Results 1 to 23 of 23

Thread: Best defense show 2/09/11

  1. #1
    Regular Member MackTheKnife's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Jacksonville, Florida
    Posts
    204

    Best defense show 2/09/11

    The first segment of the show concerned OC. After a few "what not to do scenarios" involving LEOs, the last one demonstrated the "proper response". The LEO asked the OC'er to produce ID (Michael Pincus of Spyderco) which he promptly did. During all of the scenarios, Mike constantly reaffirmed his right to OC but caved when asked for ID. I tried to post to Best Defense (Downrangetv.com) but the server went down. As we all know, under Terry vs. Ohio, a LEO cannot ask for ID without PC.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    17
    Actually, that was Mike Janich... I'm Rob Pincus... we're close friends, but not married. :-)

    Thanks for watching the show!

    The program wasn't about what you "can" do under the law, it was about what we think you "should" do as a reasonable citizen carrying a gun for personal defense, not as a political statement.

    -RJP

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    I am glad you posted. I also watched your show yesterday.

    In the first scenario, the citizen acted like a moron. You don't touch your properly holstered gun unless and until you reasonably believe that you are in a self-defense situation. Clearly, he wasn't.

    In the second scenario, the citizen handled it perfectly. He should obtain a lawyer and sue the department and the officers. He should cite St. John v. McColley which, all though probably not controlling in that jurisdiction, would be compelling, putting the individual officers at personal financial risk.

    In the third scenario, the citizen voluntarily allowed the officers to violate some of his rights in order to prevent them from violating more of his rights. This mind-set is what got us into the situation where officers routinely violate citizens' rights. It is his choice to make, but we all suffer because of folks making choices like his.

    I think you should have presented the last two scenarios as reasonable, to be chosen based on one's values. Instead, you presented the third as the best choice.

    I, and most posters here, would respectfully disagree. I hope you choose to edit that segment.

    I don't want this criticism to detract from you show as a whole. You guys know your stuff and present it interestingly and professionally. Last night I watched your show for the first time. I DVR it now.

  4. #4
    Activist Member golddigger14s's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Lacey, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,990

    OC on BD

    Quote Originally Posted by Rob Pincus View Post
    Actually, that was Mike Janich... I'm Rob Pincus... we're close friends, but not married. :-)

    Thanks for watching the show!

    The program wasn't about what you "can" do under the law, it was about what we think you "should" do as a reasonable citizen carrying a gun for personal defense, not as a political statement.

    -RJP
    Glad to have you on the forum. I'm glad you finally had an OC show, it's been so much "conceal, conceal, conceal". Maybe it could have been stated what state the scenario took place, since the laws vary state to state as to producing an ID. Thanks for the show, and don't be a stranger on the Forum. Also would you like to be a guest speaker at our 2A rally on 30 April in Olympia WA??
    "The beauty of the Second Amenment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." Thomas Jefferson
    "Evil often triumphs, but never conquers." Joseph Roux
    http://nwfood.shelfreliance.com

  5. #5
    Regular Member turbodog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Independence, Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    566
    Quote Originally Posted by Rob Pincus View Post
    The program wasn't about what you "can" do under the law, it was about what we think you "should" do as a reasonable citizen carrying a gun for personal defense, not as a political statement.

    -RJP
    Rob, I say this with absolutely no intent of insult to yourself or the show, but I feel that first example was moronic.

    I posted in another forum regarding this exact same episode, that all I saw is an example of suicide-by-cop.

    I just think the guy could have been portrayed as just being argumentative and confrontational rather than having a deathwish.
    Last edited by turbodog; 02-11-2011 at 12:27 PM.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Super Secret Squirrel Bunker, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    485

    Context

    The scenarios were staged to in the context of strict personal defense purely to make some points. Sometimes, situationally there are factors that make open carry impractical defensively. There are times that there is a strategic value to open carry that is significant.

    I agree though, scenario one was beyond overdone. More over, under what legal authority was there a detention in that scenario? What law was broken? I realize that when LE is called there is a duty to respond and investigate crimes, however there's also a duty to follow the law and it needs to be restated that armed doesn't mean dangerous or illegal.

