riverrat10k
Regular Member
Nice vid.
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
OK.. who is this :D
- Thread starter Walt_Kowalski
- Start date
ProShooter
Regular Member
This would have been a much better way to handle it.
TFred
Regular Member
Fallschirjmäger
Active member
You're Freaking People Out!
I wonder how the officer would have felt if the cameraman had said "Gee, officer, you wanna turn on your four-way flasher's or sumthin'? Parked on the side of the road like that you're a danger to traffic. I'd hate to see that nice, shiny car get scratched."
Yeps, the guy calmly jogging past the encounter didn't seem fazed at all.
I wonder how the officer would have felt if the cameraman had said "Gee, officer, you wanna turn on your four-way flasher's or sumthin'? Parked on the side of the road like that you're a danger to traffic. I'd hate to see that nice, shiny car get scratched."
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
I've seen a few case summaries where cop car flashers were part of the discussion as to whether a seizure had occurred. Meaning, if the cop used the flashers it might have turned the encounter into a detention. So, I'm wondering if the cop left them off on purpose to avoid giving the impression to the OCer that he was being seized.
PeteXD
Regular Member
Most newer lightbar systems for police cars come with the option to turn just the rear facing lights on. The cop could have done that for the safety of his car...
Recon by Fire
Regular Member
I think the kid in the video is an a**. I had THREE officers in two vehicles pull up to me about a week ago while I was putting gas in my bike.
"Good morning officer, something I can help you with?"
"Nope just checking out your ride, ride safe."
You know damn well they were not checking out my bike, not in two vehicles. But I didn't provoke them, and they didn't act like morons.
What happens to that kid if that cop is not a pro..or just someone having a bad day? Who knows but what what does that kid gain? Nothing.
Why risk so much to gain nothing?
"Good morning officer, something I can help you with?"
"Nope just checking out your ride, ride safe."
You know damn well they were not checking out my bike, not in two vehicles. But I didn't provoke them, and they didn't act like morons.
What happens to that kid if that cop is not a pro..or just someone having a bad day? Who knows but what what does that kid gain? Nothing.
Why risk so much to gain nothing?
VApatriot
Regular Member
There was absolutely nothing wrong with what he did. He was simply exercising his right to not interact with the cop.
There was really no reason for the cop to get out of his car and start asking questions in the first place. At most, the cop(s) should have driven by and seen that it was just a guy legally OCing, and that should have been the end of it. The cop very clearly knew that the OC'r was doing nothing wrong, and he knew that he had no right or reason to legally detain the OC'r. The cop was attempting to initiate a "consensual" conversation, which almost assuredly would have been nothing but a lecture on how the OC'r was "scaring people." The OC'r didn't fall for it one bit.
There is no reason why someone legally going about there business should have to put up with being delayed for any amount of time just so that a cop can give them a lecture. By refusing to participate in the "consensual" conversation, the OC'r was able to continue on his way in a matter of seconds, rather than the minutes or longer that the cops might otherwise have dragged it out. Sure, there's more than one way that you can react if or when you are ever approached by a LEO, and if you are okay with going ahead and have a conversation with a cop, that's perfectly fine. However, some people prefer not to waist their valuable time being treated like criminals, so they choose not to interact.
As far as "gaining nothing" by "risking" coming across an unprofessional cop, there most certainly is something to gain. What you gain (or perhaps maintain) is your freedom. If you have to alter what you do, based on fear of a cop doing something illegal to you, them you have lost your freedom to do as you please within the bounds of the law. As the opencarry.org motto states: "A right unexercised is a right lost!"
I think that you are actually correct that there is somewhat of a "risk" that could be faced when confronted by some cops, and I believe that that is unacceptable. Any law enforcement officer who does not understand the basics of law, or who is unstable enough to react based on how they are feeling that day, should not be carrying a badge and a gun. And, in my opinion, the fact that this OC'r would "risk" coming across such a cop, while refusing to give up any of his rights to act as he wished within the law, shows courage. If more people would act like him, then maybe we would stand a chance of turning around the course of this this country, which seems to continue to be headed towards a even greater police-state.
Last edited:
TFred
Regular Member
If the kid was an a**, what does that make the cop?
I agree, the response was well deserved, and probably more gutsy than many of us here would be able to do ourselves.
TFred
I agree, the response was well deserved, and probably more gutsy than many of us here would be able to do ourselves.
TFred
No, I am not going to provide citations. User, Citizen and Dreamer are the gurus on the subject. But I have never heard or read anything where a LEO was required to turn on his 4-way flashers, his overheads, or actually say the words "You are under arrest/You are being detained" for it to be a perfectly recognizable by SCOTUS arrest/detention. As a matter of fact, tone of voice is enough.
