Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 81

Thread: Video: Cop's expert open carry response goes viral

  1. #1
    Regular Member redboneshadow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    101

    Video: Cop's expert open carry response goes viral


  2. #2
    Regular Member VW_Factor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Leesburg, GA
    Posts
    1,098
    Saw this tidbit in the comments..

    AND what about the FACT that all who practice OC [ except the LEO's ] do not practice weapon retention.
    I do, and I'm positive other OC'ers do.. Also being proactive in being more aware of their surroundings.

    Why would a LEO assume that ONLY other LEOs practice weapon retention? Closed minded?
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady
    I am no victim, just a poor college student who looks to the day where the rich have the living piss taxed out of them.

  3. #3
    Regular Member redboneshadow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    101
    Quote Originally Posted by VW_Factor View Post
    Saw this tidbit in the comments..



    I do, and I'm positive other OC'ers do.. Also being proactive in being more aware of their surroundings.

    Why would a LEO assume that ONLY other LEOs practice weapon retention? Closed minded?
    They think they are the only true gun owners. Therein is their ignorance. They need to get off their self made pedestals
    before they are knocked off by reality. They sem to think they are the ultimate judge, jury and executioner.

  4. #4
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,915
    +1
    Sometimes, the only way you can convince people to do something, is to convince them that they are special and the only one's capable of doing that job.

    How one mistakes a .22 long rifle carbine with a fake suppressor with a 9mm SMG is beyond me. I could tell as soon as it came into view on a fuzzy video. Officer Nork couldn't back down from his "Authoritah" and admit he was looking at a sub-$500 .22 and not a +$10,000 SMG. <sniggersnort>
    Last edited by Fallschirmjäger; 08-25-2012 at 12:04 AM.

  5. #5
    Regular Member Cubex DE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Spokane, WA
    Posts
    111

    Not perfect...

    He still didn't do this right. He shouldn't have contacted the person, at the most he could have done a drive-by to make sure the weapon wasn't in-hand and being pointed at people and so on. Still, his response was much better than most I've seen, and I pray that when I have my first contact with Spokane police it goes this smoothly.

  6. #6
    Regular Member decklin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Pacific, WA
    Posts
    764
    What gets me is all the comments of how we are nuts with a "Everyone look at me! Look how tough I am!" attitude. It's hard to tell if they are trying to be ignorant to the truth or are just stupid.
    "Loyalty above all else except honor. " -John Mahoney

    "A Government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have." -Gerald R. Ford

  7. #7
    Regular Member TechnoWeenie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2,086
    A reasonable person would not know the difference between a 9mm MP5 and its .22LR knockoff.

    There are two sides to that.

    A fully automatic MP5 is per se unlawful unless tax has been paid on it, under not only federal law, but STATE law.

    The problem comes in when they ASK for the tax stamp/paperwork, which you're not required (and are instructed NOT to) give out, as they're private TAX documents. It would be akin to an officer demanding to see your 1040.....

    So..

    A reasonable person wouldn't know if it was full/semi, and the officer determined that it was semi, and that was the end of it.

    I think the officer handled it perfectly, and left those numbnuts looking to start ****, with their jaws on the floor.


    Now, the same could be said about an AR15....... Or a Glock 17/22 (Glock 18 facsimile)
    Evangelical lessons are provided upon request. Anyone wishing to meet Jesus can just kick in my door.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Long gone
    Posts
    2,575
    Since full auto weapons are lawful in Oregon where was the RAS to even stop the guy. The guy clearly states he does not consent the Cop clearly states he needs to check to see if the weapon is full auto. Unlawful detention IMHO unless there is an Oregon law that says they can inspect full auto weapons when seen on the street.

  9. #9
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,915
    Quote Originally Posted by TechnoWeenie View Post
    "...I think the officer handled it perfectly, and left those numbnuts looking to start ****, with their jaws on the floor..."
    "...Now, the same could be said about an AR15....... Or a Glock 17/22 (Glock 18 facsimile)..."
    Forgive me if I've snipped too much or taken you out of context, please.

