapons and the police do nothing is the day your country becomes Somalia.

I don't believe that at all. Remember, there's a difference between automatic and fully automatic. Most pistols today are automatics and not revolvers. Many hunting rifles are magazine fed semi-automatics as well and don't require bolt or lever action.

I can understand fully automatic weapons being banned for the common citizen but automatics, or semi-automatics, are fine with me. I can understand a cop having questions about the make and model of certain types of weapons. I saw a video recently of a guy carrying a H&K MP5 submachine gun. His was modified however to be semi-auto only and did not have the 3-round burst or fully automatic capabilities that the military and police SWAT teams have, so he was fine to carry it. I have no problems with cops questioning those weapons but they seem to be questioning any gun, even shotguns (and Biden told us we could have those didn't he?) which is ridiculous and nothing more than government harassing the people of this country for practicing their rights.

[CaptainHaplo]

Originally Posted by Platapus

The entire left? Every one who identifies as the left all feel this way. No exceptions? Wow.

There I go generalizing again.... Yes, not all "on the left" are anti-gun and not all on the right are pro 2A. However, the generalities exist because the above - as well as your examples, tend to be outliers rather than the norm.

Originally Posted by garren

Criminals already carry firearms illegally and will continue to do so if we (law abiding citizens) lose our rights to carry them.

If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have them. A criminal has no respect for the law so he won't follow it. All gun control does is take guns out of the law abiding person's hands.

Notice how they shoot up people in places that are "Gun Free Zones" most of the time, and notice how most victims of gun violence were unarmed? They tend to shoot people who can't shoot back. Guns deter violence just like Nukes deter war.

I have yet to meet someone who is anti-gun who is willing to have a sign that says "This Home is a Gun Free Zone." in their yard. Why? Because criminals and psychopaths always go for soft targets.

I bet you wouldn't do that if you knew that most bank tellers were armed and that you'd never be able to kill more than one before getting killed yourself. Not too many people barge into police stations and shoot at the cops either unless they have a death wish. The same would be true if banks armed all their tellers and it was well known that you'd never get out of the bank alive with any money.

This is why more teachers should be taught how to handle firearms and then be armed in schools. It is why - in Aurora - had a few patrons of that theater been armed, a lot less people would have been killed or injured. The list of "coulda, woulda, shoulda" goes on and on - while more and more law abiding people die.

Take Chicago - where the death toll continues to rise (though at a slower rate than last year). Think gangbangers would hesitate a little if they knew everyone in sight was going to start throwing lead their way if they tried a driveby? Not all criminals are dumb - they want to stay alive like everyone else - so they aren't going to intentionally make themselves a big ole target.

If anyone doubts the reality that increases in gun ownership deter crime - then research Kennisaw, Ga and learn how the requirement for every head of household to own a firearm has cut crime rate by ~50% TOTAL even though it population has more than quadrupled.

[garren]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

There I go generalizing again.... Yes, not all "on the left" are anti-gun and not all on the right are pro 2A. However, the generalities exist because the above - as well as your examples, tend to be outliers rather than the norm.



If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have them. A criminal has no respect for the law so he won't follow it. All gun control does is take guns out of the law abiding person's hands.



I have yet to meet someone who is anti-gun who is willing to have a sign that says "This Home is a Gun Free Zone." in their yard. Why? Because criminals and psychopaths always go for soft targets.



This is why more teachers should be taught how to handle firearms and then be armed in schools. It is why - in Aurora - had a few patrons of that theater been armed, a lot less people would have been killed or injured. The list of "coulda, woulda, shoulda" goes on and on - while more and more law abiding people die.

Take Chicago - where the death toll continues to rise (though at a slower rate than last year). Think gangbangers would hesitate a little if they knew everyone in sight was going to start throwing lead their way if they tried a driveby? Not all criminals are dumb - they want to stay alive like everyone else - so they aren't going to intentionally make themselves a big ole target.

If anyone doubts the reality that increases in gun ownership deter crime - then research Kennisaw, Ga and learn how the requirement for every head of household to own a firearm has cut crime rate by ~50% TOTAL even though it population has more than quadrupled.

Amen.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

It is why - in Aurora - had a few patrons of that theater been armed, a lot less people would have been killed or injured.

I am not sure that is accurate. Certainly if there were one armed citizen at the theater, and it was understood that there was only one baddie, than it is reasonable to presume that there would be a good likelihood of the "goodie" shooting the "baddie" before too many more bystanders were killed.

Armed citizen sees armed baddie doing bad things, so the target selection is pretty clear.

But

When you add multiple armed citizens, is this presumption really reasonable?

One can not assume that there is only one baddie.
One can't assume that good guys and baddies may be dressed exactly alike.

Now we have multiple people shooting, in which an unknown number are baddies and an unknown number are good guys. In a very few seconds, the N+1 armed citizen has to make a decision of how many people are shooting, how many of them are baddies, how many of them are good guys, all the while people are getting shot. Cops have a hard time making these decisions (and sometimes make the tragically wrong decision)

So you are in a crowded theater. Shots have been fired. You draw your weapon. You see someone in the theater with their weapon drawn and pointed at someone. What are you going to do? You have about a second to decide.

What about that other person who now suddenly notices another person (you) with a weapon drawn.. possibly pointed at them! He or she has about a second to make a decision. What are they going to do?

It is not like in a video game/ hollywood where all the baddies are dressed alike and are all on one side of the room.

And this is not even addressing the skill level of your average armed citizen who probably has never been in a combat situation. Shootin pieces of paper, even when they move, is not good at preparing people for combat shooting situations.

I am sure I am not the only one, at the range, who has noticed that many shooters miss targets that just stand there that are more than 10 meters away. And that is in good light, they have plenty of time to aim, and with no one shooting back!

Stand at the firing location of any established range and look up and down. Count the number of bullet holes about a foot down range.

So having multiple armed citizens that are

1. Misidentifying who is or are the baddies
2. Missing the target they are aiming at

Does not bode well for the claim that less people would be killed. I think in the confusion the likelihood of MORE people getting hurt is higher.

There may be an instance where a baddie fires off one round and dives for the ground and watches all the responding armed citizens start shooting everyone else. That would suck.