Tazered for Open Carry

[scot623]

Stainless doesn't need a 5' boom... just something like this.

It's too bad GoPro's don't have better battery life or they would be SAWEET for this use...

[video=youtube;TWfph3iNC-k]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TWfph3iNC-k[/video]

That almost as silly as a 5ft boom. Lol. That wouldn't draw aaaaany attention from citizens or LEO's. Unless we had an OC mountain bike event.

 

[Grapeshot]

Look pal, if you're going to come running to stainless' aid you may need to do some research first. Stainless only carries alone. There is no third party to film his actions. And using one arm to film yourself when you have your hands over your head and a gun trained on you from a LEO may be impractical. Therefore, he would need a 5ft boom to film himself.

This is getting somewhat tiresome. You caste disparaging remarks and I respond with statements not intended to incite.

Insofar as videoing, I have seen many very small cameras that do great hands free work - user Peter Nap has a number of them..........but that isn't the point that you are attempting to drive home is it.

Since you cannot control the words and deeds of others, perhaps your efforts would be better exercised by directing those energies more responsibly and not continuing this crusade. There is an ignore function on this forum - perhaps you will find some good use for it.

 

[thebigsd]

SNIP Def. would be nice to have a lapel cam like the officer did.

You may want to check these out. I am planning on getting one.

GearXs Mini DV MD80 DVR Video Camera w/8GB Memory -The World's Smallest Camera

http://bit.ly/RbLd2y

 

[fozzy71]

You may want to check these out. I am planning on getting one.

GearXs Mini DV MD80 DVR Video Camera w/8GB Memory -The World's Smallest Camera

http://bit.ly/RbLd2y

I have one and the battery life is terrible. It was a complete waste of money imo.

 

[thebigsd]

I have one and the battery life is terrible. It was a complete waste of money imo.

Disappointing, but thanks for the heads-up.

 

[Raggs]

I wasnt referring to only this case. Nevertheless, what if he wasnt doing those things. The police have only the information they have, and will act accordingly. Understandable. Once they attain the peace, there is no reason for them to go further. Whether he put his gun on the ground, or in his pocket or holster, peace has been restored.

It has been discussed many times here, that one should carry video, as well as audio in case someone claims that you are making gestures that you didnt, and that misinformation could be then used to get a conviction against you.

I plan on getting video soon as well, but I just dont have the funds yet.

The problem is in the topic of this thread the idiot was allegedly waving the gun around so the police had information that the idiot was in fact breaking the law. When he was ordered to put the gun down i suspect they intended to arrest him, or do you think the police shouldn't disarm someone they are arresting?

 

[HKcarrier]

TO be honest, I'm AMAZED that they didn't perforate this guy. After watching what the saginasty police did to a guy with a KNIFE.. this guy was clearly in a better position to do REAL HARM to the police or others. Not that I am wishing they did.. I'm just saying... he's VERY lucky.. and that was probably some GOOD POLICE WORK. (Or good self control at the very least)

 

[Raggs]

he's VERY lucky.. and that was probably some GOOD POLICE WORK. (Or good self control at the very least)

I totally agree, If a person CCing came out of the building and saw this guy wouldn't they have reason to believe there life was in danger?

 

[stainless1911]

This I can agree with!!! It's too bad there aren't dependable, long lasting (battery wise) options that aren't a trillion dollars. Def. would be nice to have a lapel cam like the officer did. I would really like a dash cam wired into the power of the vehicle too.




!

In Russia, there are so many accidents, the drivers are required to have dash cams. I think they should do that here as well. It makes insurance and police work easier, and provides hours of youtube fun.

Stainless doesn't need a 5' boom... just something like this.

It's too bad GoPro's don't have better battery life or they would be SAWEET for this use...

[video=youtube;TWfph3iNC-k]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TWfph3iNC-k[/video]

That song so rocks./ Wouldn't that flying wing thing be considered a vehicle though?

The problem is in the topic of this thread the idiot was allegedly waving the gun around so the police had information that the idiot was in fact breaking the law. When he was ordered to put the gun down i suspect they intended to arrest him, or do you think the police shouldn't disarm someone they are arresting?

