OCer detained/disarmed in Medford, Oregon.. (Video)

Dogbait · Dec 14, 2011

The video was originally posted in the Oregon Open Carry Report thread and I figured cross posting it here would get more exposure.

Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1UkfirtoDQ

Article: http://www.mailtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20111213/NEWS/112130311/-1/COMM

SigGuy23 · Dec 14, 2011

Those Officers were morons. They take his guns away for safety, yet they put them on the ground instead of the police cruiser. Someone could have just walked up and grabbed them. How stupid. Those officers were morons.

jayspapa · Dec 14, 2011

Seems to me you should have asked them if they saw you doing anything illegal as they drove up. When he said " NO " it would go a lot further towards an illegal stop.

DonRow · Dec 14, 2011

Wow... Can you say "EGO" and violation of your 4th. You can not detain anyone with out "probable cause" I see a law suite in the making.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

jag06 · Dec 15, 2011

Couple things I noticed. The officer did not disarm until after the guy refused to give id. He said the police do not talk to people while they are armed, so do they disarm each other when talking to each other? After he disarmed him, he did not check the guns to unload them or to see if they are loaded. First thing anyone should do with touching a gun is to see if its loaded. He gets half a point for keeping the rifle in a safe direction, but gets minus 10 for the point the handgun in the window. They knew the guy and it seems they are just trying to harass him to stop carrying guns around.

thebigsd · Dec 15, 2011

jag06 said:
SNIP Couple things I noticed. The officer did not disarm until after the guy refused to give idea.

I would never give an officer an idea. I would make them think for themselves

This guy was surely mistreated, though it could be argued that he brought it on himself. I seem to remember some iffy OC situations involving this guy that have previously been discussed on this forum.

Strange "procedure" they have about officers not talking to people who are lawfully armed. I have had many conversations with LEOs while carrying. (no confrontations or MWAG calls, just general interactions). I hope he filed the appropriate complaints.

skidmark · Dec 15, 2011

Rights may have been violated. I admit I did not watch the entire video - I have little tolerance with folks who have little information and poor ideas about how to conduct themselves during adverse interactions with the police. I also have little tolerance with folks who insist on holding a legal debate and/or trial on the street with the cops.

Document the violation of your rights. Document the unsafe behavior of the police. Document the foolishness and jackbooted thuggery of the cops. Try not to at the same time document what a jackass you are making of yourself.

It's not enough to know your rights and to know when they are being violated. You need to know that it is often necessary to both be victimized and be seen as being victimized in order to win your point and your case. I'm not by any means suggesting that anybody just roll over and take whatever the cops do without making complaints both at the mpment their rights are being violated as well as afterwards. I am suggesting that this did not appear to be a situation where the victim was showing himself in the best possible light. In other words, if you are going to be involved in street drama make sure you are not te one being dramatic.

stay safe.

Baked on Grease · Dec 15, 2011

SigGuy23 said:
Those Officers were morons. They take his guns away for safety, yet they put them on the ground instead of the police cruiser. Someone could have just walked up and grabbed them. How stupid. Those officers were morons.

At one point I noticed that both officers had their back to the firearms, and the camera was positioned so I could not see them behind the officers... How long would it take them to realize if someone walked off with them?

Sent using tapatalk

Grapeshot · Dec 15, 2011

Remember momma's admonition to wear clean underwear just in case you were in an accident? Her point was to put yourself in the best light, be seen as a good person.

When our undergarments are soiled, we caste doubt on our character. The gentleman in question has failed to follow this simple precept. Had he acted responsibly and with good decorum, his presentation would be viewed much differently. Perception is paramount.

SouthernBoy · Dec 15, 2011

skidmark said:
Rights may have been violated. I admit I did not watch the entire video - I have little tolerance with folks who have little information and poor ideas about how to conduct themselves during adverse interactions with the police. I also have little tolerance with folks who insist on holding a legal debate and/or trial on the street with the cops.

Document the violation of your rights. Document the unsafe behavior of the police. Document the foolishness and jackbooted thuggery of the cops. Try not to at the same time document what a jackass you are making of yourself.

It's not enough to know your rights and to know when they are being violated. You need to know that it is often necessary to both be victimized and be seen as being victimized in order to win your point and your case. I'm not by any means suggesting that anybody just roll over and take whatever the cops do without making complaints both at the mpment their rights are being violated as well as afterwards. I am suggesting that this did not appear to be a situation where the victim was showing himself in the best possible light. In other words, if you are going to be involved in street drama make sure you are not te one being dramatic.

stay safe.

