One Good Cop
- Thread starter Dominoelover thegamenotthepizza
- Start date
Help Support Ford SportTrac Forum:
Jacob Dryer
Well-Known Member
Mixed feelings..
why did he stop him? Just because he is open carrying?
Thats like stopping someone because they are driving. I just wanted to check to make sure you weren't breaking any laws.
At the same time, he defiantly was respectful, and didn't press the issue and violate any other rights of Jerry's.
This video is currently be discussed on another forum I'm on (motorcycles, not guns..)
<iframe width="560" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/rasQ0ktGiyM" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Same issue, except with this one we know that someone called him in for exercising his right to carry.
why did he stop him? Just because he is open carrying?
Thats like stopping someone because they are driving. I just wanted to check to make sure you weren't breaking any laws.
At the same time, he defiantly was respectful, and didn't press the issue and violate any other rights of Jerry's.
This video is currently be discussed on another forum I'm on (motorcycles, not guns..)
<iframe width="560" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/rasQ0ktGiyM" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Same issue, except with this one we know that someone called him in for exercising his right to carry.
Kevin Lang
Well-Known Member
Is this sarcastic? I don't see anything "good" about this.
The cop didn't seem to confirm anything about the man's identity nor his story. This police harassment did nothing for safety, or as I should say it, "safety". Speaking of safety, was that police officer truly in ignorance of the operation of the safety of a s&w .40, or was that just further patronization of the armed citizen?
The cops stopped the man because there "are a lot of people here on the holidays and we don't know what their agenda is" (paraphrase). That's the lamest, thinnest, justification I've heard since Pelosi's "We have to pass the bill to read the bill".
This video might have had a "happy" ending, but what would have happened if the man's gun had been loaded? In that scenario I wouldn't see him walking away, nor the cops being so congenial. That one cop might have given his name but all I heard was Donnie Wahlberg :grin:
BTW the cop seemed to give his badge number, but I couldn't read it in the video to confirm (as if that would have been any confirmation). Did anyone else make it out? To be honest I was having issue bringing myself to look at the screen as I was disgusted by what it showed. :throwup:
:throwup:
The cop didn't seem to confirm anything about the man's identity nor his story. This police harassment did nothing for safety, or as I should say it, "safety". Speaking of safety, was that police officer truly in ignorance of the operation of the safety of a s&w .40, or was that just further patronization of the armed citizen?
The cops stopped the man because there "are a lot of people here on the holidays and we don't know what their agenda is" (paraphrase). That's the lamest, thinnest, justification I've heard since Pelosi's "We have to pass the bill to read the bill".
This video might have had a "happy" ending, but what would have happened if the man's gun had been loaded? In that scenario I wouldn't see him walking away, nor the cops being so congenial. That one cop might have given his name but all I heard was Donnie Wahlberg :grin:
BTW the cop seemed to give his badge number, but I couldn't read it in the video to confirm (as if that would have been any confirmation). Did anyone else make it out? To be honest I was having issue bringing myself to look at the screen as I was disgusted by what it showed. :throwup:
:throwup:
Wow, with such good gun control in California, gun related violence must be non-existent.:banghead:
I had a friend in Alabama get pulled over earlier this week riding a metropolitan scooter while exercising his legal right for open carry. After being given his carry permit, the cop then proceeded to reach for my friend's gun, which he did not allow to happen. He told him that he knew his rights and asked him to respect them. The cop then said that as long as he continues to openly carry, situations like that will continue to occur.:angry:
I'm not sure if the cop was more upset by him openly carrying or that he is a 6' 4", 250 lb man riding a metropolitan scooter in Alabama.
I had a friend in Alabama get pulled over earlier this week riding a metropolitan scooter while exercising his legal right for open carry. After being given his carry permit, the cop then proceeded to reach for my friend's gun, which he did not allow to happen. He told him that he knew his rights and asked him to respect them. The cop then said that as long as he continues to openly carry, situations like that will continue to occur.:angry:
I'm not sure if the cop was more upset by him openly carrying or that he is a 6' 4", 250 lb man riding a metropolitan scooter in Alabama.
Kevin Lang
Well-Known Member
So the cops would rather that armed citizens conceal carry instead of open carry? That's like a step backwards IMO...
I can't imagine that dudes riding those baby scooters around is rare in Alabama.
Kevin Lang
Well-Known Member
I suppose I could understand it if he went to Auburn. The side of my family with strong ties to Alabama has a seething hatred for Auburn, and refuse to refer to it by name :bwahaha::bwahaha:
EddieS'04
In Memoriam 1950-2022
I would much rather conceal carry loaded, than open carry unloaded. IMO, an exposed unloaded gun is more dangerous....Think about it.:grin:
I like my pocket 380...
