Couple of gents getting their rights violated in Alameda after they were LGOC: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuXzuoHh2Zo
If they had given proper NOTICE to the officers and/or the department in advance and/or at the scene instead of consenting to the actions of the officers as they did, they could have put the department and the officers under obligation if they pursued the detainment and e-check.
Couple of gents getting their rights violated in Alameda after they were LGOC: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuXzuoHh2Zo
You guys both give too much credit to a uniform.
If a random person is approaching you with a weapon drawn you should take it as what it is, a threat of deadly violence. You should be able to quickly think if you have done anything that warrants you being arrested or attacked, and if not, you should respond accordingly. Just because a person has a job with a certain government agency, or has a blue or black set of clothes on with a shiny tin object near their heart doesn't mean they can threaten your life whenever they desire. They are citizens with no rights greater than yours. Could you do that to them and expect to be treated the way you suggest one act? No. Then they are your superior in a "free country".
I'll leave you with a quote which underlines the importance of the fourth amendment.
Wilson v. Indiana - Indiana Appeals - 2006
Why would you pull a gun on somebody walking down the street minding their own business?
I don't have the authority to do so. But if I were a LEO and saw a person walking down the street with a semiautomatic tactical rifle dangling around his neck, I certainly would have approached with due caution as backup to the primary officer, like the officer was doing until I could determine just exactly what was going on.
Would you do the same thing if the guy was OCing a handgun?
I am not a law enforcement officer, but if I were, no, if the person's weapon was holstered, I'd not draw my weapon.
The tactical rifle dangling around one's neck could be easily implemented if the bearer was out on a nefarious mission, intent to use his rifle to shed innocent blood and commit mayhem.
The officers had no way of knowing this man's intentions, so they took precautions. Until they stopped and approached the man, they had no way of knowing that this was some guy out on a mission to draw attention to himself. (He must have been neglected as a child.)
Should all of the people who decide to carry in that manner be stopped at gunpoint?
If they carry in the manner this guy was, yes. It's just plain stupid to carry an unloaded AR15 around your neck just to walk the dog. The guy got what he wanted: ATTENTION.
Where do you draw the line?
By using common sense. NOBODY openly carries an unloaded semiautomatic, tactical rifle for self defense purposes
By the way I don't think it is funny either. I think it is sad that this is what it has come to if you wish to defend yourself in CA.
This guy wasn't defending himself. His rifle was unloaded. He was just out showboating in front of his neighbors.
W.H.Y.?
The citizen was not breaking any laws, and was walking a frufru dog. WHY would YOU draw?
Are you active duty? No.
Do you remember your oath? Yes.
"The mere presence of a gun is not reasonable suspicion of a crime."
With inline replies to thebigsd
Of course, all the highlighted responses in red are merely one man's opinion.Why would you pull a gun on somebody walking down the street minding their own business?
I don't have the authority to do so. But if I were a LEO and saw a person walking down the street with a semiautomatic tactical rifle dangling around his neck, I certainly would have approached with due caution as backup to the primary officer, like the officer was doing until I could determine just exactly what was going on.
Would you do the same thing if the guy was OCing a handgun?
I am not a law enforcement officer, but if I were, no, if the person's weapon was holstered, I'd not draw my weapon.
The tactical rifle dangling around one's neck could be easily implemented if the bearer was out on a nefarious mission, intent to use his rifle to shed innocent blood and commit mayhem.
The officers had no way of knowing this man's intentions, so they took precautions. Until they stopped and approached the man, they had no way of knowing that this was some guy out on a mission to draw attention to himself. (He must have been neglected as a child.)
Should all of the people who decide to carry in that manner be stopped at gunpoint?
If they carry in the manner this guy was, yes. It's just plain stupid to carry an unloaded AR15 around your neck just to walk the dog. The guy got what he wanted: ATTENTION.
Where do you draw the line?
By using common sense. NOBODY openly carries an unloaded semiautomatic, tactical rifle for self defense purposes
By the way I don't think it is funny either. I think it is sad that this is what it has come to if you wish to defend yourself in CA.
This guy wasn't defending himself. His rifle was unloaded. He was just out showboating in front of his neighbors.
It has been interesting for me to read the opinions of others so far.
If you wouldn't draw down on a citizen carrying a holstered handgun, why would you do so to a citizen carrying a slinged rifle?
For the reason I mentioned in my response to thebigsd.
You're making a point of saying "unloaded". In California, that's the deal dealt to its citizens. They cannot carry loaded. So their course of action is unloaded.
Why shun them for carrying simply because they are forced to carry unloaded? Because, in my neck of the woods we consider a man lacking some of his "marbles" who carries an unloaded gun around for self-defense purposes. (But, in all honesty, that's probably just a Mississippi redneck thing.)
Why, by your assertion that NOBODY carries an unloaded rifle for self-defense, do we allow the police to do so (they go to their trunk, pull out their rifle, and load it)? Because they have ammo in the vehicle to load their long guns with.
Why should the citizen be stripped of his right?
You're right.
Who you call a "showboat" many others would call a patriot, standing defiant to the overbearing bully which is government today.
I'm sure those who condone this man's conduct, in truth, do consider him to be a patriot.
As has been said before, the carrying of a gun (no matter the type) does not give reasonable suspicion. If these officers were concerned about "officer safety", would not the wise course of action be to call for backup? Yes.
The road this country is on, and the one we are fighting to get off of, ends in absolute government authority over the "citizenry". States surrendered their sovereignty long ago and fostered the current United State of Nannyhood. Nanny Sam wants to be in charge and it's going to be a long, long row to hoe on the part of citizens to get their freedoms fully recognized for what they are ... ABSOLUTE. California's "leaders" are the tip of the sword that will run our rights through.
A sobering prospect, for sure.
I'm sure you've seen the video posted a million times of the uoc'er at the range going from unloaded to firing on target in 2 seconds.Because, in my neck of the woods we consider a man lacking some of his "marbles" who carries an unloaded gun around for self-defense purposes. (But, in all honesty, that's probably just a Mississippi redneck thing.)
Yet another Ontario LGOC video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Ck97yvSCBA
Three Ontario PD cars, four open carriers.
Exactly. The individuals that would draw their weapon to approach an individual who has a rifle are violating the man's right to be free from seizure. There has been no report that the man is going to commit a crime, there is no indication from viewing his behavior that he is committing a crime. So the police can, at best, approach him and demand to inspect the loaded condition of his firearms. But that didn't happen, he was detained without RAS.
Does anybody that would draw on this guy have a law citation that says carrying a rifle can constitute RAS if it is unusual?
lol, I can't call it a gun. That was beet out of me in basic. A gun is a play thing to me, a wepon is a tool and only has one purpus. About 6 mounths agon a E-4 tried to use the butstock of an M-16 as a bat to hit rocks, he is now an E-2. He learnd that was not the proper use of an M-16.
Exactly. The individuals that would draw their weapon to approach an individual who has a rifle are violating the man's right to be free from seizure. There has been no report that the man is going to commit a crime, there is no indication from viewing his behavior that he is committing a crime. So the police can, at best, approach him and demand to inspect the loaded condition of his firearms. But that didn't happen, he was detained without RAS.
Does anybody that would draw on this guy have a law citation that says carrying a rifle can constitute RAS if it is unusual?