    True, the officer did politely cut them off, but did he accomplish anything?
    Did he take an unlawful weapon off the street?
    Did he take a criminal to jail?
    Did he issue a citation for illegal behavior?
    Did he prevent the citizens from further pursuing their lawful activity?
    Did he make any change in their future activities?

    The two citizens got exactly what they wanted, a wasted response.
    Tomorrow they'll do the same thing again but the conversation will probably go like, "Okay, now This time, you carry the gun and I'll make the phone call." When they do that enough times, the officers and departments will get tired of playing the game and stop responding to hysterical complaints about non-illegal behavior.

    Regarding the AR16 and Glock-22.
    ANY semi-automatic firearm can be made to fire full-auto, given the right mechanical modifications. Heck, the Colt Model 1895 "potato digger' machinegun came about because someone figured out how to make a fully automatic lever action rifle.
    Given the superficial resemblance, the officer is arguing that law enforcement has a responsibility to stop anyone carrying an AR15, AK-Clone, AR-180, HK-91/93, FN FAL, or any of a dozen other rifles that are based off of military designs. Even a lowly Ruger Mini-14 isn't safe as it could be a AC-556.
    The standard isn't that something "could possibly be" the standard is that "this particular item is" and that standard didn't exist.


    Cops aren't stopping everyone walking out of Home Despot with yellow 6-volt lanterns, yet two were used as IED's earlier this year in Arizona.
    Cops aren't seizing every AR15 being sold at WalMart to check if they're fully automatic M4's instead.

  10. #10
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953
    Quote Originally Posted by redboneshadow View Post
    They need to get off their self made pedestals
    Careful now. More than just "Cops" have self made pedestals.

    Maybe even a few here on this Forum.
    "If I shoot all the ammo I am carrying I either won't need anymore or more won't help"

    "If you refuse to stand up for others now, who will stand up for you when your time comes?"

  11. #11
    Regular Member WOD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Onalaska WA
    Posts
    225
    I was at a neighbors property yesterday, and a Lewis County Sheriff came by to do a follow-up. I was OC as usual, and he didn't make a single comment, sideways look, or impart an opinion either way. Now, that was a true professional.
    Be safe, be prepared, and carry on!

    Alle Ihre Basisstation jetzt zu uns gehören

  12. #12
    Regular Member VW_Factor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Leesburg, GA
    Posts
    1,098
    Quote Originally Posted by Orphan View Post
    Since full auto weapons are lawful in Oregon where was the RAS to even stop the guy. The guy clearly states he does not consent the Cop clearly states he needs to check to see if the weapon is full auto. Unlawful detention IMHO unless there is an Oregon law that says they can inspect full auto weapons when seen on the street.
    166.272 Unlawful possession of machine guns, certain short-barreled firearms and firearms silencers. (1) A person commits the crime of unlawful possession of a machine gun, short-barreled rifle, short-barreled shotgun or firearms silencer if the person knowingly possesses any machine gun, short-barreled rifle, short-barreled shotgun or firearms silencer.
    (2) Unlawful possession of a machine gun, short-barreled rifle, short-barreled shotgun or firearms silencer is a Class B felony.
    (3) A peace officer may not arrest or charge a person for violating subsection (1) of this section if the person has in the person’s immediate possession documentation showing that the machine gun, short-barreled rifle, short-barreled shotgun or firearms silencer is registered as required under federal law.
    (4) It is an affirmative defense to a charge of violating subsection (1) of this section that the machine gun, short-barreled rifle, short-barreled shotgun or firearms silencer was registered as required under federal law. [1989 c.839 §13a; 1997 c.749 §8; 1997 c.798 §1]

    this is what we should be looking at law wise.
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady
    I am no victim, just a poor college student who looks to the day where the rich have the living piss taxed out of them.

  13. #13
    Regular Member Difdi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    996
    Quote Originally Posted by Fallschirmjäger View Post
    The two citizens got exactly what they wanted, a wasted response.
    Tomorrow they'll do the same thing again but the conversation will probably go like, "Okay, now This time, you carry the gun and I'll make the phone call." When they do that enough times, the officers and departments will get tired of playing the game and stop responding to hysterical complaints about non-illegal behavior.
    And is that a bad thing? Training police agencies to investigate whether a crime has been committed before making an arrest, and becoming aware that not all MWAG calls are about crimes is a good thing, right?