    We've seen, heard of and read about these encounters before and in at least one aspect the show did present a "scared straight" moment in scenario number one. However, where I think this particular episode did a disservice to the viewers was the portrayal of Law Enforcement as the on the street arbiters of life and death. IMO, the show reinforced the mentality of the LEO being able to enforce their will, right or wrong, on the citizenry at large.

  7. #7
    Regular Member Yarddawg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Y View Post
    However, where I think this particular episode did a disservice to the viewers was the portrayal of Law Enforcement as the on the street arbiters of life and death. IMO, the show reinforced the mentality of the LEO being able to enforce their will, right or wrong, on the citizenry at large.
    While I have the utmost respect for LEO's (they routinely deal with that element of society that most do not want to), unfortunately, too many LEO's believe that they are within their rights to impose their will on the citizenry. I have seen this for myself more times than I care to recount.

  8. #8
    Regular Member Felix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    186
    Quote Originally Posted by Yarddawg View Post
    ... I have seen this for myself more times than I care to recount.
    I guess I now know why I have trouble relating to these many, many negative LEO stories...40 years of carrying and nothing but a couple traffic stops...one speeding ticket and one warning...and stopped a few times when in OC mode but was quickly on my way.

    All my encounters have been professional and I have no complaints despite having lived in several states as a result of numerous military moves when on active duty. But I'm intentionally non-confrontational and it doesn't bother me to show an ID to an LEO when requested even if state law doesn't obligate me to do so. I'm not out to try to push the envelope and "educate" the LEOs. If it seems to be a reasonable request from a guy trying to do his job, I cheerfully comply. That sort of an attitude has served me well.
    Daily carry: SIG P229 .40 S&W

  9. #9
    Regular Member turbodog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Independence, Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    566
    Quote Originally Posted by Felix View Post
    it doesn't bother me to show an ID to an LEO when requested even if state law doesn't obligate me to do so. I'm not out to try to push the envelope and "educate" the LEOs. If it seems to be a reasonable request from a guy trying to do his job, I cheerfully comply. That sort of an attitude has served me well.
    Completely agree with you bro.

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Completely disagree, bros.

    However, I respect your right to choose to allow LE to violate your 4A rights. When you do, though, you help cement the practice, which negatively affects those of us who will not allow an officer to make demands he has no lawful authority to make.

    To facilitate my ability to defend my rights, I OC sterile. My CPL and my DL remain in my car (both being required when I drive while packin'.) If an officer demands ID, I simply tell him that I have none on me. The last time this happened, on of the officers who surrounded me (four of them) said he could arrest me for not having a photo ID. I asked him to point to the code where it says that. Of course, he couldn't.

    The encounter was civil and courteous, but my rights were violated. I don't need to be an *** about it, but I won't tolerate it either. I hope you bros respect that choice.

  11. #11
    Regular Member turbodog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Independence, Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    566
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    The encounter was civil and courteous, but my rights were violated. I don't need to be an *** about it, but I won't tolerate it either. I hope you bros respect that choice.
    Absolutely brother. We all gotta deal with things in our own way.
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLT View Post
    Him: "I carry my gun concealed"
    Me: "You're not very good at it"
    Him: "What do you mean?"
    Me: "I know you have a gun"
    End of conversation.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    434
    When I go to downrangetv.com and click on any of the links it just sends me to some crappy search engine.

    How can I view the episode ya'll are talking about here? Link?

    Never mind, just figured out the OP posted the wrong address. It's downrange.tv close though!

    Ok, I watched it and I have to agree with the camp that doesn't think giving up your 4A rights to POSSIBLY make the encounter go more smoothly is in your best interests or the right thing to do.

    The commentator says (roughly quoted) "When officers show up, that is not the time to take a stand. When you are called into question, you need to cooperate"

    You know, that's fine if that's the way you want to handle things, but I think it's actually pretty bad advice. Especially since you don't explain the other option. I would no more show my ID for simply carrying a holstered handgun than I would attempt to prove that it was actually MY daughter I was pushing the swing for in a public park and that I'm not some perv. To me it's the same thing. You better have a good, articulable reason that you suspect what I'm doing is unlawful. I only trust Matlock when it comes to hunches, his record is awesome.