Thomas Rogers
Well-Known Member
This cop did a number of things wrong.
He stopped and asked about a gun being carried by someone breaking no laws, and clearly in a state that doesn't require a carry permit (I say clearly because he never asked to see the permit). That's strike #1.
Strike #2 is that he asked for identification when there was no lawful stop for a detainable offense. That is unconstitutional.
Strike #3 was that he told the pedestrian that he had to give his name, verbally, in lieu of having ID. That's simply wrong if there is no detainable offense stop. Again, unconstitutional.
Three strikes, and I think you should be out, riding a desk for a month, or maybe the couch with no pay for a week.
TJR
He stopped and asked about a gun being carried by someone breaking no laws, and clearly in a state that doesn't require a carry permit (I say clearly because he never asked to see the permit). That's strike #1.
Strike #2 is that he asked for identification when there was no lawful stop for a detainable offense. That is unconstitutional.
Strike #3 was that he told the pedestrian that he had to give his name, verbally, in lieu of having ID. That's simply wrong if there is no detainable offense stop. Again, unconstitutional.
Three strikes, and I think you should be out, riding a desk for a month, or maybe the couch with no pay for a week.
TJR
Last edited by a moderator:
george dunphy
Member
Come on guys,
I've was a cop in South LA for three years in the 70's and a Deputy in Colrado for 34 years. We got several calls about a guy with a gun on his hip in these days and times with all the gun violence, don't you think we should have an obligation to check it out based on calls received. If you didn't hear it he called the San Jose Officer a dusch, what's going on in his mind......
We only try to do the job the best we can.......
I've was a cop in South LA for three years in the 70's and a Deputy in Colrado for 34 years. We got several calls about a guy with a gun on his hip in these days and times with all the gun violence, don't you think we should have an obligation to check it out based on calls received. If you didn't hear it he called the San Jose Officer a dusch, what's going on in his mind......
We only try to do the job the best we can.......
Kevin Lang
Well-Known Member
No, I for one do not, not when carrying a gun in public is legal. Why should the police waste their time stopping law abiding citizens?
If law abiding citizens continue to get harassed for legal open carry, then I predict they will stop carrying guns openly. Though I doubt they'll stop carrying their guns, and if concealed carry isn't legal, then the law will have effectively made criminals out of law abiders. :sad:
Also, I agree that open carry of an unloaded weapon can be asking for trouble. That doesn't mean that police have to intervene.
BTW the cop who did the talking, the one who sounded like Donnie Wahlberg off of Blue Bloods, approached the "armed suspect" alone. His fellow cop was still across the street, a street with moving traffic, and hadn't even gotten out of the car when the approach was made. The approaching cop also did not seem very cautious on his approach. Isn't that a violation of police protocol?
...if the shoe fits...
Act like an ass and get treated like an ass.
If I am breaking laws, then I am breaking laws. If I am NOT breaking a law, LEAVE ME THE HELL ALONE!!!!
Cop or not, you have NO RIGHT to ask me questions if I am doing noting wrong. if you want to ask questions, please arrest me. It will make it easier to sue the police department.
Anyone that is willing to sacrifice liberty for security deserves neither.
Tom
Robert Thomas
Well-Known Member
So the Policeman gets a call from the dispatcher about someone with a firearm. The Police Officer sees the individual carrying a firearm legally. The Officer ignores the individual because he believes it is a legal carry. The individual goes straight to a local restaurant and kills several people, including your wife and kids.
The individual later found to be a convicted felon, mentally ustable, and on his way to kill his old boss.
Do you praise the policeman for upholding the rights of the killer to bear arms (which he incidently only seemed to have) or condemn him for not easly preventing the killings?
The individual later found to be a convicted felon, mentally ustable, and on his way to kill his old boss.
Do you praise the policeman for upholding the rights of the killer to bear arms (which he incidently only seemed to have) or condemn him for not easly preventing the killings?
Gary DiPietroSr
Well-Known Member
We supposedly have legal open carry here in CT, but very few challenge it. I asked a friend who is a local St. Trooper and he said he would stop anyone carrying openly and arrest them. They will get off, but he is going to hassle them anyway. Personally, I like to keep a low profile. If I need to pull my concealed weapon, only the purp will know about it. I don't have a problem with the officer asking anyone questions, that's his job. Like q-tip said, that kid called the cop a douche and he's just looking to be a PITA to the cops. IMO, the kid is a jerk with no respect for authority.
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2006
- Messages
- 1,873
- Reaction score
- 65
- What engine do you have?
- V8 engine
- What year is your Sport Trac?