We are always going to have a difference of opinion about when, where and how to assert that we do not surrender our rights just because someone wants us to do so for their convenience, and the discussion usually gets rather heated when the person wanting us to surrender our rights is doing so under the color of law (which does not always require them to have a uniform or a badge or even a paycheck directly from some .gov entity.) The point is, I hope, that by whatever means we resist the attempt to make us surrender our rights, we do in fact resist in a lawful manner.
stay safe.
Medic1210
Regular Member
Haven't read all the comments, so I don't know if this has been mentioned or not, but I gotta give props to the officer for being cool with the guy despite the guy deliberately trying to get a reaction from him. Say what you want, but there are more polite ways to establish your right to remain silent, especially when the officer was as polite as he was. Guys like this, who walk around with a video camera recording while open carrying are doing nothing more than trying to get material to post on YouTube. I'm all for protecting our rights, and all for open carrying, but the day I go out with a video camera hoping to get stopped by a cop is the day I need to quit open carrying. I carry to defend myself, not to deliberately have confrontations with police officers. The guy, while completely within his right, was a dick. Again, I fully expect several on here to disagree with me, but I feel the guy could have handled it differently, but then again, that wouldn't have looked as "cool" on YouTube.
A whole three posts and the NOVA's coming out already.
What did he gain?
Pride, self respect, freedom, independence, dignity...to name a few.
ManInBlack
Regular Member
LOL!!! Statist saying of the year!!! Remaining silent is now "deliberately trying to get a reaction."
That's kind of like saying "by not participating in interstate commerce, you are participating in it." FDR and other big-government, Constitution-bending heroes will greet you in Welfarehalla when you pass on...
riverrat10k
Regular Member
VAPatriot:
"As far as "gaining nothing" by "risking" coming across an unprofessional cop, there most certainly is something to gain. What you gain (or perhaps maintain) is your freedom. If you have to alter what you do, based on fear of a cop doing something illegal to you, them you have lost your freedom to do as you please within the bounds of the law. As the opencarry.org motto states: "A right unexercised is a right lost!"
++++++1
Man in black also. Classic line.
"Remaining silent is now "deliberately trying to get a reaction."
That's kind of like saying "by not participating in interstate commerce, you are participating in it."
Wonderful to both of you!
"As far as "gaining nothing" by "risking" coming across an unprofessional cop, there most certainly is something to gain. What you gain (or perhaps maintain) is your freedom. If you have to alter what you do, based on fear of a cop doing something illegal to you, them you have lost your freedom to do as you please within the bounds of the law. As the opencarry.org motto states: "A right unexercised is a right lost!"
++++++1
Man in black also. Classic line.
"Remaining silent is now "deliberately trying to get a reaction."
That's kind of like saying "by not participating in interstate commerce, you are participating in it."
Wonderful to both of you!
It is not "cool" or "polite" to push the line on violating my rights under color of law.
I carrying a recorder and a mini video cam - am I therefore suspect of only wanting to post on YouTube?
The young man did nothing wrong other than not making the officer happy - oh well.
Never look down on the activists that promote and defend your rights - thank them for the freedom you are able to enjoy. Giving in accomplishes absolutely nothing.
TFred
Regular Member
Just to point out the obvious for those who haven't seen it yet...
This encounter "went south" at the very beginning, when the dispatcher failed to ask the caller such questions as, "is the person's gun in a holster?" or, "is the person engaged in any threatening motions or activities with the gun?" before sending the nearest LEO to "investigate."
Or... if there was no call, then it "went south" as soon as the LEO decided to confront the apparently Law Abiding Citizen for no reason whatsoever.
TFred
This encounter "went south" at the very beginning, when the dispatcher failed to ask the caller such questions as, "is the person's gun in a holster?" or, "is the person engaged in any threatening motions or activities with the gun?" before sending the nearest LEO to "investigate."
Or... if there was no call, then it "went south" as soon as the LEO decided to confront the apparently Law Abiding Citizen for no reason whatsoever.
TFred
Red Dawg
Regular Member
1A, 2A, 5A. Why is it hard for people to understand. He was just exercising those three rights. He was within all laws, and within his rights to be there, the way he was, and to say what he wished, he was allowed by law and right to have his handgun, and when appraoched for no good reason, he was within his right to not say a dad gum thing. There is no reason to call anyone an a#$, a jerk, or any other derogatory name. He may not be the next Patrick Henry, but he is doing more for freedom than alot of people.
Walt_Kowalski
Regular Member
If you ask me, this should have been vetted at the caller level...
"911 whats your emergency?", Operator.
"Hi, umm.. there is a guy walking down the street with a gun.", Sheeple
"What is he doing? Is he threatening anyone with it?", Operator.
"No.. its in a holster on his side. I can see it.", Sheeple
"So he is walking with a holstered firearm?", Operator.
"Yes", Sheeple
"Open carry is legal in Virginia. You have the right to carry a firearm openly in this state. Thanks for calling and have a nice day.", Operator.