Interesting twist on OC'ers baiting police and recording the event

SouthernBoy said:

I watch "Bait Car" from time to time because it is kind of funny. And let's face it, those guys are like any other criminals. They don't want to get caught and when they are caught they only play the "I'm sorry" game because they're sorry they were caught... not because they stole a vehicle.

I guess my take on the deliberate police baiting might be this. If the baitor is just out to see if he can catch a fish (LEO) by doing something "exotic" (in their minds???) I still find that to be distasteful. However, if the police in a town or county are clearly abusing their lent power and authority and there is a chain of this behavior, then go for it. Catch them in the act and make them look the fool.

Click to expand...

And yet depending on where you are, simply OCing is viewed as "exotic" and thus one could argue that OCing at all is "baiting" the cops.

The way I see it is like this, it is impossible to "bait" cops. Why is that? Because their very job is enforce the law and respect our rights. As such, unless you do something like verbal judo to try and "trick" them, it is impossible to bait the officer into either breaking the law or violating your rights. If they get "baited" because they didn't properly know the law, well that is bait that is a failure on their part (something that they can all too easily get away with sadly, since they only have to "think" they are enforcing a law and not actually know). And I really don't see how one can argue that they were baited into violating someone else's rights.

Now this doesn't mean I agree with how some of those people act in the videos, simply that it is impossible to bait LAW enforcement into breaking the law.

I once believed as many here, and was in firm disagreement with those that appeared to seek confrontation for its own sake. I still do not like or condone those who's purpose seems to be to gain attention and not to convey the message we seek to expand and educate the general public about: The normalization of openly carrying firearms. When one seeks to "bait" the police, the message (which should be the foremost of our goal) takes a back seat to the means of expressing it.

That being said, another member here once opened my eyes with a simple explanation. I'll paraphrase, but the general idea is not mine. I'm not even sure I agree with it fully, but it makes sense and I can understand the reasoning of it.

"Bait" only works as bait if the quarry is attracted to it. It only catches what takes the hook. You can place a grocery bag of cocaine in front of my house, but it will fail to "catch" me, as I have no desire to have anything to do with it. You can put a Brittany Spears CD on a fishing line, and I doubt you'll catch any bass. Bait cars do not "catch" law abiding citizens with no propensity towards theft.

Likewise, intelligent, professional police officers who are knowledgeable about their jobs and respect citizen's rights cannot be "caught" by baiting, as bait only works on those that bite. The only "takers" to bite the hook of a provocative OC'er are those who have no respect for the public position they hold and choose to enforce their opinion, their inflated sense of superiority, and their position of authority.

So, while I will never "bait" police because my intention is to forward the agenda and promote the message, I can understand those who do.

I don't agree with the tactic, and think those that "bait" have the wrong idea, but I understand it.

Superlite27 said:

Likewise, intelligent, professional police officers who are knowledgeable about their jobs and respect citizen's rights cannot be "caught" by baiting, as bait only works on those that bite. The only "takers" to bite the hook of a provocative OC'er are those who have no respect for the public position they hold and choose to enforce their opinion, their inflated sense of superiority, and their position of authority.

Click to expand...

Very well put.
Where's that "applauding" smiley?

Since I posed the question, the OP referenced, I would like to give my view on it. We all agree that OC is a form of "keeping and bearing arms", in fact in MO(where the incident occurred that led to my question) the only way to legally carry, without State acquired permission, is openly. There are a myriad of reasons why people may choose to exercise this right. A few might be, for defense, to normalize the practice, or even to attempt to provoke LE. The simple fact is that all are legitimate reasons to carry. To be even more blunt the why someone carries is immaterial. As long as their exercise of their rights does not harm another or directly hamper someone else from exercising their rights, their reasons are no ones business but their own.

KYGlockster said:

Snip
I believe everyone going into the field of law enforcement, corrections, parole, etc. should be mandated to have at the minimum an associates degree in criminal justice, with an emphasis on whatever field they plan to work in. This is why we see so many idiots with a badge these days, because there is no selection process whatsoever; and to be honest, if they want to allow these idiots to walk around knowing they don't have a clue about constitutional rights, or the moral and ethical ideals that are involved in dealing with citizens, then the governments that hire these people and the officers themselves deserve to be sued. These "peace officers" are not selling doughnuts or used tires, they are dealing with citizens of the United States of America, the land of the free, where our government is supposed to recognize and protect our rights.

Click to expand...

I have to disagree with you here. I believe such a requirement would only strengthen the belief of some LE that they are a separate(and superior) class than the plain and average citizenry. We all ready have a problem with LEOs being "militarized". They dress like the military, use military grade weapons, and practice military techniques. I don't want to add to the mental image, some have, with the addition of "special" requirements.

If a person chooses to enter a career in LE, they should be expected to learn the requirements and limits of their job on their own, and if they fail to do so, be held accountable for it. I had to for my job, why should they be any different.