- 2007
- What Generation is your Sport Trac?
- 2n Gen Owner
There is probably quite a bit of history here between all parties in the second video. Seems to me the 1st officer was trying to clarify, on the young man's terms, so he could smooth the way for his encounter with the 2nd batch of officers(San Jose). I think Redfish has a great point and I have mixed emotions for this whole situation.
Last edited by a moderator:
Kevin Lang
Well-Known Member
That's a pointless & loaded question
If the armed citizen in this video had been intent on shooting someone, he could have easily done so after being stopped by the cop. Again, the police harassment did nothing to stop that outcome.You condone the police for harassing a legal citizen because he might commit a crime with a firearm? That's even worse than Minority Report.
Under that logic, the cops need to stop every citizen on the street & give them pointless questioning as they might be carrying a concealed weapon.
Why should anyone be expected to respect authority that doesn't respect us, or its own rules?
Robert Thomas
Well-Known Member
To answer you question, "no" I do not condone the police harassing anyone. Sorry, I don't know what the "Minority Report" is?
However, in video number one, the officer made a stop based on a public complaint. Determined that the individual was not a threat and released him quickly. Had the individual demonstrated to be a certified nut, a danger to himself, or a individual not allowed to possess a firearm. Then a possible bad thing, as presented in the example, could have been prevented. It would have saved you from being on the 6:00PM news with you lawyer, calling for the removal of the officer, and millions in compensation.
Now maybe you can answer my question.
Gary DiPietroSr
Well-Known Member
The kid is clearly trying to provoke anyone who sees him carrying openly and by walking around with a video camera, seems to be proof of that. The cop was doing his job, not harassing him. People shouldn't get ticked off by a cop asking questions. I feel better when I see routine checks for drunk drivers, and I thank them for doing it if I get stopped.
imagine this...
The police gets a call because someone is driving their car and they do not recognize that person. The officer pulls up behind that person and observes their behavior. The person is wering their seat belt, driving the speed limit, driving safely, etc. The officer ignores the complaint because he is driving legally. The individual drives his car into a local restauraunt killing several people, including your wife and kids.
The individual is later found to be driving with a suspended license, habitual DUI recipient, and on his way to kill his former boss.
Do you praise the policeman for upholding the rights of that car driver or condemn him for not preventing automobilecide?
Wait, driving is not a RIGHT!
Owning a gun is! If the guy was going to go on his way to kill his former boss, do you think it would be logical that the guy would not carry it open? After all, if he is commiting a crime such as murder, following the laws of proper firearm transport is the least of his worries.
Get real! The guy was carrying his firearm legally. Is he doing it to get the cops worked up? Absolutly! Is he wrong for doing so? Not one bit.
Since it seems like this is the communist state of Commiefornia with a concealed carry law of "May issue", he is fighting back because the state doesn't think he is important enough to be able to protect his life.
Thank GOD I live in a "shall Issue" state. This means that unless there is a legal reason I am NOT allowed to carry a gun, they must issue me a CCW permit. In Commiefornia, unless there is a good reason I should be allowed to carry a gun, they do not have to issue me a permit.
Tom
Robert Thomas
Well-Known Member
Some Things to Consider
Terry vs Ohio
California Open Carry Law
California Open Carry, continued
12031. (a) (1) A person is guilty of carrying a loaded firearm when he or she carries a loaded firearm on his or her
person or in a vehicle while in any public place or on any public street in an incorporated city or in any public place or
on any public street in a prohibited area of unincorporated territory.
(e) In order to determine whether or not a firearm is loaded for the purpose of enforcing this section, peace officers are
authorized to examine any firearm carried by anyone on his or her person or in a vehicle while in any public place or on
any public street in an incorporated city or prohibited area of an unincorporated territory. Refusal to allow a peace officer
to inspect a firearm pursuant to this section constitutes probable cause for arrest for violation of this section.
What is your answer to the orginal question.
Terry vs Ohio
California Open Carry Law
California Open Carry, continued
12031. (a) (1) A person is guilty of carrying a loaded firearm when he or she carries a loaded firearm on his or her
person or in a vehicle while in any public place or on any public street in an incorporated city or in any public place or
on any public street in a prohibited area of unincorporated territory.
(e) In order to determine whether or not a firearm is loaded for the purpose of enforcing this section, peace officers are
authorized to examine any firearm carried by anyone on his or her person or in a vehicle while in any public place or on
any public street in an incorporated city or prohibited area of an unincorporated territory. Refusal to allow a peace officer
to inspect a firearm pursuant to this section constitutes probable cause for arrest for violation of this section.
What is your answer to the orginal question.
