• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Uh oh look out, frustrated Cop on the loose

Motofixxer

Motofixxer

Regular Member
Joined
May 14, 2010
Messages
965
Location
Somewhere over the Rainbow
This is a rather comical vid of a frustrated cop that attempts to impose his will on a man. But the man is armed with knowledge and wins.




[video=youtube;0En_sdsyh1M]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0En_sdsyh1M&feature=related[/video]
 
M

MR Redenck

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2010
Messages
596
Location
West Texas
The funny thing I picked up on was the "fear" your gun was causing.
If that cop wanted to charge you with creating public fear " Or whatever kind of crap", then he would have a hard time explaining why he constantly turned his back and ignored you.
Its pretty obvious that the cop has a problem with citizens carrying guns. He didnt seem to fear for his life as he turned his back on the MWAG.
These idiots that constantly harass citizens simply because they are armed need to be fired!
 
L

LaBomba

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2011
Messages
118
Location
Tosa
meh.........I give the cameraman low marks on civility. To be sure, the cop made mistakes. The cameraman challenges, the cop thinks it through and backs down. Hectoring the cop with "Am I being detained? Am I being detained? Am I being detained?" while following the cop around, trespassing, and threatening that you're instantly uploading footage to the internet looked like a deliberate effort to prolong a hostile confrontation.

Is it right for an LEO to try to intrude on citizen rights? Of course not. Once you've asserted your rights, though, is it okay to make an LEO's job harder? As a taxpayer and citizen, I say no. I'm sure this will be an unpopular opinion, please be aware that I RDGAF. I'll put on my asbestos undies so y'all can flame away.
 
Last edited:
Fallschirjmäger

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,823
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
A little provoking, but I'm sure it was all in good fun on the part of both parties.
The cameraman has a good tale and the officer can regale his coworkers about how he had enough self control that "if that boy hadn't had a camera, I'd a knocked some sense into his head."

Oh, I'm sure it was a deliberate effort to prolong a hostile situation; but when you're winning you don't stop fighting just because your opponent runs away, do you?
 
Last edited:
BROKENSPROKET

BROKENSPROKET

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2010
Messages
2,199
Location
Trempealeau County
LaBomba said:
meh.........I give the cameraman low marks on civility. To be sure, the cop made mistakes. The cameraman challenges, the cop thinks it through and backs down. Hectoring the cop with "Am I being detained? Am I being detained? Am I being detained?" while following the cop around, trespassing, and threatening that you're instantly uploading footage to the internet looked like a deliberate effort to prolong a hostile confrontation.

Is it right for an LEO to try to intrude on citizen rights? Of course not. Once you've asserted your rights, though, is it okay to make an LEO's job harder? As a taxpayer and citizen, I say no. I'm sure this will be an unpopular opinion, please be aware that I RDGAF. I'll put on my asbestos undies so y'all can flame away.
Click to expand...

I agree with you.
 
Lurchiron

Lurchiron

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2009
Messages
1,011
Location
Shawano,WI.
Give that cameraman a doughnut!!! Sarge looks like someone took a dump in his best pair of underwear...:shocker:
 
B

Brendon .45

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2009
Messages
282
Location
Peoples' Republic of Madison, Wisconsin, USA
Fallschirmjäger said:
Oh, I'm sure it was a deliberate effort to prolong a hostile situation; but when you're winning you don't stop fighting just because your opponent runs away, do you?
Click to expand...

Yes you do stop once your opponent runs away. You fought to stop the threat, and now the threat has ended. Unless, of course, this is a sanctioned fight; then you fight 'til the ref says stop.

Good for the cameraman to assert his rights, but once the cop walked away, that should have been the end of it. Was this guy just looking to confront a cop? Was he even with the group that was already detained? Makes us look bad...
 
A

amaixner

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2008
Messages
308
Location
Linn County, Iowa
The rude and ignorant police officer did not make it clear that the cameraman was NOT being detained and was free to go -- he merely walked away and ignored the inquiry by the cameraman. I could see a situation where leaving could be intentionally misconstrued as fleeing from the police, especially when the officer was showing himself to be anti-gun, rude, and aggressive.

I probably would have continued asking also instead of assuming that I could leave, though in a less confrontational manner.
 
L

LaBomba

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2011
Messages
118
Location
Tosa
amaixner said:
The rude and ignorant police officer did not make it clear that the cameraman was NOT being detained and was free to go -- he merely walked away and ignored the inquiry by the cameraman. I could see a situation where leaving could be intentionally misconstrued as fleeing from the police, especially when the officer was showing himself to be anti-gun, rude, and aggressive.

I probably would have continued asking also instead of assuming that I could leave, though in a less confrontational manner.
Click to expand...

Nice try, but the cop did nothing to suggest the cameraman was being detained. It's patently obvious that the cameraman's intention was to provoke further exchange with the LEO in the hope of getting some juicy video footage. That's why his tone was, as you point out, confrontational.
 
