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.