    Quote Originally Posted by VW_Factor View Post
    166.272 Unlawful possession of machine guns, certain short-barreled firearms and firearms silencers. (1) A person commits the crime of unlawful possession of a machine gun, short-barreled rifle, short-barreled shotgun or firearms silencer if the person knowingly possesses any machine gun, short-barreled rifle, short-barreled shotgun or firearms silencer.
    (2) Unlawful possession of a machine gun, short-barreled rifle, short-barreled shotgun or firearms silencer is a Class B felony.
    (3) A peace officer may not arrest or charge a person for violating subsection (1) of this section if the person has in the person’s immediate possession documentation showing that the machine gun, short-barreled rifle, short-barreled shotgun or firearms silencer is registered as required under federal law.
    (4) It is an affirmative defense to a charge of violating subsection (1) of this section that the machine gun, short-barreled rifle, short-barreled shotgun or firearms silencer was registered as required under federal law. [1989 c.839 §13a; 1997 c.749 §8; 1997 c.798 §1]

    this is what we should be looking at law wise.
    The more extreme members of the forum would disagree with you, probably insisting that doing so would presume guilt and violate due process. I personally don't think such a law would be constitutional (Washington state or federal), since the state constitution doesn't specify what an "arms" is, and the federal mentions militia who would be fairly useless without military-grade weapons.

    But a law phrased in such a way to allow an officer to check to see if a crime is being committed before taking stronger action is a good, common sense compromise to the laws we do have, leaving aside constitutionality.

  14. #14
    Regular Member EMNofSeattle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    S. Kitsap, Washington state
    Posts
    3,763
    Quote Originally Posted by Difdi View Post
    And is that a bad thing? Training police agencies to investigate whether a crime has been committed before making an arrest, and becoming aware that not all MWAG calls are about crimes is a good thing, right?



    The more extreme members of the forum would disagree with you, probably insisting that doing so would presume guilt and violate due process. I personally don't think such a law would be constitutional (Washington state or federal), since the state constitution doesn't specify what an "arms" is, and the federal mentions militia who would be fairly useless without military-grade weapons.

    But a law phrased in such a way to allow an officer to check to see if a crime is being committed before taking stronger action is a good, common sense compromise to the laws we do have, leaving aside constitutionality.
    My understanding was always that the first part of the second amendment "A well-regulated militia, being nessecary to the security of a free state"

    See I always thought the term "well regulated militia" was applied in the sense that a free state needs to keep a state militia (which today would be the national guard) and maintaining a military force of some sort was nessecary for the security of the country. The second part "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" states that the citizenry shall have the right to bear arms to preserve liberty in the event that standing army or "militia" was acting unconstitutionally. At least I've heard it explained once that way before.

    So first part applies to military and government forces, the second part of the 2A applies so that if the military becomes an arm of an unconstitutional government there would be some means to resists was the original intent of the 2A.
    they love our milk and honey, but they preach about some other way of living, when they're running down my country man they're walkin' on the fightin side of me

    NRA Member

  15. #15
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,915
    If I'm not mistaken, the National Firearms Law also prohibits the possession of explosives as destructive devices.
    Does that give a law enforcement officer the authority to stop and investigate everyone carrying one of these-

    because it looks EXACTLY like one the 6-volt lanterns used in the Arizona bombings in May of this year?



    Does it give an officer who spots this a child with a chunk of modeling clay in his hands the authority to stop and investigate whether or not it's really a block of explosives?


    What if the officer spots one of these at a second-hand store?

    He can't "function test" it without pulling the pin, so does that mean he should confiscate any and all of them he comes across just in case it's really one of these in disguise?

    To the eye, the only difference between that and one of these is the paint....



