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

jeeper1 said:

KYGlockster wrote

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...

This is a generalization that has no backing. Also, just because someone is a socialist doesn't mean that they are anti-constitutional. I myself have many socialist ideals that are don't interfere with my belief in defending the rights of the United States citizens or going against the constitution.
I'm not badgering here, nor trying to be provocative, but I think this is a blanket statement, especially when speaking about brainwashing students.

Dr. Gunslinger said:

This is a generalization that has no backing. Also, just because someone is a socialist doesn't mean that they are anti-constitutional. I myself have many socialist ideals that are don't interfere with my belief in defending the rights of the United States citizens or going against the constitution.
I'm not badgering here, nor trying to be provocative, but I think this is a blanket statement, especially when speaking about brainwashing students.

Click to expand...

Too late.

Dr. Gunslinger said:

This is a generalization that has no backing. Also, just because someone is a socialist doesn't mean that they are anti-constitutional. I myself have many socialist ideals that are don't interfere with my belief in defending the rights of the United States citizens or going against the constitution.
I'm not badgering here, nor trying to be provocative, but I think this is a blanket statement, especially when speaking about brainwashing students.

Click to expand...

Off topic for a moment.

Could you please explain how a socialist ideal is not in conflict with the anti-socialist Constitution?

Freedom1Man said:

Off topic for a moment.

Could you please explain how a socialist ideal is not in conflict with the anti-socialist Constitution?

Click to expand...

Are you sure you really want to hear it? I mean, blech. I don't.

He's made exactly one post. He felt so strongly about that quote that a response was torn from him; he was just compelled to reply to that one. Out of how many current threads and posts?

Dr. Gunslinger said:

This is a generalization that has no backing. Also, just because someone is a socialist doesn't mean that they are anti-constitutional. I myself have many socialist ideals that are don't interfere with my belief in defending the rights of the United States citizens or going against the constitution.
I'm not badgering here, nor trying to be provocative, but I think this is a blanket statement, especially when speaking about brainwashing students.

Click to expand...

Of course socialism is anti-constitutional. It is the taking by governmental force that which is mine to give it to someone else. That is far different than taking my money to build "post roads" or to pay soldiers and sailors, two things that the Constitution clearly empower the federal government to do. The constitution nowhere gives the federal government the power to take from me to give to someone else.

It is also contrary to the idea of Liberty that is supposed to run through our founding documents. Government should not be denying anyone their rights to life, Liberty, or property without due process of law--due process meaning an individualized legal proceeding, not a generally passed confiscatory law.

If you want socialism, work for it in YOUR State, where your State's constitution might just allow such a usurpation of individual rights. Stop ruining the greatest government instituted of Man by vesting it with power over the People and the States that it was never intended to have.

If Massachusetts or California or Illinois want to be fascio-socialist, let them. The free market of the States (when unencumbered with federal control) will result in the flourishment of the freer States and the stagnation of the welfare States, as producers gravitate towards places where their efforts are rewarded, and bums gravitate towards places where their lack of effort is rewarded. The irony is that the freer States will be the ones better able to help those who truly cannot help themselves (as opposed to won't help themselves).

OC for ME said:

The legal system is a system of processes wrapped around the law. Reciting the law is not nearly as important as following the process. You want to tick-off a judge? Recite a law that he is violating in his court.

Example: Cop files a report on you for DC due merely to you OCing. The report is full of lies (is this possible?). The judge accepts the report as factual even though you have evidence as to the falsehoods (lies) contained in the report. The judge must hold the process sacrosanct and not let the truth hinder the process. He will rule the report as a pack of lies when the process permits him to rule the report as a pack of lies.

Click to expand...

This is why the savvy lawyer (or individual, pro se) knows how to effectively cross-examine the officer's testimony. Upon success, it is possible to get his testimony thrown out. The defendant may then even elect to drop a line to the officer's IAB...

In addition, a successful defendant will also know all relevant case laws and RCP and how to utilize both to raise objections that can be argued upon later in appellate court.

I too used to get annoyed by videos where OCer's were videotaping contacts with law enforcement and seem to bait the officer or deputy....well after watching so many videos and seeing some of the outcomes, I have no issue with anyone who wants to videotape their interaction with law enforcement during these OC encounters. Usually, the OC person has a basic understanding of the law and quickly realize when they should stand down and not take the encounter to the next level. For those few that want to be confrontational, they just appear to be jerks, just like the law enforcement person that takes the encounter to the next level and there was really no need to go to the next level. :banghead:

Most folks I know use the videos as free training videos on handling various types of incidents and it does get free flowing conversation going about certain encounters. I say, keep the educational videos coming and eventually, everyone can learn and be better equipped (mentally) when they are confronted with various situations. :dude:

Good response. Yep, these videos show when both officer and carrier behave well and when both act like jerks. Officers would do well to always assume that their actions are being recorded and will be scrutinized later. Carriers should assume likewise.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

A videotaped society is a polite society? That's scary!

Everyone being armed with information is just as powerful as everyone being armed with a gun. Everyone being that powerful gives rational people pause before they give offense.

Like with firearms, government agents should be the ones facing onerous laws regarding the use of recording devices, as it should not be easy for them, in the name of the state, to use cameras (or guns) to deprive a person of his right to privacy (or to life). Ordinary folks should be free to record anything that they can see or hear with ordinary observation.

Is it true, or more aptly described, a truism, that a cop's words are to be considered fact and a citizen's words are to be considered hearsay absent a "recording" that would prove the veracity of either the cop's words or the citizen's words?

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, of course I would.

If the local LEO's wish to waste their time over and over with a lame MWAG call, especially if it's a repeated stop of the same guy, then the department needs some upgrading!

I open carry every day. It's legal when I do it and the few stops I've had are literally non-events.

AD

The best comment on my 170K-viewed video (paraphrased): "I used to respect the police. Then affordable video recorders became ubiquitous."

I don't have a problem with police, I have problems with idiots and a..holes. When those types of people are employed by police departments (or elected to office), we wind up with fresh videos for youtube.

I have seen these videos as well. hadnt really thought about the police bait car side. its a very interesting point. and the rebel in me wants to say "hell yea bait the **** out of them" but the majority of me just wants to be able to walk down the street peaceably armed, without incident.

I think personally I would comply politely with the officer unless his attitude was hostile to start with. which in its self is VERY unprofessional of an LEO in my opinion. especially if there are no laws being violated.

I'm pretty sure there's a legal maxim or at least a theory, that you cannot bait an innocent man. You can leave a car running with the doors wide open and the innocent man will simply walk on by or perhaps call the police to report the unsecured vehicle. Only those with mens rea (guilty mind) will look around to see if anyone is watching and then rifle the car looking for something to steal or perhaps attempt to steal the car itself.

What these ""baiters"" are doing is nothing more, and nothing less, than the police do themselves by dressing up as prostitutes, or acting as drunks on subways, or operating bait cars. The police are looking for bad guys to arrest and prosecute.

That they should want to arrest only some bad guys and not others is a bit puzzling, don't you think?

It is possible to bait an innocent man. He is innocent of wrongdoing until he has been motivated to do something wrong by the bait.

The question as to whether the police are entrapping someone or genuinely finding criminals to remove from public has to do with the motivation that is revealed in their methodology. Are they trying to get someone to commit a crime they would otherwise not be inclined to commit? Or are they merely trying to get a criminal to commit a crime here, rather than there, (here being a handy place to detect the criminal activity, and there being decidedly unhandy)?

I find it hard to believe that a trap can be set that would only ensnare criminals who would have instead committed his crime elsewhere and not inspire a crime that would otherwise not have been committed. The same thinking would apply to baiting officers.

I carry out of the genuine hope that I can go about my business, exercising my RKBA, unfettered by government agents. However, if one stops me, he will be recorded, and there will be consequences for missteps. I wonder about folks who do so in the hope of entrapping officers who may or may not have been predisposed to behave criminally.

Much as I hate to disagree with you eye95, in this particular case I find that I must.

A woman may dress as elegantly, or as slutty, or as much in any other manner as she wishes and I'm not going to be baited into committing rape.

Put a gun in my hand, tell me where the nearest bank is and assure me that there are no working security cameras and I'm not going to be baited into committing robbery.

Leave your car running while I'm on my evening walk and I'm not going to steal it, I'm going to knock on your door at 10 O'clock at night, wake you up and let you know the keys are in the ignition and the motor's running (been there, did that.)

Place your for sale items on display tables outside of your store and I'm not going to steal your apples, no matter how red and shiny they are.



Simply put, I drive as though I still have my grandmother in the passenger seat waitin' to smack me upside the head if I go too fast, stop too hard, or drive in any other way than a sedate old dowager approves of. I act in stores as though each and every camera has pan/tilt/zoom capability and is constantly recording me and I smile for the camera every time I go in the bank to make a deposit.

Am I perfect? Heck, no, I stole somebody's bottle of water just the other day (but I also brought in a 12-pack of drinks to replace it.)

My point was that the person was innocent of wrong-doing until baited. Yes, some can resist the bait (or possibly have no interest in compromising themselves just for the bait). The lack of innocence does not exist in the propensity to do wrong, it lies in the doing of wrong.

So, baiting is a questionable practice because its success requires attracting someone who (at least in that context) has done nothing wrong--yet.

I think I understand your point.

The 'reason' why bait cars, prostitute stings, and all the rest of the ""authorized, police style"" stings pass court scrutiny is the legal theory that unless someone was predisposed to do so, they would not be soliciting the police-officer-dressed-as-a-prostitute, or rolling the supposed drunk on the subway, or hopping into the conveniently left running car. If they had instead proceeded on their innocent way as they were doing moments previous to being 'tempted' then they would not be in front of a judge pleading their case.

The reason why I don't care if police officers are 'baited' is that had they have Every opportunity to ignore legal, non-threatening behavior and instead they decide they just 'gotta do Something, that guy's carryin' a gunnnn!!!' If they choose to behave responsibly, then they wouldn't wind up on camera, nor if front of a judge as the defendant in a civil case.