Brass Magnet

Brass Magnet

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2009
Messages
2,818
Location
Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
amaixner said:
The rude and ignorant police officer did not make it clear that the cameraman was NOT being detained and was free to go -- he merely walked away and ignored the inquiry by the cameraman. I could see a situation where leaving could be intentionally misconstrued as fleeing from the police, especially when the officer was showing himself to be anti-gun, rude, and aggressive.

I probably would have continued asking also instead of assuming that I could leave, though in a less confrontational manner.
Click to expand...

LaBomba said:
Nice try, but the cop did nothing to suggest the cameraman was being detained. It's patently obvious that the cameraman's intention was to provoke further exchange with the LEO in the hope of getting some juicy video footage. That's why his tone was, as you point out, confrontational.
Click to expand...

I tend to agree that it was possibly a bit too confrontational to follow the cop around asking "am I being detained?", or at least asking that many times, but amaixner does raise a valid concern and although you can say that something is patently obvious, sometimes the "obvious" isn't the truth. It used to be patently obvious that the sun revolved around the earth. :)

Even though it sickens me that it could happen in even my wildest dreams, I can see someone walking away and being tazed (or worse) for "evading arrest" if it was in any way unclear as to detainment.

Was it confrontational? Yes, but on the other hand:
"Be not intimidated... nor suffer yourselves to be wheedled out of your liberties by any pretense of politeness, delicacy, or decency. These, as they are often used, are but three different names for hypocrisy,chicanery and cowardice." John Adams
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Pyro01

Pyro01

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 21, 2009
Messages
202
Location
Menomonie, Wisconsin, USA
I loved this video, it's too bad it doesn't say in the video description on which state this took place. Although, it had to be a state where open carry was legal and does not require a permit.
 
Fallschirjmäger

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,823
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
Pyro01 said:
I loved this video, it's too bad it doesn't say in the video description on which state this took place. Although, it had to be a state where open carry was legal and does not require a permit.
Click to expand...

Pardon, but why must it be a state where an openly carried firearm does not require a permit?
In the state of Georgia where one must have a weapons license to carry a handgun, I would do the same as the cameraman and be quite legal in refusing to produce identification unless the officer had an articulable suspicion that I was committing a crime.

Does openly carrying a firearm in a state that requires a permit differ substantially from openly driving a car in a state that requires a permit to drive? Are the police allowed to pull over anyone they see operating a motor vehicle, just to make sure they are licensed?
 
Last edited:
A

amaixner

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2008
Messages
308
Location
Linn County, Iowa
Fallschirmjäger said:
Pardon, but why must it be a state where an openly carried firearm does not require a permit?
In the state of Georgia where one must have a weapons license to carry a handgun, I would do the same as the cameraman and be quite legal in refusing to produce identification unless the officer had an articulable suspicion that I was committing a crime.

Does openly carrying a firearm in a state that requires a permit differ substantially from openly driving a car in a state that requires a permit to drive? Are the police allowed to pull over anyone they see operating a motor vehicle, just to make sure they are licensed?
Click to expand...

The fact that the cameraman knew and stated that his openly carried firearm did not require a permit is a strong indicator that the state in which it happened does not require a permit for open carry.

Many states require that if one is carrying in a manner requiring a permit, the permit must be shown upon demand by an LEO. This is often specifically written into the law. This may not be the way it should be, nor the way we want it to be, but that is how it currently is in many states.
 
Fallschirjmäger

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,823
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
amaixner said:
The fact that the cameraman knew and stated that his openly carried firearm did not require a permit is a strong indicator that the state in which it happened does not require a permit for open carry.

Many states require that if one is carrying in a manner requiring a permit, the permit must be shown upon demand by an LEO. This is often specifically written into the law. This may not be the way it should be, nor the way we want it to be, but that is how it currently is in many states.
Click to expand...

Ahh, I was reading it as thought it said "that would never have happened in a state where a license was required to openly carry", and since I live in a state where a license is required to openly carry, it struck me as an odd statement.
Georgia is a bit odd in that the newest version of the law states one must be "in possession" of a weapons license, but does not specify that the DL must be presented upon demand whilst operating a motor vehicle.


I've occasionally contrasted "possession of" the GWL with "in one's immediate possession" in regards to a driver's license and the fact that the DL is specifically required to be presented. One can still be charged with being in possession of 20 kilo's of uncut heroin in one's garage even when one is 5 miles away having a coffee at Starbuck's. I don't think the definition of 'possession' changes according to the needs of the moment and what is being 'possessed'.
 
Last edited:
Motofixxer

Motofixxer

Regular Member
Joined
May 14, 2010
Messages
965
Location
Somewhere over the Rainbow
amaixner said:
I probably would have continued asking also instead of assuming that I could leave, though in a less confrontational manner.
Click to expand...


Thats why you should then make an assertive statement that you are free to leave then and leaving, if the officer doesn't say anything. Then leave, if it ever went to court, you would have made a legal and lawful assertion, that went undisputed, so it's assumed to be true.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top