Secure the hands and the weapon is useless. Its simple, he put the gun in his pocket, that implies that he wishes to avoid further conflict. Therefore, cuffs and a disarm. If he goes the other way, taking his gun out of his pocket, then that can be looked at as a threat, and would be dealt with by using the least amount of force necessary to diffuse the situation.

 

[twoskinsonemanns]

In Russia, there are so many accidents, the drivers are required to have dash cams. I think they should do that here as well.

The government should require dash cams?
Aren't there enough laws out there for your taste?

 

[stainless1911]

I think its the insurance companies, not really sure though.

 

[TheQ]

In Russia, there are so many accidents, the drivers are required to have dash cams. I think they should do that here as well. It makes insurance and police work easier, and provides hours of youtube fun.

Aren't you usually complaining the government is too big? (at least 29-30 days a month)

This seems an odd thing to say for someone who thinks government is too big.

 

[scot623]

In Russia, there are so many accidents, the drivers are required to have dash cams. I think they should do that here as well.

That is discriminatory against people without cars! Why should only the rich have video protections against the .gov? The government should hire all the unemployed as videographers and each citizen should get their own to follow them throughout the day and film them.( I don't know who would film the videographer, but they were unemployed and poor prior to the new job, so screw them) The .gov might want to save all that video on some secret server bank under Las Vegas, but it's worth it.

 

[DrTodd]

That is discriminatory against people without cars! Why should only the rich have video protections against the .gov? The government should hire all the unemployed as videographers and each citizen should get their own to follow them throughout the day and film them.( I don't know who would film the videographer, but they were unemployed and poor prior to the new job, so screw them) The .gov might want to save all that video on some secret server bank under Las Vegas, but it's worth it.

Assuming this post is regarding what is done in Russia, other countries, other "rules"...

 

[scot623]

Assuming this post is regarding what is done in Russia, other countries, other "rules"...

Neil wants to adopt some laws from Russia, I'm merely suggesting we can certainly do better than them. If Russia requires all cars have video, we could require all citizens have their own videographer. Why turn communist only halfway..let's do it right.

 

[Grapeshot]

Neil wants to adopt some laws from Russia, I'm merely suggesting we can certainly do better than them. If Russia requires all cars have video, we could require all citizens have their own videographer. Why turn communist only halfway..let's do it right.

Still trying to make it personal and suggesting things not in evidence, rather than addressing the facts.

What I read appeared to be tongue-in-cheek. An emoticon was even provided.

It might not sit well with most consumers to be required to have a dash cam, but it surely might be a nice option for those interested to consider. I see many potential benefits, the idea has merit.

 

[scot623]

Still trying to make it personal and suggesting things not in evidence, rather than addressing the facts.

What I read appeared to be tongue-in-cheek. An emoticon was even provided.

It might not sit well with most consumers to be required to have a dash cam, but it surely might be a nice option for those interested to consider. I see many potential benefits, the idea has merit.

I've seen video from consumer installed dash cams that proved very useful. Surely you don't believe a new law requiring these camera's is needed? If someone wants a dash cam, they can buy one.

 

[DrTodd]

It might not sit well with most consumers to be required to have a dash cam, but it surely might be a nice option for those interested to consider. I see many potential benefits, the idea has merit.

I've seen video from consumer installed dash cams that proved very useful. Surely you don't believe a new law requiring these camera's is needed? If someone wants a dash cam, they can buy one.

Grapeshot appears to me to be saying that to require the dashcam would not sit well with most people...ie there are "issues". But, for some it may be a good idea to have one installed.

I don't see where he is saying that a law is needed requiring dashcams.

 

[stainless1911]

When others suggest the effectiveness of a camera to defend against prosecution, it's a good idea. When I do the same, this happens.

 

[scot623]

Grapeshot appears to me to be saying that to require the dashcam would not sit well with most people...ie there are "issues". But, for some it may be a good idea to have one installed.

I don't see where he is saying that a law is needed requiring dashcams.

The "idea" that was brought up by stainless and I have commented on is "government required dash cams". Grapeshot then commented on the "idea". Grapeshot concluded his statement that the "idea has merit". I can't help but think he was still talking about "government required dash cams". In fact, I asked him directly. So rather than you trying to decipher what he may have meant...I'm sure he'll be along any second to clarify.