    I think most people would agree that those pictures are a lot more similar to each other than

    is to

  16. #16
    Regular Member EMNofSeattle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    S. Kitsap, Washington state
    Posts
    3,763
    Quote Originally Posted by Fallschirmjäger View Post
    If I'm not mistaken, the National Firearms Law also prohibits the possession of explosives as destructive devices.
    Does that give a law enforcement officer the authority to stop and investigate everyone carrying one of these-

    because it looks EXACTLY like one the 6-volt lanterns used in the Arizona bombings in May of this year?



    Does it give an officer who spots this a child with a chunk of modeling clay in his hands the authority to stop and investigate whether or not it's really a block of explosives?


    What if the officer spots one of these at a second-hand store?

    He can't "function test" it without pulling the pin, so does that mean he should confiscate any and all of them he comes across just in case it's really one of these in disguise?

    To the eye, the only difference between that and one of these is the paint....



    I think most people would agree that those pictures are a lot more similar to each other than

    is to

    Example #1, no it wouldn't, becuase it's not illegal to carry a spotlight around, however it is illegal to carry a full auto mp-5 around in Oregon without proper paperwork which must be presented to the officer or the court if it is full auto.

    Example #2, if you "open carry" your detonator along with detonation device next to your "modeling clay" then I would say that reaches above RAS to Probable cause to conduct a felony stop and prone ya out. however, if you do get your hands on c-4 you'd find it quite useless because it needs a certain voltage and tempurature administered into the explosive to detonate it, C4 cannot be detonated by gunshot, fire, or shock so therefore even if you did possess C4 it's unlikely you could use it without strictly controlled devices to go with it.

    Example #3 if you take your complaint dept hand grenade off of it's stand and are carrying on a belt, I'm certain that would be RAS to confiscate and place you under arrest until its status as a dud can be confirmed.
    they love our milk and honey, but they preach about some other way of living, when they're running down my country man they're walkin' on the fightin side of me

    NRA Member

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    northern wis
    Posts
    3,195
    Seems to me if you want to stop every body out there because any semi could be a full and unless I check it out how would I know.

    Most of all ARs look like their full auto counter part untill one looks at the selector. All M1as look like a M14, M1 carbines look like M2 carbines.

    Full autos are legal with proper paper work unless the LEO has PC that the guy doesn't have it I see no reason for the stop

    The LEO needs more training in how to reconize a semi from a full. It s very hard to do unless one handles them even then unless one opens them up to look that the inner parts one might no be able to tell. then with out test fireing it could be hard.

    No it looks bad is just an excuse to make the stop.

    Granted he was fairly nice on the stop but then he was skateing on thin ice.
    Personal Defensive Solutions professional personal firearms, edge weapons and hands on defensive training and tactics pdsolutions@hotmail.com

    Any and all spelling errors are just to give the spelling Nazis something to do

  18. #18
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,915
    Quote Originally Posted by EMNofSeattle View Post
    Example #1,
    ...
    Example #2,
    ...
    Example #3
    Pardon, but I couldn't help but notice that you had to change each and every one of the scenarios in order to answer. That's kinda frowned upon in debates.
    The ONLY thing the guy in the video was doing was 'carrying', and in each of the scenarios I postulated it was for merely 'carrying.'

  19. #19
    Regular Member EMNofSeattle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    S. Kitsap, Washington state
    Posts
    3,763
    ok, so merely carrying

    does carrying a spotlight give police authority to stop you? probably not

    does carrying a block of modeling clay give police authority to stop you? not by itself, and plastic explosives practically are modeling clay without detonators anyway

    does carrying a dummy grenade give police authority to stop you?

    no question in my mind and you'll probably recieve a massive response and ordered on the ground with shotguns and patrol rifles too, and if you're unlucky enough that none of the officer know what a "real grenade" is supposed to feel like or function like you're getting locked up until they can find someone who knows how to tell without pulling the pin. and even then you may face charges.