I'm going to have to agree with this. I also did not watch the entire video but I will go back and do that. My first impression, and this is deliberate on my part, is that the guy was looking for a confrontation so that he could record it. Now I say first impression being deliberate because first impressions are very important.... not always correct, but important nonetheless.

I'll go back and look at the video to see if my first impression turns out to be lasting in a while, but initially, initially mind you, this man's actions are questionable, not those of the LEO. Perhaps upon a complete viewing that will change.

Update:

I have viewed the video and my impression has not been changed much. I did see some errors on the part of the officers which others have already pointed out, but I have to say that they kept their cool pretty much the entire time. It would have been helpful to know what transpired to give reason for them to stop this person and by that I mean what the complaint said. Could a dispatcher have filtered this better or is it the policy of this department to answer all MWAG calls regards of the situation? Carrying a firearm where it is legal is not grounds for being stopped or harassed by officers.

I will not go into whether or not it was a good and rational idea for the guy to be carrying a scoped rifle slung on his back, others can vent either way with that one. For me, I would not do that without a damned good reason (partial or worse societal breakdown comes immediately to mind) mainly because it inhibits movement (think cars and such). A defensive handgun in my day-to-day goings on serves me well.... I hope.

The problem with LEO's, their departments, and stops is that they are going to push the envelop as long as they are able. If they can get away with something that is either not legal or not policy, they will do it until they are called for it. Asking for an ID might sound and seem simple enough and you'd be surprised how many people defend this. But allowing this to continue, opens more doors into invasions of our rights.

slowfiveoh · Dec 15, 2011

How can any perception be made beforehand when the video feed doesn't show activity prior to the recording?

It is wishful thinking that this guy incited something on behalf of the officers or apologists for the officers.

He was clearly, lawfully (otherwise he would have been arrested and/or cited) carrying his sidearm and picketing. The call was placed by a knee-knocker who was "scared" that he had a rifle on his back and a pistol holstered on his side. The stop initially began seemingly consensually, which then quickly became de facto detainment, which in this case seems to be expressly unlawful. The officer then incited that an individual had a "right to be scared", which is not an enumerated right whatsoever, while he certainly violated this gentlemans 4th amendment rights.

This stop, while seemingly trivial in nature, is exactly the reason for the state of affairs in this nation. As the officer said, he runs background checks on all individuals he detains per department policy. It is sad that this has become policy in the face of the 5th Amendment. In fact, the policy is in direct conflict with the US Constitution. Yet since they have "normalized" it, it is perceived as "acceptable".

I am very shocked some of you are coming to bat for the officers here. The crossed arm body position, rigid stance, and tonal inflection as well as behavior of the officers was spot on for those with an authority complex, seeking to assert said authority. This stop could have gone much better, and was in all ways completely unnecessary to begin with.

For those who are wondering, a certain individual in Tennessee who wore camo and painted his firearm has an amicus filed against him by SAF and Calguns supporting the officers (Rangers) in that particular case. This in direct conflict with no law or statute prohibiting the individual choice of paint jobs on personal possessions, or outerwear whilst carrying. I wonder if they will file an amicus when/if a lawsuit pops up on this incident in the future? I mean he "was" carrying 2 firearms. If you are going to be such an idiot as to support the "reasonable regulation" of a civil right, at least do so without purporting to be in support of the right.

Mental midgets abound all around.

This movement is so full of idiots that view the world their own rose colored spectacles, and only THEIR spectacles will do. Too stupid to realize the restrictions and impositions, and too naive to realize the failing of their methodology and perception of "freedom". I am getting so disenchanted with the people on this forum who apply their own "reasonable" regulation to the BoR. Its pitiful.

jag06 · Dec 15, 2011

thebigsd said:
I would never give an officer an idea. I would make them think for themselves

This guy was surely mistreated, though it could be argued that he brought it on himself. I seem to remember some iffy OC situations involving this guy that have previously been discussed on this forum.

Strange "procedure" they have about officers not talking to people who are lawfully armed. I have had many conversations with LEOs while carrying. (no confrontations or MWAG calls, just general interactions). I hope he filed the appropriate complaints.

I guess I should stop posting at midnight lol.

Something else I was thinking about the video this morning, was the one officer keeps telling the guy to take his hands out of his pockets. The last time he said it was "I am not going to tell you to take your hands out of your pockets again" or something like that. I know they say its for officer safety, but since when is having your hands in your pockets while talking to the police a crime? If he put his hands in his pocket "one more time" would they have arrested him? Is it legal to arrest someone for not removing your hands from your pockets?

It seems to me if you don't feel comfortable as a police officer for someone to keep their hands in their pockets when talking to them, something most everyone does, should you really be a police officer? You just disarmed a man, there are two officers there with guns and tazers, and you are worried about a guy with his hands in his pockets? Seems to me its just something they are taught to do to present themselves as superior when in contact with people.

I am just happy that around here the few officers I have OC'ed around have just kept on going and never said anything to me.

Gunslinger · Dec 15, 2011

Grapeshot said:
Remember momma's admonition to wear clean underwear just in case you were in an accident? Her point was to put yourself in the best light, be seen as a good person.

When our undergarments are soiled, we caste doubt on our character. The gentleman in question has failed to follow this simple precept. Had he acted responsibly and with good decorum, his presentation would be viewed much differently. Perception is paramount.

The Jews marching into the gas chambers acted "responsibly and with good decorum." Extreme example, of course. Afterall, this guy only had his 1st, 2nd and 4th Amendment rights trampled. And his point about a black guy was on target. If a black guy walking around at 2300 in a ritzy neighborhood causes "alarm" among the residents, and the cops "service" the call, where's the difference? Or a white guy walking around a known drug dealing area. If open carry is legal, it's legal. If walking down the street is legal, it's legal. If some ******* subject doesn't like it and calls the cops, that is what their reply should be, not an invite to violate clearly defined rights under the BoR or Terry. That the guy sounds like Elmer Fudd, notwithstanding.

Grapeshot · Dec 15, 2011

Gunslinger said:
The Jews marching into the gas chambers acted "responsibly and with good decorum." Extreme example, of course. Afterall, this guy only had his 1st, 2nd and 4th Amendment rights trampled. And his point about a black guy was on target. If a black guy walking around at 2300 in a ritzy neighborhood causes "alarm" among the residents, and the cops "service" the call, where's the difference? Or a white guy walking around a known drug dealing area. If open carry is legal, it's legal. If walking down the street is legal, it's legal. If some ******* subject doesn't like it and calls the cops, that is what their reply should be, not an invite to violate clearly defined rights under the BoR or Terry. That the guy sounds like Elmer Fudd, notwithstanding.

I understand all of that and do not disagree. I will still go the other route as a personal decision. Being well kept is a style that will benefit. Looking like someone's preconceived notion of a BG is not illegal, but it will draw more attention. That's maybe unfortunate, but you can expect that it to be so. In a perfect world.............

slowfiveoh · Dec 15, 2011

OC for ME said:
Reader's Digest version of your comments.....'do as I say, or I shall chastise you on the Interwebs for making ME look bad.'
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Image is important to some, and likely everything to others. Me, not so much. The image thing is solely on LE, they routinely screw that up, and not the LAC, even if he is exercising more than just his 2A. Which, by the way, is the point behind the 1A, getting noticed by a great many folks.

Good summation.

I am getting so sick and tired of it to be honest.

The perception filters on some people are tuned to some unrealistic level of expectation. The idea that one must kowtow to social norms in order to not garner negative attention is, quite frankly, undermining to the purpose of our BoR.

Why not just tack on a foreword to the Constitution annotating the necessity for a suit, well groomed appearance, enormous intellectual capacity, perfect tonality of voice, diverse knowledge of applicable law to said violated right in progress, and appropriate patterns of body positioning?

That's what many on this forum expect whilst not holding LEO to the same standard.

It's getting rather hypocritical and is altogether, completely pitiful.

jbone · Dec 15, 2011

SigGuy23 said:
Those Officers were morons. They take his guns away for safety, yet they put them on the ground instead of the police cruiser. Someone could have just walked up and grabbed them. How stupid. Those officers were morons.

That got me more than anything, the supervisor walking away leaving the seized firearms unattended?

skidmark · Dec 15, 2011

slowfiveoh said:
How can any perception be made beforehand when the video feed doesn't show activity prior to the recording? Thanks for noticing. Yes, it certainly helps, but the story must start somewhere. Let's agree to accept the given starting point and move ahead from there.

It is wishful thinking that this guy incited something on behalf of the officers or apologists for the officers. Sorry, but I'm confused. Where did that notion come from?

He was clearly, lawfully (otherwise he would have been arrested and/or cited) carrying his sidearm and picketing. The call was placed by a knee-knocker who was "scared" that he had a rifle on his back and a pistol holstered on his side. The stop initially began seemingly consensually, which then quickly became de facto detainment, which in this case seems to be expressly unlawful. The officer then incited that an individual had a "right to be scared", which is not an enumerated right whatsoever, while he certainly violated this gentlemans 4th amendment rights. Agree on both points. My complaint is about how he dealt with the violation of his rights. And especially so as it is most likely the video will be introduced as evidence of the violation(s).

This stop, while seemingly trivial in nature, is exactly the reason for the state of affairs in this nation. As the officer said, he runs background checks on all individuals he detains per department policy. It is sad that this has become policy in the face of the 5th Amendment. In fact, the policy is in direct conflict with the US Constitution. Yet since they have "normalized" it, it is perceived as "acceptable". You may say it is normalized. Others may say that as well. But it reads as if you are trying to fit those words into my mouth as well, which I will not permit.

I am very shocked some of you are coming to bat for the officers here. The crossed arm body position, rigid stance, and tonal inflection as well as behavior of the officers was spot on for those with an authority complex, seeking to assert said authority. Hmm. Body language and voice modified to meet the situation is now a "complex"? In any contact with a cop someone has to be in charge, and cops are trained to be that one. The problem might be that the individual cop asserts duties and rules that do not in fact exist in law. But a snowball has a better chance of surviving unchanged in Hell than one does winning on the street an argument with a cop. This stop could have gone much better, and was in all ways completely unnecessary to begin with. AS long as you make that assertion for both sides I agree with you. There should be no reason for either side to stamp their feet, hold their breath in an attempt to change facial color, or to resort to "because I said so" - wrll, that last one is actually the lawful and appropriate last resort of police officers dealing with persons who are being obstinant merely for the sake of being obstinant.*

For those who are wondering, a certain individual in Tennessee who wore camo and painted his firearm has an amicus filed against him by SAF and Calguns supporting the officers (Rangers) in that particular case. This in direct conflict with no law or statute prohibiting the individual choice of paint jobs on personal possessions, or outerwear whilst carrying. I wonder if they will file an amicus when/if a lawsuit pops up on this incident in the future? I mean he "was" carrying 2 firearms. If you are going to be such an idiot as to support the "reasonable regulation" of a civil right, at least do so without purporting to be in support of the right. This has nothing to do with the incident currently on the table for discussion. You know that. Putting up a red herring is not nice.

Mental midgets abound all around. Name calling is impolite.

This movement is so full of idiots that view the world their own rose colored spectacles, and only THEIR spectacles will do. Too stupid to realize the restrictions and impositions, and too naive to realize the failing of their methodology and perception of "freedom". I am getting so disenchanted with the people on this forum who apply their own "reasonable" regulation to the BoR. Its pitiful.

To my knowledge nobody is holding a gun to your head forcing you to return here time after time. If in fact that is the case please use the emergency code word so we will know you are here under duress. Otherwise, please refer to the comment immediately above.

For the sake of clarification, because it appears clarification is needed, my comments both immediately above and further above should not be taken as any indication of support for the actions of the police officers. They should, however, be taken as criticism of the behavior of the person being detained. He did more to exascerbate the situation than to calmly and accurately document the violation of his rights. In doing so, he loses credibility and sympathy from both casual viewers like those here, and with any trier of the facts in any complaint filed regarding the incident. Rather than being "innocent" he has moved himself to "instigating" and "aggravating" the situation.

stay safe.

slowfiveoh · Dec 15, 2011

skidmark said:
Thanks for noticing. Yes, it certainly helps, but the story must start somewhere. Let's agree to accept the given starting point and move ahead from there.

That's fantastic. Now please realize that this thread has more than two people posting in it, and is not in any way limited to you or I.

Thanks.

skidmark said:

Sorry, but I'm confused. Where did that notion come from?

Click to expand...

Please realize that every reply in this thread is not in direct response to your comments. Thanks.

skidmark said:

You may say it is normalized. Others may say that as well. But it reads as if you are trying to fit those words into my mouth as well, which I will not permit.

Click to expand...

You are awful defensive for not even initially clarifying who I was directing my comments towards. Part of my response indeed is in reply to your commentary. Part of it is not.

Perhaps as a full grown, mature man, you should clarify with the poster you take issue with precisely what and/or who they are responding to. I would have happily elaborated.

skidmark said:

Hmm. Body language and voice modified to meet the situation is now a "complex"?

Click to expand...

Combined with a lengthy, observable pattern of authoritative abuse from coast to coast, and sea to shining sea, yes. It has progressed and developed from the demeanor, positioning, and authoritative tone necessary only during situations which warrant it, to standard operating procedure even during low threat or casual contact situations.

skidmark said:

In any contact with a cop someone has to be in charge, and cops are trained to be that one.

Click to expand...

Incorrect. An authoritative stance does not need to be taken unless the situation warrants it. This is pure, simple, unadulterated logic. LEO could do far better than implementing the authoritative role on every single stop.

The military is interesting in comparison because servicemembers of all branches know that one douchebag who is "hooah/ooh-rah/etc." at any and all times, adopting that authoritative, controlling posture even when not warranted. There is a time to adopt that authoritative role when warranted in life, and times it is purely, wholly, and completely asinine and counter-productive to do so. This was definitely one of those stops, and this type of behavior exhibited here is the core of the problem with LEO doctrine, policy, and enforcement methods.

The question must be asked, "Why did this stop proceed to immediate detainment absent probable cause?". If one cannot justify the stop, one cannot justify the authoritative tone, positioning, and threats.

I would agree that in the event of a a proper RAS or PC substantiated stop that it is indeed within the purview, and indeed necessary, for the officer to be authoritative.

skidmark said:

The problem might be that the individual cop asserts duties and rules that do not in fact exist in law. But a snowball has a better chance of surviving unchanged in Hell than one does winning on the street an argument with a cop.

Click to expand...

Any citizen should have, and as substantiated in previous court cases, does indeed have the right to disobey an unlawful order, and furthermore when said rights are violated, the right to resist illegal detainment. The method of resistance I agree should probably be non-violent unless the officer is indeed threatening your life. However, just because society has allowed for the slow erosion of these rights does not mean we should not try to get them back through any peaceful means necessary.

In this case, as would most reasonable people, we find a man who is a bit agitated, potentially flustered, and understandably upset. If this was his first stop, he did better than a lot of the internet commandos on here would. Denigrating him because he is not Alan Gura in an Armani suit with a highlighted pocketbook of Oregon state law is quite ignorant, and very superficial of anybody who proclaims to be for our rights.

I seem to recall an individual who whilst agitated, pointed his finger at ferry police, probably justifiably so, who summarily was whisked away to a courtroom on drummed up charges which were summarily dismissed.

I am in doubt that the individual in question was not agitated, could recite every word of Virginia state law, was dressed in an Armani suit, attempting to board the ferry in his Jaguar.

He won his court case if I recall. With competent counsel of course.

skidmark said:

AS long as you make that assertion for both sides I agree with you. There should be no reason for either side to stamp their feet, hold their breath in an attempt to change facial color, or to resort to "because I said so" - wrll, that last one is actually the lawful and appropriate last resort of police officers dealing with persons who are being obstinant merely for the sake of being obstinant.

Click to expand...

It is entirely incumbent upon the "professional organization" to act in a manner consistent with departmental PR directives, or in a manner that best reflects community service. It is not incumbent on the populace they serve to react with the well adjusted, veteran experience of a corporations PR executive to some form of tragedy.

The man made no threatening moves other than to put his hands in his pockets, and was conducting himself in accordance with state and federal law during his daily activities. You can turn your nose up at his reaction, but it is not so abnormal, nor is it irrational for him to respond in such a manner.

skidmark said:

This has nothing to do with the incident currently on the table for discussion. You know that. Putting up a red herring is not nice.

Click to expand...

It does have to do specifically with my point of the inner corruption and collaboration to minimize the 2nd Amendment, as well as the 4th, by elitists championing the BoR for their own purposes.

Here we are, in a thread where people are calling into question the activity of an individual engaged in legal, constitutionally protected rights on the basis of his understandably upset response. Could we all be the most rational of people in dire times?

No.

That is why we have admired, respected individuals of the past who are really looked upon with admiration. It is because they are not the norm. Individuals of such caliber wrote the US Constitution. They did so in a manner that applies to any and all individuals.

skidmark said:

Name calling is impolite.

Click to expand...

A lot of things are impolite.

Such an example would be undermining a normal, everyday, average Joes right to exercise his freedom of speech, right to keep and bear arms, and right to be secure from unreasonable search and seizure.

skidmark said:

To my knowledge nobody is holding a gun to your head forcing you to return here time after time. If in fact that is the case please use the emergency code word so we will know you are here under duress. Otherwise, please refer to the comment immediately above.

For the sake of clarification, because it appears clarification is needed, my comments both immediately above and further above should not be taken as any indication of support for the actions of the police officers. They should, however, be taken as criticism of the behavior of the person being detained. He did more to exascerbate the situation than to calmly and accurately document the violation of his rights. In doing so, he loses credibility and sympathy from both casual viewers like those here, and with any trier of the facts in any complaint filed regarding the incident. Rather than being "innocent" he has moved himself to "instigating" and "aggravating" the situation.

stay safe.

Click to expand...

I will post how I wish, when I wish, without any recommendation or inference from yourself dictating any content, composition, or decision to post on my behalf. If a moderator makes a decision to address me, I will address that as I see fit as well, with the realization that this is their site. Thanks though!

For the sake of clarification, the citizen here is not tasked with the orderly, respectful, and considerate community correspondence of law enforcement. LEO is.

Creating a false premise of acceptable conduct and applying it to an individual merely out exercising their rights is wholly inappropriate. Such a standard perpetuates and validates superficial assessments which will never be in tune with liberty, or the true premise of the BoR.

Nurturing such ambiguous standards is unhealthy to the cause of civil rights, and part of the core problem.

Good day.

P.S. I see you like blue and italic. I too like blue and italic.

since9 · Dec 16, 2011

I watched the entire video three times. A few points for anyone encountering cops who're ignorant of the law:

Videotaping - good, he did that.

Do state that you do not consent to any search, seizure, or release of ID - he did that, too.

Don't tell them "I do not consent to any detainment," as consent is not required for a law enforcement officer to detain you, whether he's acting properly or not.

Don't engage them in legal mumbo-jumbo. It's a stop, not a court of law.

Don't constantly interrupt them. That just ticks them off.

Do say: "I am legally refusing to show you my ID."

Don't argue with them. That also ticks them off.

Be succinct. Many words do not make your case. What little gems he did give was lost in the fluff.

Don't constantly repeat yourself. That's doesn't make your case.

Don't threaten lawsuits. That's another thing that ticks them off.

Don't come across in a whiny tone of voice, as it sounds defensive and gives rise to suspicion.

Don't "plead the fifth." Simply say "I refuse to speak without having my attorney present."

Do state: "I have broken no law."

Don't ask them to cite the ordinance. Most cops do not operate directly from ordinances. They operate from their department's General Orders, which are supposed to be in accordance with local, county, state, and federal law, but occasionally are not. If anything, they're reduced set of instructions designed to be easily memorized and cover most circumstances in a conservative manner.

Do state: "Respectfully, Sir, someone's alarm is not probable cause."

Do state: "Lawful carry of a firearm is not probable cause."

Take a moment to carefully choose your words before you respond.

Don't pull the race card.

Here's how this should have gone:

Detainee: "Am I being detained?"

LEO: "Yes. Do you have ID on you?"

Det: "Yes."

LEO: "May I see it, please?"

Det: "No."

LEO: "Why not?"

Det: "I prefer not to show it to you."

LEO: "Why not?"

Det: "I am within my rights to refuse to show it to you."

LEO: "Why are you refusing to show your ID?"

Det: "I am not required to answer that question."

LEO: "I say you are required to answer my questions."

Det: "Respectfully, Sir, I disagree."

If they keep pestering you, simply say, "Sir, I respectfully decline to answer any further question without my attorney."

In all likelihood, if the detainee had simply keep calm, cool, and collected, the LEOs would probably not have seized his firearms. Be professional. One's demeanor says loads about one's intentions.

skidmark · Dec 16, 2011

slowfiveoh said:
....

Someone was a bit touchy at 10:51 PM last night.

All I'm going to respond to is the attempt to characterize any of the events at Surry. Since you were not there and VDOT saw fit to destroy the video of the event it amazes me how you can make any cogent comment.

The rest of your post see,s just a bit too much like someone who protests too much. On the other hand, I extend kudos to since9 for the comments and suggestions he offers. They are quite helpful and make me ashamed that I did not do something similar along with my critiques.

stay safe.

OCer detained/disarmed in Medford, Oregon.. (Video)

Regular Member

Activist Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Legendary Warrior

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Legendary Warrior

Regular Member

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Campaign Veteran