Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 41

Thread: Videotaping a T-stop and open carrying

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    62

    Videotaping a T-stop and open carrying

    I Just saw a video of a Las Vegas lady videotaping a traffic stop (she was not involved with the t-stop in anyway) in her neighborhood and she was open carrying. The officers contacted her, stopped her from videotaping, but she some how turned on her camera (good job on her part) and was detained. I am just curious as to the reasoning why anyone would walk up to a T-stop, unless they know the officer(s), carrying a weapon and not expect the officer(s) to address the situation....

  2. #2
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by BaconMan View Post
    I Just saw a video of a Las Vegas lady videotaping a traffic stop (she was not involved with the t-stop in anyway) in her neighborhood and she was open carrying. The officers contacted her, stopped her from videotaping, but she some how turned on her camera (good job on her part) and was detained. I am just curious as to the reasoning why anyone would walk up to a T-stop, unless they know the officer(s), carrying a weapon and not expect the officer(s) to address the situation....
    I don't understand why officers would have a problem with that as long as she didn't interfere with their legal actions.
    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)

  3. #3
    Regular Member MKEgal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    in front of my computer, WI
    Posts
    4,426
    I think I've read that thread, too.
    IIRC she was out walking her dog & happened to be going past the officers.
    And IIRC (2) she was carrying? (someone correct me)
    Maybe she saw something that needed documenting, maybe she was being proactive.
    But it shouldn't matter - as long as she's not interfering, the officers had no business saying or doing anything to her.
    Quote Originally Posted by MLK, Jr
    The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort & convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge & controversy.
    Quote Originally Posted by MSG Laigaie
    Citizenship is a verb.
    Quote Originally Posted by Proverbs 27:12
    A prudent person foresees the danger ahead and takes precautions.
    The simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences.
    Quote Originally Posted by Proverbs 31:17
    She dresses herself with strength and makes her arms strong.

  4. #4
    Regular Member Dreamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Grennsboro NC
    Posts
    5,358
    Quote Originally Posted by BaconMan View Post
    I am just curious as to the reasoning why anyone would walk up to a T-stop, unless they know the officer(s), carrying a weapon and not expect the officer(s) to address the situation....

    How does someone legally carrying present any more of a threat to "officer safety" than someone driving a car on the street beside the scene, or someone NOT carrying, but walking a large dog beside the scene, or someone sitting on their porch half a mile away, cleaning their scoped .308 deer rifle, or someone walking across their yard next to the stop with a can of gasoline for their lawnmower and a Zippo in their pocket, or someone flying a model airplane 100 feet above the scene?

    You must remember that through Federally-funded and mandated training programs, local LEAs are being indoctrinated to believe that EVERY citizen is a clear and present danger to "officer safety", and it is completely acceptable (and in fact, Federally Mandated) behavior for LEOs to treat EVERY person they encounter--even incidental contact--with an elevated level of suspicion, an overwhelming level of verbal and attitudinal force, and if they offer any resistance, or insist on being treated like human beings with "rights", they are to be immediately put in the same category as a terrorist in the officer's mind.

    So videotaping an LEO is, under the training they are receiving, a sort of terroristic activity.

    That is what our nation is coming to--federalized LE from top to bottom; unmitigated suspicion of ALL people who don't wear a badge. hold "elected office", or have diplomatic plates; and an absolute disdain for the very idea that "mere citizens" actually have "rights"...
    Last edited by Dreamer; 05-18-2011 at 09:28 PM.
    It is our cause to dispel the foggy thinking which avoids hard decisions in the delusion that a world of conflict will somehow mysteriously resolve itself into a world of harmony, if we just don't rock the boat or irritate the forces of aggression—and this is hogwash."
    --Barry Goldwater, 1964

  5. #5
    Regular Member HandyHamlet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Terra, Sol
    Posts
    2,779
    TigerLily is a member here and her saga is all over the Nevada forum.
    "Don't interfere with anything in the Constitution. That must be maintained, for it is the only safeguard of our liberties."
    Abraham Lincoln

    "Some time ago, a bunch of lefties defied the law by dancing at the Jefferson Memorial, resulting in their arrests. Last week, a bunch of them pulled the same stunt and - using patented Lefist techniques - provoked the Park Police into having to use force to arrest them."
    Alexcabbie

  6. #6
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,915
    Aside from making sure their hair is combed and uniforms are on straight, exactly what "addressing the situation" should the cops be doing?

    Are they somehow being placed in danger? Are their souls going to be captured by the 'magic box' or something?

    Help me out here, I'm curious.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    a
    Posts
    52
    link ?????

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  9. #9
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,915
    As the bearing of arms is both legal and protected, exactly how is carrying a firearm any different than carrying a cellphone, a radio, or for that matter a hot ham'n'cheese sandwich?

  10. #10
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreamer View Post
    How does someone legally carrying present any more of a threat to "officer safety"...
    Than another officer? That is the question.

    You must remember that through Federally-funded and mandated training programs, local LEAs are being indoctrinated to believe that EVERY citizen is a clear and present danger to "officer safety", and it is completely acceptable (and in fact, Federally Mandated) behavior for LEOs to treat EVERY person they encounter--even incidental contact--with an elevated level of suspicion, an overwhelming level of verbal and attitudinal force, and if they offer any resistance, or insist on being treated like human beings with "rights", they are to be immediately put in the same category as a terrorist in the officer's mind.
    And the interesting thing about this 'indoctrination' is that I have yet to read any information on such perceptions of the general public reducing the safety of the officer.

    I give much thought to the question of 'officer safety', and what seems to be a pervasive attitude that if the officers treat all civilians as though they are a threat, that it will somehow make the officer 'safer'.

    What we do know that it does is make a rift between the LEO's of our community, and the law abiding citizens. Now that sounds dangerous.

    [snip]
    That is what our nation is coming to--federalized LE from top to bottom; unmitigated suspicion of ALL people who don't wear a badge. hold "elected office", or have diplomatic plates; and an absolute disdain for the very idea that "mere citizens" actually have "rights"...
    Naturally, I would argue that they do not have disdain for the "mere citizen." They do have a perception issue that can easily be removed as it has been imposed. Policy plays a big role in issues like this.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    fl
    Posts
    1,835
    Im just very very curious..why video someone else's traffic stop in the 1st place? It's nunya. You're not likely to catch the next Rodney King viral vid. Go on about yer biz and walk the dog.Less chance of provoking this kind of incident-right or wrong.

    Last edited by j4l; 05-21-2011 at 01:32 PM.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    Quote Originally Posted by j4l View Post
    Im just very very curious..why video someone else's traffic stop in the 1st place? It's nunya. You're not likely to catch the next Rodney King viral vid. Go on about yer biz and walk the dog.Less chance of provoking this kind of incident-right or wrong.
    Um, your comment is more deserving of "facepalm" than that which you responded to.

    LE even video themselves. Why NOT video them? They are public employees, performing functions in the public eye.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  13. #13
    Regular Member CharleyCherokee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    WesternKy
    Posts
    294
    You should youtube copwatch sometime. Considering the power LEOs have these days it's a common sense approach to try and keep them in check. They are NOT elected officials to be voted out after all.
    A bullet may have your name on it, but shrapnel is addressed to whom it may concern.
    Why open carrying is a good idea: http://forum.pafoa.org/open-carry-14...encounter.html

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    fl
    Posts
    1,835
    Quote Originally Posted by wrightme View Post
    Um, your comment is more deserving of "facepalm" than that which you responded to.

    LE even video themselves. Why NOT video them? They are public employees, performing functions in the public eye.




    LE even video themselves. Why NOT video them?

    Ill give you some time to contemplate that one..you answered your own question.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    Quote Originally Posted by j4l View Post
    LE even video themselves. Why NOT video them?

    Ill give you some time to contemplate that one..you answered your own question.
    I need no time to contemplate my statement. If you have a viewpoint that you think "answers my own question," please share.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  16. #16
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreamer View Post
    How does someone legally carrying present any more of a threat to "officer safety" than someone driving a car on the street beside the scene, or someone NOT carrying,
    I'll add to that statement with one of my own How does someone "illegally" carrying ( I don't mean the manner of carry) present any more of a danger.
    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)

  17. #17
    Regular Member HandyHamlet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Terra, Sol
    Posts
    2,779
    Quote Originally Posted by j4l View Post
    Im just very very curious..why video someone else's traffic stop in the 1st place? It's nunya.
    Your opinion on recording and video proves to be wrong every single day. It means absolutely nothing.

    Luckily the folks here are prudent. They don't deny the thousands of videos/news stories posted to the internet by every day citizens exposing cops actually exist and are real... We are a nation armed with cameras, recorders, and cell phones. It is part of our culture.

    By the way, photography is a 1st Amendment Right. So no one has to justify sh*t to you about what, why, or where they shoot.


    Sucks, doesn't it.
    Last edited by HandyHamlet; 05-22-2011 at 11:13 AM.
    "Don't interfere with anything in the Constitution. That must be maintained, for it is the only safeguard of our liberties."
    Abraham Lincoln

    "Some time ago, a bunch of lefties defied the law by dancing at the Jefferson Memorial, resulting in their arrests. Last week, a bunch of them pulled the same stunt and - using patented Lefist techniques - provoked the Park Police into having to use force to arrest them."
    Alexcabbie

  18. #18
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,915
    Quote Originally Posted by j4l View Post
    Im just very very curious..why video someone else's traffic stop in the 1st place? It's nunya. You're not likely to catch the next Rodney King viral vid. Go on about yer biz and walk the dog.Less chance of provoking this kind of incident-right or wrong.
    I wonder if the gentleman is aware that the Rodney King incident was only brought to the attention to the public because a passerby by the name of George Holiday did make a home video of something that was "none of his business"? Had the incident not been captured on camera, it is quite likely the conduct of the police would never have come to the public's attention.

    Would the gentleman actually prefer that such incidents Not be recorded? Really?
    Last edited by Fallschirmjäger; 05-22-2011 at 11:53 AM.

  19. #19
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Fallschirmjäger View Post
    I wonder if the gentleman is aware that the Rodney King incident was only brought to the attention to the public because a passerby by the name of George Holiday did make a home video of something that was "none of his business"? Had the incident not been captured on camera, it is quite likely the conduct of the police would never have come to the public's attention.

    Would the gentleman actually prefer that such incidents Not be recorded? Really?
    I wish I could get ahold of a cop of HBO's first shocking video, just when our video culture was emerging. There was lots of evidence on that of police misbehavior. Threatening a kid who climbed a tree to avoid agressive cops threatening him to hand over his camera because he caught them.

    A black cop heard rumors of racial profiling, so he had his white friend follow him into (Santa Monica I believe) video taping within minutes was pulled over and thrown through a plate glass window, and I reiterate this guy was a cop, without that video they wouldn't have ever had any justice or proof of what was happening.
    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)

  20. #20
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Quote Originally Posted by BaconMan View Post
    I Just saw a video of a Las Vegas lady videotaping a traffic stop (she was not involved with the t-stop in anyway) in her neighborhood and she was open carrying. The officers contacted her, stopped her from videotaping, but she some how turned on her camera (good job on her part) and was detained. I am just curious as to the reasoning why anyone would walk up to a T-stop, unless they know the officer(s), carrying a weapon and not expect the officer(s) to address the situation....
    Are you suggesting that the cops would contact a person who was legally and lawfully wearing pants, or legally and lawfully carrying a sandwich, or legally and lawfully chewing bubblegum, just because while that person was legally and lawfully doing any of the above they stopped to videotape a traffic stop they happened to observe? In case you are wondering, I can use any of those listed items quite effectively as a weapon, along with a myriad of other common everyday items - including my legally and lawfully openly carried handgun.