I realize that we can never return to the days of Andy Taylor, but to be honest, I would trust a simple and honest sheriff with no formal training more than I would some mall ninja(ladened with tacticool) who thinks just because he can pass a test, he is endowed with some special privilege or power.(Holy crap, that's some long sentences )

Baiting cops will only catch the thug cops. All four of those cops in Bess's 'OC Walk' are thug cops.

Those brainsturgeons are the type of cop that baiting works to eradicate from LE.

Bait early....bait often....i.e. just OC and you'd be surprised how quickly you will be called to account for baiting cops, by cops, the thug cops that is.

SavageOne said:

I have to disagree with you here. I believe such a requirement would only strengthen the belief of some LE that they are a separate(and superior) class than the plain and average citizenry. We all ready have a problem with LEOs being "militarized". They dress like the military, use military grade weapons, and practice military techniques. I don't want to add to the mental image, some have, with the addition of "special" requirements.

If a person chooses to enter a career in LE, they should be expected to learn the requirements and limits of their job on their own, and if they fail to do so, be held accountable for it. I had to for my job, why should they be any different.

I realize that we can never return to the days of Andy Taylor, but to be honest, I would trust a simple and honest sheriff with no formal training more than I would some mall ninja(ladened with tacticool) who thinks just because he can pass a test, he is endowed with some special privilege or power.(Holy crap, that's some long sentences )

Click to expand...

Law enforcement officers have the broadest authority and the most discretion in the criminal justice system than any other entity and you believe they should not be required to have a college education? Having a college degree and being militarized are not even remotely the same. Do some research on ethical violations by police officers. You will soon find that officers with a college degree are much less likely to deprive a citizen of their rights, or have some sort of complaint filed against them, than un-educated officers. Being a police officer is one of the most important jobs in this country, and the fact that you can walk in off the street and enforce the law and constitution is beyond absurd. I have found an incredible amount of information since I began my college education, and know things that most officers of 20 years have never heard of; it has only taken me dropping out and having two children to realize how important an education is. If I am stopped on the street, I would much rather have an educated officer stop me than one without an education. The one with the college degree knows the ethical issues that pertain to their field, and realize the incredible problems that will arise from misconduct. The one without a college education knows how to pull you out of your vehicle and beat you with a baton, and doesn't even realize the issues that he is getting himself into for doing so.

KYGlockster said:

If I am stopped on the street, I would much rather have an educated officer stop me than one without an education. The one with the college degree knows the ethical issues that pertain to their field, and realize the incredible problems that will arise from misconduct. The one without a college education knows how to pull you out of your vehicle and beat you with a baton, and doesn't even realize the issues that he is getting himself into for doing so.

Click to expand...

Way to back up your opinion with logical argument containing a valid reason for your belief.

I didn't really have a concrete opinion on the subject, but this explanation has kind of solidified it on the side of requiring an education.

I don't try and bait anyone actually. I only OC when I have to, like when its 90 degrees outside and there is no way I am going to where a jacket to conceal carry.

You can't "bait" a critter that isn't looking for something to bite...

"Baiting" LEOs to try to get them to do something illegal to you (false arrest, color-of-law rights violation, etc) by doing something that is 1) a Constitutionally-guaranteed right in most states, and 2) is 100% legal and lawful in most jurisdictions, is no different than LEOs putting out "bait cars" or selling drugs through undercover operations.

Honest people will remain honest, and not take the bait--and criminals will. It doesn't matter WHAT uniform those honest people (or criminals) are wearing. When a person submits to the temptation to illegally exploit a perceived weakness in another human being, they have committed a crime of their OWN VOLITION. Providing the opportunity for criminals to expose their evil ways is nothing more than "dynamic Darwinism".

If that criminal happens to be wearing a badge, then the fact that they are caught on tape breaking the law is so much the better. That sort of "baiting"--that exposes bad LEOs for the criminals and thugs they are--is, IMO a valuable and commendable public service.

Good cops, and cops that know, respect, and uphold the law will take little notice of such "bait".

But the ones that are LOOKING for a reason to violate someone's rights DESERVE to be "hooked and reeled in" and "landing" such a predatory, dangerous "fish" is a public service of the highest degree, and should be commended.

jeeper1 said:

KYGlockster wrote
The fact that someone can walk in off the street (in some cases without the most basic of education, such as a highschool degree) and be deputized and given a gun and badge and told to go out and enforce the laws is beyond ridiculous.
I disagree with that statement. I can't offer proof that is wrong but for that to happen it must be a hick burg.

I do agree with this statement.

I believe everyone going into the field of law enforcement, corrections, parole, etc. should be mandated to have at the minimum an associates degree in criminal justice, with an emphasis on whatever field they plan to work in.
The problem I have with it is that the degrees for that stuff is gotten a college or university where the courses are taught by people that are either socialists or communists and brainwash the students.

Click to expand...

I don't care what the qualifications are ... I prefer them to be stupid ... that way I can show their stupidity on a witness stand. I have done it many times .. asking them if they have a diploma .. then say you sure? It riles them to no end, making real questions to the subject matter of the case and they are so pissed off its easy to bait them with questions that you know they'll answer w/o thinking.

Cops are the most undisciplined group out there...

If a Doctorate in Criminal Justice were required to pin a badge on....

Kirbinator said:

If a Doctorate in Criminal Justice were required to pin a badge on....

Click to expand...

Education does not now, nor has it ever been any indication of intelligence or the willingness of a person to be law-abiding.

For instance, Eric Holder, Janet Reno, Elena Kagan and Sonya Sotomayor have Doctorate degrees.

Just sayin'...

As a paid professional your conduct should be above reproach, and given that no amount of baiting should provoke an unprofessional response.

I have no problem with setting up a situation to test the professionalism of ANYONE. I do not see that as a problem, testing is a huge part of our society, we must prove our competence in our jobs all the time in the corporate world, I see no reason to exclude the police just becuase we have built up a cultural stigmatism toward questioning authority.

I don't think carrying a recorder while either OC'ing or CC'ing constitutes "baiting". I recommend that everybody get a recorder, turn it on when they leave the house and turn it off at the end of the day. Maybe turn it off and erase periodically during the day of nothing of substance has happened (or if you say something you don't want recorded.)

I would think "baiting" would consist of behaving or dressing in a manner far from what would be considered "normal" and expressly intended to attract attention. Cammo clothing and face paint with a stainless steel gun on each hip while standing in line at the bank, for example. Unless the attire is part of a military re-enactment event, it's not normal OC and is, of course, going to attract attention. But is it illegal? Not that I'm aware of, although I'm not sure about the face paint. It this get-up going to make bank employees nervous? Probably. Should police, if called to check out somebody dressed like this, behave professionally and in compliance with the law? Absolutely.

Carrying a voice recorder is no more "baiting" than is carrying a pencil and a notebook. Both are used to record events, the only difference is that a digital recording is more accurate and less liable to be a distortion of actual events.
As distortion of events usually leads to an inaccurate portrayal, everyone involved should welcome a more reliable 'witness'. You have to wonder about the motivations of those who don't want an accurate record.

I enjoy having my voice recorder when I attend family get-togethers (while OC'ing).

Many times, I get blamed for doing or not doing something that was discussed.

Now I just threaten to let the wife (or whoever) replay the entire recording and point out what I missed.

No one has taken me up on this yet. As a bonus, I'll know when my hearing (or mind) is going when they DO point something out!


Even if you conceal or unarmed, a voice recorder is a great tool to have.

I don't have a problem with people baiting cops in the vein discussed in the OP. I say this to distinguish from the typical usage of the word baiting which means teasing or verbally antagonizing someone to get them to react harshly.

Testing might be a better term.

Nothing wrong at all with citizens keeping an eye on government and checking it out to see if it is functioning correctly.

Would I do it? No. Not my style, if you will. But, I have no objection to it.

Also, there is some advantage, I think, to testing and finding out how cops are gonna react while you have a bit of a controlled situation, e.g., a camera, not caught off-guard, a buddy recording surreptitiously from nearby.

jeeper1 said:

KYGlockster wrote
The fact that someone can walk in off the street (in some cases without the most basic of education, such as a highschool degree) and be deputized and given a gun and badge and told to go out and enforce the laws is beyond ridiculous.
I disagree with that statement. I can't offer proof that is wrong but for that to happen it must be a hick burg.

I do agree with this statement.

I believe everyone going into the field of law enforcement, corrections, parole, etc. should be mandated to have at the minimum an associates degree in criminal justice, with an emphasis on whatever field they plan to work in.
The problem I have with it is that the degrees for that stuff is gotten a college or university where the courses are taught by people that are either socialists or communists and brainwash the students.

Click to expand...

While I do agree with you on the minimum education requirements to be a law enforcement, corrections, parole, etc officer, I have to question if we are willing to pay the increased taxes required to afford the salaries that should be paid when we start requiring college degrees of these professions.

I have known many people who either went into or were interested in going into law enforcement over the years. I guess that comes from spending 20 years in the military, and the majority of them were quite capable of performing the required tasks without a degree. Unfortunately the majority of them took their military training and went on to higher paying private sector jobs depriving the law enforcement community of a valuable manpower resource.

I also know a few retired police officers who hang out at my local FRA branch (as associate members), and for the most part I can say I am not impressed. I would think with the current employment situation (everyone say thank you Obama) that the police would be able to bring in some real high quality recruits, I only question how long they would hang out once the economy gets on track.

twoskinsonemanns said:

Every time you OC is there not a chance you'll get harassed based on the stories we've heard?

Let me ask you this. What would you do if almost EVERY TIME you OC you got a MWAG called and detained?

Would you keep OC'ing?

Click to expand...

Yes it is my right to.
Unfortunately I have to pay for the privilege that is a right over here in Tennessee but that is another topic.

I OC a lot (probably do not need to clarify that here but...) and when I head out I am prepared to be an ambassador and educator (I would prefer I did not have to be) but the reality is I am. I wish to shed a positive light on OC and expand toward constitutional carry. I cannot at present see a method that will bring all of this to light without putting me in a potential position for confrontation. I have conscientiously taken this path and will knowingly and willfully continue down it.