    I can personally vouch to the fact that things might not always go smoothly if you stick up for your rights, but if you know what you're doing things will shake out in the end and you can still feel like the free and sovereign individual you were supposed to be at birth.
    Last edited by Smith45acp; 02-22-2011 at 12:14 AM.
    "In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot." - Mark Twain

    I don't bother with pragmatic statistics while discussing my constitutional rights. The issue is far less complex, to me. Free men should be able to act like free men.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    434
    Quote Originally Posted by Felix View Post
    If it seems to be a reasonable request from a guy trying to do his job, I cheerfully comply. That sort of an attitude has served me well.
    That's fine and I respect your personal decision to handle things however you feel appropriate.

    However I disagree that stopping me and demanding my ID is reasonable. Bad guys don't carry guns in holsters where everyone can see them. LEO's KNOW this. But you don't look like all the other sheep so you pique their interest. That's fine with me to a point, observe me for 30 seconds and you can usually tell exactly what I'm up to.

    "Ok now he's picking up eggs. Now it looks like he's choosing a cereal. Whoa, he just looked at me and gave me a cheerful smile. Ok he still isn't robbing the joint let's move on down the beat."
    "In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot." - Mark Twain

    I don't bother with pragmatic statistics while discussing my constitutional rights. The issue is far less complex, to me. Free men should be able to act like free men.

  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Mr. Pincus, I (and surely most others) are anxiously awaiting further reply.

  15. #15
    Regular Member buster81's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,461
    Quote Originally Posted by Felix View Post
    If it seems to be a reasonable request from a guy trying to do his job, I cheerfully comply.

    What will you do if you feel the "request" is unreasonable?

  16. #16
    Regular Member Felix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    186
    Quote Originally Posted by buster81 View Post
    What will you do if you feel the "request" is unreasonable?
    The same thing several of the other replies have advocated...knowing full well the action will likely raise the tension level a notch or two. It's one of those many judgment calls we all make daily. Luckily, I haven't yet had an LEO encounter with anyone whom I assessed as being anything other than a cop trying to do his job without getting shot or stabbed or otherwise assaulted in the process.

    You've seen me reference previously the Rich Banks debacle in Dickson City, PA. He was minding his own business, eating dinner and OCing in a restaurant with six other OCs. Spouses and children were also at the table. Cops responded to a MWAG call to 911 and requested to see some IDs. The other six complied and that was the end of it for them. Banks was obstinate and refused to produce since state law didn't require it...and got cuffed and stuffed in a patrol car for his attempt to 'educate' the officers on the finer points of PA OC laws. And then once the cops got riled up over Banks, everyone had the 'opportunity' to have their weapon serial numbers recorded/checked. There's a lot more to it than this but you got a very abbreviated one paragraph CliffsNotes version.

    A civil suit continues in federal court with Banks as the plaintiff against the city and the lead cop and the police chief (I think) but he's lost a couple key rulings to date before the case has even been placed on the docket. Even money has it the Banks suit will fold due to lack of financial resources to pursuit it to trial to even get a ruling on exactly how far the cops can go when requesting identification. Problem is, state law may say you don't have to produce IDs just because you're OCing but a refusal has a way of morphing into a charge of disorderly conduct or disturbing the peace or some similar charge. So while I applaud those who wish to stand on principle, few have the resources to follow through so it's typically an idle armchair threat.
    Daily carry: SIG P229 .40 S&W

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Nampa, Idaho, USA
    Posts
    1,096
    Typical response of "we're here, gotta charge someone with something."

    The Pennsylvania part of the states forum has a huge thread worth reading on the "Dickenson Dozen."

  18. #18
    Regular Member buster81's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,461
    Quote Originally Posted by Felix View Post
    The same thing several of the other replies have advocated...knowing full well the action will likely raise the tension level a notch or two. It's one of those many judgment calls we all make daily. Luckily, I haven't yet had an LEO encounter with anyone whom I assessed as being anything other than a cop trying to do his job without getting shot or stabbed or otherwise assaulted in the process.