    As long as the videotaping of the activities of public employees performing their duties in a public place where there is no expectation of privacy is not otherwise prohibitted by law, I see no need to ask why any person would do so. It would be like me asking you why you choose to breathe in and out while looking at the traffic stop, or why a police officer would not be expected to address the situation if you were observed to be breathing in and out while looking at the traffic stop.

    If the activity is lawful and does not interfere with the duties of the police, they should not "address the situation".

    It is when the police begin "addressing the situation" of people lawfully doing legal activities that we need to be concerned about how to return to the status quo ante - the way things were beforehand when the police did not interfere with people lawfully going about their day doing things that are not unlawful or illegal. Or are you one of "those" folks who would prefer not to remember the lessons from the past when the police and other government functionaries (not a pergorative term, merely a descriptive one) started down that road.

    stay safe.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    62
    I have no problem with someone videotaping a t-stop, however, if anyone places their body near a t-stop while carrying a firearm and the officer has no idea who is the person with the firearm, that individual will be considered a threat until everything is resolved.

    The various comments about interfering with the t-stop, understandable, however, if an officer is aware someone has a weapon, they do not know, and the officer is conducting a t-stop....one of the most dangerous activities in law enforcement....I am just saying that people should understand that they more than likely will be detained until the matter is sorted out. Do not be offended or get upset by the detention.

    I do know of areas where the officers have citizens that act as their back-up and that type of thing happens quite a bit, but if the officer does not know the person(s), folks should be understanding.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Urban Skeet City, Alabama
    Posts
    897
    What about the implied lethality of a club sandwich left on the seat of my car on a hot day? Should I be disen-sandwiched for officer safety?
    It takes a village to raise an idiot.

  23. #23
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by BaconMan View Post
    I have no problem with someone videotaping a t-stop, however, if anyone places their body near a t-stop while carrying a firearm and the officer has no idea who is the person with the firearm, that individual will be considered a threat until everything is resolved.

    The various comments about interfering with the t-stop, understandable, however, if an officer is aware someone has a weapon, they do not know, and the officer is conducting a t-stop....one of the most dangerous activities in law enforcement....I am just saying that people should understand that they more than likely will be detained until the matter is sorted out. Do not be offended or get upset by the detention.

    I do know of areas where the officers have citizens that act as their back-up and that type of thing happens quite a bit, but if the officer does not know the person(s), folks should be understanding.
    Except you are leaving out the studies that show criminals and those with ill intent conceal. So they are somehow "safer" from their point of view if they put 2 millimeters of cotton or poly blend over their weapon? It's not very logical. They are letting themselves get worked up over personal biases.
    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)

  24. #24
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter Venator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lansing area, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    6,445
    Quote Originally Posted by BaconMan View Post
    I have no problem with someone videotaping a t-stop, however, if anyone places their body near a t-stop while carrying a firearm and the officer has no idea who is the person with the firearm, that individual will be considered a threat until everything is resolved.

    The various comments about interfering with the t-stop, understandable, however, if an officer is aware someone has a weapon, they do not know, and the officer is conducting a t-stop....one of the most dangerous activities in law enforcement....I am just saying that people should understand that they more than likely will be detained until the matter is sorted out. Do not be offended or get upset by the detention.

    I do know of areas where the officers have citizens that act as their back-up and that type of thing happens quite a bit, but if the officer does not know the person(s), folks should be understanding.
    Spoken like a cop, BACONman.
    An Amazon best seller "MY PARENTS OPEN CARRY" http://www.myparentsopencarry.com/

    *The information contained above is not meant to be legal advice, but is solely intended as a starting point for further research. These are my opinions, if you have further questions it is advisable to seek out an attorney that is well versed in firearm law.

  25. #25
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Venator View Post
    Spoken like a cop, BACONman.
    Oh man you almost made me spew my coffee out on my monitor!!!!
    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)

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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