This guy stayed really calm and did a great job...thought some of you would enjoy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VXwP02Dkp7A&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VXwP02Dkp7A&feature=related
That cop was dead wrong. The dude told the cop why he was filming. The dude backed off as directed by the cop. In the first two minutes of this video the stop of the red car was over and the red car had drove away. The dude is walking away from the cop. This cop decided to contact the dude. That cop should have just drove off and let the dude have his two minutes of uneventful video. But no, he is the law and he ain't gunna let a mere citizen get away with that.
Anyone putting this on the dude is just as wrong as that cop.
The fellow was foolish to approach an officer who was conducting a routine traffic stop, with a gun on his side and a video camera rolling.
He set out to get noticed with his gun, just sayin'.
Let me say that this is not something I could see myself doing. With that said. Would it have been different had the person had a hammer hanging off their belt? I believe there was just a story in the news were a guy with a hammer was attacking people at a mall. The simple truth is that any "tool" can be used as a weapon. Would the facts of the situation have been different if the man had been CCing? The facts are(as I see them) a man who is carrying a weapon goes to a film a traffic stop.
This man chose to film the police during a traffic stop. The fact that he chose to exercise his right to carry a firearm, while doing so shouldn't enter into it. I often hear people saying they are trying to make OC more acceptable to the general public. Do you not realize that if we continue to say that "there's a time and place for it" that we are saying that there should be limits to how and when we exercise our rights. Are we saying that in this case it would have been better to CC rather than cast OC in a bad light? If that's the case then we are arguing appearances not rights.
It is true that labels may be attached to him for what he did. I would point out that those same labels are already attached to us by those who don't agree with how we chose to exercise our rights. You can be as clean cut and pleasant you like, there are still going to be those(even those who say they support the 2A) who are going to label you derisively.
This man chose to exercise two rights at the same time, and while I might not agree with how he did them, I will not condemn him for either. Some can label him activist, others can label him A-hole, I'm just glad to see people exercising rights lest they atrophy and die. As for the activist to A-hole scale, I view this guy somewhere in the middle, but recognize all points of it have rights.
I want people to think of the open carry community as normal people who go about there day doing normal things - they just carry their gun openly instead of concealed.
But this guy ruins that image, in my opinion. He isn't just going about a normal routine openly carrying, he is interrupting a police officer conducting a traffic stop. You know how we all talk about increased situational awareness when we are open carrying? Well that is what is on the cops mind while he is in the middle of a traffic stop. It's not like the cop just saw a man walk by while open carrying during the traffic stop, the guy intentionally threw himself into the situation (walked right up the front of the car). This cop didn't see an open carrier, he saw a man walk right up to the ******* car during his traffic stop, and for the cherry on top the individual who was being disruptive just happened to have a firearm.
Look, I don't want a cop all up in my face while I'm conducting my everyday business, and out of respect I don't throw myself into their business.
Now after the fact, the cop seemed to be pissed about it and wanted to confront the young man again. This was wrong, but this could have been avoided by not being a jackass in the first place.
Yes, this man was within his rights, and so are the funeral protesters with the westboro baptist church.
Do you believe the officer was correct in stopping the man and demanding ID?
Yes...because he had absolutely no business interfering with the officer's routine stop of another citizen.
what do you believe was the RAS to do so?
I don't know what RAS means, but the officer had a right to follow the man and see what he was up to. The "van guy's" behavior was most odd.
Would it be filming the officer during a traffic stop?
Walking right over, openly armed with a handgun and all but getting in the officer's face with a video camera was deliberately provoking the incident.
Openly carrying a holstered firearm? NO, but linked with his crass interference with the LEO's business, the handgun was definitely a concern for the officer, and perhaps for the stopped motorist.
Exercising both rights at in concert? Already answered above.
Or do you believe that simply being "foolish" should be enough to stop someone and demand they ID themselves? If the guy had stayed in his van and minded his own business, none of this would have happened. Chances are, if the man had left his house walking with his gun on his hip, and had not deliberately went out looking for a cop to harass, he would have been able to take his walk, openly-carrying for all his neighbors to see, and none of this would have happened.
Another point I noticed, during most of the stop of the man, the officer stood there with his hand on his holstered gun. If I had done that while talking to to someone in my state, I would be charged with brandishing , or making a terroristic threat. If the officer has the right to be at the ready while talking to someone with an openly displayed firearm, why don't we?
As to setting out to get noticed. Many people set out to get noticed while exercising their right to free speech. Many people set out to get noticed while exercising their right to assemble. Many people set out to get noticed while exercising any number of their rights. Why should their 2A rights be so sacrosanct in this regard.
I understand what you're saying but, we have to realize that not everyone who OC's is trying to improve our image. There are those who OC who are simply exercising their right. Not everyone cares about the "movement", some only care about the "right". I may not like the fact that this man portrays OC in a unfavorable light, but I accept the fact that he has the right to carry his gun openly when he deems it fit. That seems the be the problem many here have. We want to exercise our rights and we want the general public to like it as well. I will be satisfied if we get to a point where my right is accepted, if it's liked that's just gravy.
Larry Flynt was no ones poster boy for free speech, but he still helped to protect that right for all. We are going to have to get to a point where we realize that we will never make everyone like OC, but hopefully they will accept it. I have no doubt that the majority of the members here work very hard to help move the acceptance of OC forward, but we cannot condemn those who are simply interested in the exercise of their right, not the ramifications of doing so. If we don't we have lost sight of the true goal.
Your example of the westboro group is spot on. I don't like what they do, but I do accept it. This man deserves the same treatment.
To your point about OCing during your normal routine, as the "Occupy" demonstrations have shown, this could very easily be part of this man's normal routine.
His right to carry and his right to free speech are fine to exercise, but to interfere with the lawful duties of the LEO along with his "rights", caused him to cross a line and infringe on the officer's right to conduct his stop without interference.
I'm not sure I see what you're getting at with your reply... obviously I have realized that not everyone is trying to improve our image...hence the video here... I have accepted the fact that this man has the right to carry his gun and be an jackass about..... and I'm calling him just that...a jackass...
and how in the world could this be a "normal" routine? He said that it was his girlfriend getting pulled over. So it wasn't something he did everyday at the same time same place aka a routine.
RAS stands for Reasonable Articulable Suspicion. It the standard that an officer must show before they are allowed to stop a citizen and demand their ID(this is a very limited definition I know). A common definition is also the officer must believe the person "has committed a crime, is committing a crime, or is about to commit a crime"...
...For the record RAS is a lower standard than Probable Cause.