    You've seen me reference previously the Rich Banks debacle in Dickson City, PA. He was minding his own business, eating dinner and OCing in a restaurant with six other OCs. Spouses and children were also at the table. Cops responded to a MWAG call to 911 and requested to see some IDs. The other six complied and that was the end of it for them. Banks was obstinate and refused to produce since state law didn't require it...and got cuffed and stuffed in a patrol car for his attempt to 'educate' the officers on the finer points of PA OC laws. And then once the cops got riled up over Banks, everyone had the 'opportunity' to have their weapon serial numbers recorded/checked. There's a lot more to it than this but you got a very abbreviated one paragraph CliffsNotes version.

    A civil suit continues in federal court with Banks as the plaintiff against the city and the lead cop and the police chief (I think) but he's lost a couple key rulings to date before the case has even been placed on the docket. Even money has it the Banks suit will fold due to lack of financial resources to pursuit it to trial to even get a ruling on exactly how far the cops can go when requesting identification. Problem is, state law may say you don't have to produce IDs just because you're OCing but a refusal has a way of morphing into a charge of disorderly conduct or disturbing the peace or some similar charge. So while I applaud those who wish to stand on principle, few have the resources to follow through so it's typically an idle armchair threat.

    I think you missed my point. A police officer "requesting" to see the ID of someone who has broken no laws, isn't really making a request. As you have pointed out in your example, they are demanding to see ID. Choose to deny their "request" and risk loosing your liberty. Not very reasonable at all. Let's hope that the measure of what is reasonable (to some) doesn't move farther in the wrong direction. Do you think it's reasonable to go about your daily activities without ID at all?
    Last edited by buster81; 02-27-2011 at 05:54 PM.

  19. #19
    Regular Member 1245A Defender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    north mason county, Washington, USA
    Posts
    4,381

    Well,,,

    Q? Do you think it's reasonable to go about your daily activities without ID at all?


    A! HeII yes I do!
    and refusing to ID yourself, unless your are being charged with a crime is 5th amendment right!
    EMNofSeattle wrote: Your idea of freedom terrifies me. So you are actually right. I am perfectly happy with what you call tyranny.....

    “If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.”

    Stand up for your Rights,, They have no authority on their own...

    All power is inherent in the people,
    it is their right and duty to be at all times ARMED!

  20. #20
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by 1245A Defender View Post
    Q? Do you think it's reasonable to go about your daily activities without ID at all?


    A! HeII yes I do!
    and refusing to ID yourself, unless your are being charged with a crime is 5th amendment right!
    Yep, I carry sterile.

    Plus I am not "raising it up a notch" by refusing to give or carry ID, the cop is and that is his problem not mine.
    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 MackTheKnife's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Jacksonville, Florida
    Posts
    204

    Oops!

    Quote Originally Posted by Rob Pincus View Post
    Actually, that was Mike Janich... I'm Rob Pincus... we're close friends, but not married. :-)

    Thanks for watching the show!

    The program wasn't about what you "can" do under the law, it was about what we think you "should" do as a reasonable citizen carrying a gun for personal defense, not as a political statement.

    -RJP
    Sorry I mixed up the last names. I don't agree with voluntarily complying with a LEO's illegal request for ID. There's no reason to comply. Of course, this should be done firmly but nicely.

  22. #22
    Regular Member MackTheKnife's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Jacksonville, Florida
    Posts
    204
    Quote Originally Posted by Felix View Post
    I guess I now know why I have trouble relating to these many, many negative LEO stories...40 years of carrying and nothing but a couple traffic stops...one speeding ticket and one warning...and stopped a few times when in OC mode but was quickly on my way.

    All my encounters have been professional and I have no complaints despite having lived in several states as a result of numerous military moves when on active duty. But I'm intentionally non-confrontational and it doesn't bother me to show an ID to an LEO when requested even if state law doesn't obligate me to do so. I'm not out to try to push the envelope and "educate" the LEOs. If it seems to be a reasonable request from a guy trying to do his job, I cheerfully comply. That sort of an attitude has served me well.
    Asking for your ID is NOT a reasonable request. Going along cheerfully is allowing the LEO to break the law he is sworn to uphold. It might seem like an innocuous request, but it's not.

  23. #23
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    I notice that Rob has not been back since that post. Too bad. We could have had a productive discussion. I hope he isn't avoiding us simply because we see things differently.

    Rob?

Posting Permissions

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