    Does carrying a full auto look alike give police authority to stop someone? well we've already argued that one to death on another thread. you obviously think not, but your examples aren't nessecarily a straight comparison
    they love our milk and honey, but they preach about some other way of living, when they're running down my country man they're walkin' on the fightin side of me

    NRA Member

  20. #20
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by EMNofSeattle View Post
    My understanding was always that the first part of the second amendment "A well-regulated militia, being nessecary to the security of a free state"

    See I always thought the term "well regulated militia" was applied in the sense that a free state needs to keep a state militia (which today would be the national guard) and maintaining a military force of some sort was nessecary for the security of the country. The second part "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" states that the citizenry shall have the right to bear arms to preserve liberty in the event that standing army or "militia" was acting unconstitutionally. At least I've heard it explained once that way before.

    So first part applies to military and government forces, the second part of the 2A applies so that if the military becomes an arm of an unconstitutional government there would be some means to resists was the original intent of the 2A.
    Militia simply means the arm bearing public.

    There is no first and second part of the 2A it is one statement meant that we the people are meant to keep and bear arms.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  21. #21
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Difdi View Post
    The more extreme members of the forum would disagree with you, probably insisting that doing so would presume guilt and violate due process. I personally don't think such a law would be constitutional (Washington state or federal), since the state constitution doesn't specify what an "arms" is, and the federal mentions militia who would be fairly useless without military-grade weapons.

    But a law phrased in such a way to allow an officer to check to see if a crime is being committed before taking stronger action is a good, common sense compromise to the laws we do have, leaving aside constitutionality.
    Funny that people like to label others as extreme for holding the same viewpoints as the founders.

    Yes our freedom and liberties are constantly being eroded away with this type of thinking.

    I will not sacrifice liberty for safety. I am not a sheep that needs a sheep dog to watch after me, and make sure I am doing everything the almighty state requires.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  22. #22
    Campaign Veteran gogodawgs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,666
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    Militia simply means the arm bearing public.

    There is no first and second part of the 2A it is one statement meant that we the people are meant to keep and bear arms.
    Correct, in the 18th Century the term militia meant 'the whole body of the public, capable bearing arms' which in practical terms of the time mean white, property owning men ages 16-45. Well-regulated meant in 18th Century terms that those men were responsible for training themselves, having powder, and ball themselves.
    Live Free or Die!

  23. #23
    Regular Member Schlepnier's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Yelm, Washington USA
    Posts
    419

    Thumbs up

    The cop screwed up by the numbers and they are praising him for doing so. lets go through this one step at a time.

    1.in order to make a lawful terry stop an officer has to have RAS that a crime is being commited or about to be commited, in this case he would have to have some understanding that the person in question was
    A.actually carrying an automatic weapon
    b.was not in possession of paperwork that legally allowed him to carry said weapon.

    Since he has no way of knowing either of these things he is absent RAS to make a stop, infact at most he could drive by and see if there was a crime taking place.

    This is further expanded upon due to the case of deberry VS US that specifices LEOs cannot stop someone for peacable open carry of a firearm where it is legal to do so as grounds for instituting a terry stop. this is a violation of the 4th ammendmant as such the officer in this video made an illegal detention, an illegal search and seizure of private property.
    +thought for the day+
    ++victory needs no explanation, defeat allows none++

  24. #24
    Regular Member twoskinsonemanns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    WV
    Posts
    2,489
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    Funny that people like to label others as extreme for holding the same viewpoints as the founders.

    Yes our freedom and liberties are constantly being eroded away with this type of thinking.

    I will not sacrifice liberty for safety. I am not a sheep that needs a sheep dog to watch after me, and make sure I am doing everything the almighty state requires.
    Plus a gazillion.
    "I support the ban on assault weapons" - Donald Trump

    We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission - Ayn Rand

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Winlock, , USA
    Posts
    501
    Quote Originally Posted by WOD View Post
    I was at a neighbors property yesterday, and a Lewis County Sheriff came by to do a follow-up. I was OC as usual, and he didn't make a single comment, sideways look, or impart an opinion either way. Now, that was a true professional.
    Yes, but being lucky enough to live in Lewis County, we just don't have that problem with LEOs, anywhere I've been in the county...had a few bizarre looks from tourists out in the east county area sometimes, but LEOs, never.

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •