Controversial gun activist arrested with 'silencer.....................

[chariot13]

I have to ask a hypothetical question regarding this situation. Those of you that are saying not only everything this guy was doing is legal (Which I agree), but feel police were in the wrong and should be sued, What would you say if your two children go to the city park by themselves if they are old enough or close to home and such, and such man walks into park with similar long gun and wearing bullet proof vest. As he is hanging around the playground which is full of kids and a few parents who are not carrying, a police officer walks up and in your minds, simply ask, "are you a felon"? The man responds, "no". The cop then says, " Ok, I can't detain you since you are exercising your rights" and then leaves. Two minutes later, the guy unloads his gun killing or wounding just about everyone in the playground vicinity and then is ready for police to show up to continue fighting.
What do you believe the police could or should have done? If your kid was killed, would you tell the news reporter, " I hate this person but nothing could have stopped this because he was legally correct when the police talked to him and could sit in the park or where ever it was with a gun, even though his bullet proof vest helped him last a bit longer in order to kill a few more adults who happened to be police".
Can one of you please give a polite, serious response to this question, or am I going to get stomped for asking a specific moral and ethical question.
P.S. I love guns, and love being able to carry!

Rights, and the Freedom that comes with them, supersede fear & the imaginary what if's that comes with them.

 

[MinnesotaORnewbie]

way to skirt the question. Is it really a imaginary situation with all the crap going on in this world today. Heck, some freak just used a car on the Long beach boardwalk as a weapon.

Rights, and the Freedom that comes with them, supersede fear & the imaginary what if's that comes with them.

 

[chariot13]

way to skirt the question. Is it really a imaginary situation with all the crap going on in this world today. Heck, some freak just used a car on the Long beach boardwalk as a weapon.

Yes, when something doesn't happen, it is completely imaginary, delusionary, made up and wishful thinking. If things were different than what they actually were, then it would be called reality now wouldn't it, but they didn't happen so they are not a part of reality. This is the problem with laws & many of the people in governments around the world. They make laws to resemble not reality and what did happen, but what they *imagine* could happen. Basing laws on what one could *imagine is the simplest way to cripple freedom that anyone could ever imagine.

 

[MinnesotaORnewbie]

I will take that as you have no reasonable answer or can't answer it.

 

[RoneKiln]

Trekkerpaul:

Are you a member of the Brady's? If not maybe you should join, you already think like they do.

Doing something that is legal is not "provoking" anyone. If you think it is a bad thing, it is you that needs to change, not him.

I can't help but imagine a small kid holding the tip of his finger inches from their sibling's face and chanting "I'm not touching you! I'm not touching you!"

Yes, you can provoke someone while obeying the law. Very easily. I do not dispute that he was perfectly in his legal rights. However he was sorely lacking in tact and grace. Two things that are sadly no longer valued much in this society (sometimes I wonder if they ever truly were).

Now, even an idiot douche should be treated with respect and consideration by the police when approached. They should also exhibit tact and grace. I have held my own against police that were acting dicks and refused to allow them to search my car. I have also chatted with a friendly officer while I let him go through my car because he was so polite and considerate in how he requested to be allowed to. It was perfectly legal for him to search because I chose to give permission, and I chose to give permission cause he was so well mannered in asking. I ended up having a blast chatting with him while we hung out in the sun.

It is hard to quantify tact, grace, respect, and politeness. I think these are the attributes most of us really want to see officers exhibiting the most. But without being able to easily quantify those attributes, we get more fussy on the details of the law than we might otherwise. Worse, without those attributes, an officer making even an honest mistake is unlikely to offer a sincere apology and strive to improve future performance.

I am not arguing all police are without tact and grace. It is the ones that are without these attributes that bully, threaten, and give other officers a bad reputation.

So it could be argued about this fool that provoked police, albeit legally. Sure it's legal. It's also without tact and grace. The failure of police to act appropriately does not magically excuse his poor performance. It's not like he was strolling to a local gravel pit to target shoot. He was not out on his way to hunt. He was solely waiting around for the police to show up.

 

[hermannr]

I can't help but imagine a small kid holding the tip of his finger inches from their sibling's face and chanting "I'm not touching you! I'm not touching you!"

Yes, you can provoke someone while obeying the law. Very easily. I do not dispute that he was perfectly in his legal rights. However he was sorely lacking in tact and grace. Two things that are sadly no longer valued much in this society (sometimes I wonder if they ever truly were).

Now, even an idiot douche should be treated with respect and consideration by the police when approached. They should also exhibit tact and grace. I have held my own against police that were acting dicks and refused to allow them to search my car. I have also chatted with a friendly officer while I let him go through my car because he was so polite and considerate in how he requested to be allowed to. It was perfectly legal for him to search because I chose to give permission, and I chose to give permission cause he was so well mannered in asking. I ended up having a blast chatting with him while we hung out in the sun.

It is hard to quantify tact, grace, respect, and politeness. I think these are the attributes most of us really want to see officers exhibiting the most. But without being able to easily quantify those attributes, we get more fussy on the details of the law than we might otherwise. Worse, without those attributes, an officer making even an honest mistake is unlikely to offer a sincere apology and strive to improve future performance.

I am not arguing all police are without tact and grace. It is the ones that are without these attributes that bully, threaten, and give other officers a bad reputation.

So it could be argued about this fool that provoked police, albeit legally. Sure it's legal. It's also without tact and grace. The failure of police to act appropriately does not magically excuse his poor performance. It's not like he was strolling to a local gravel pit to target shoot. He was not out on his way to hunt. He was solely waiting around for the police to show up.

You can thank him once he trains these officers to abide by the law. You can say whatever you want, but all you show is you do not have the gonads to do what is legal, that may invoke (not provoke) an illegal response by some in LE. Open Carry of a firearm is a legal activity, a legal activity guaranteed by both the US constitution and the Oregon (and WA) constitutions. If you allow some politicos and their followers to suppress these rights, you have given them away...they do not need to take them.

 

[Provincial]

I have to ask a hypothetical question regarding this situation. Those of you that are saying not only everything this guy was doing is legal (Which I agree), but feel police were in the wrong and should be sued, What would you say if your two children go to the city park by themselves if they are old enough or close to home and such, and such man walks into park with similar long gun and wearing bullet proof vest. As he is hanging around the playground which is full of kids and a few parents who are not carrying, a police officer walks up and in your minds, simply ask, "are you a felon"? The man responds, "no". The cop then says, " Ok, I can't detain you since you are exercising your rights" and then leaves. Two minutes later, the guy unloads his gun killing or wounding just about everyone in the playground vicinity and then is ready for police to show up to continue fighting.
What do you believe the police could or should have done? If your kid was killed, would you tell the news reporter, " I hate this person but nothing could have stopped this because he was legally correct when the police talked to him and could sit in the park or where ever it was with a gun, even though his bullet proof vest helped him last a bit longer in order to kill a few more adults who happened to be police".
Can one of you please give a polite, serious response to this question, or am I going to get stomped for asking a specific moral and ethical question.
P.S. I love guns, and love being able to carry!

At least in the Willamette Valley the LEO have recognized that open carry is legal and they have training in contacting persons that have been reported. There is a current thread in Legal and Political of just such an encounter in McMinnville, OR.

I recently had a conversation with a Polk County deputy where he mentioned that open carry activists are testing LEO response and trying to get a chance to sue. The various departments in the area have briefed the officers on how to handle these situations and the McMinnville video shows that the officers seem to be handling it well.

The LEO's should have training that enables them to determine the intent of the person they contact. We (the public) hire them, train them, and expect that they deal correctly with situations not only like the McMinnville one, but like the one you (MinnesotaORnewbie) describe. With a proper interview, the LEO should be able to discern the evil intent of your theoretical playground shooter. Believe it or not, the type of personality that would do a deed like that is not very sophisticated about hiding their real intent, and LEO training involves divining that intent.

This is one reason why we rely on the pros in situations like that. As a CCW holder, would you feel competent to determine the intent of your theoretical shooter?

In the case referred by the OP, the LEO did not do a good job. It was either a failure of training or an order from above to "do something" even if it was wrong.

 

[hermannr]

At least in the Willamette Valley the LEO have recognized that open carry is legal and they have training in contacting persons that have been reported. There is a current thread in Legal and Political of just such an encounter in McMinnville, OR.

I recently had a conversation with a Polk County deputy where he mentioned that open carry activists are testing LEO response and trying to get a chance to sue. The various departments in the area have briefed the officers on how to handle these situations and the McMinnville video shows that the officers seem to be handling it well.

The LEO's should have training that enables them to determine the intent of the person they contact. We (the public) hire them, train them, and expect that they deal correctly with situations not only like the McMinnville one, but like the one you (MinnesotaORnewbie) describe. With a proper interview, the LEO should be able to discern the evil intent of your theoretical playground shooter. Believe it or not, the type of personality that would do a deed like that is not very sophisticated about hiding their real intent, and LEO training involves divining that intent.

This is one reason why we rely on the pros in situations like that. As a CCW holder, would you feel competent to determine the intent of your theoretical shooter?

In the case referred by the OP, the LEO did not do a good job. It was either a failure of training or an order from above to "do something" even if it was wrong.

Ideally, like in Skagit Co and Okanogan Co here in WA, there is no contact, and there is no dispatch. The 911 operator determines that a person with an OC is doing nothing but carry...they will explain to the caller that OC of firearms in WA is completely legal. The 911 operator can do a lot of OC training of the public for us, and save LE resources for real problems.

If there is a dispatch, there still should be no contact. the LEO can observe from his car that there is nothing going on. We have to stop the idea that any weapon is a bad weapon, and anyone that openly carries a firearm is up to no good. FBI study shows exactly the opposite, those up to no good hide there weapons until they wish to use them illegally.

 

[rapgood]

I have held my own against police that were acting dicks and refused to allow them to search my car. I have also chatted with a friendly officer while I let him go through my car because he was so polite and considerate in how he requested to be allowed to. It was perfectly legal for him to search because I chose to give permission, and I chose to give permission cause he was so well mannered in asking. I ended up having a blast chatting with him while we hung out in the sun.

And therein lies the answer. Treat me with respect and I'll respond in kind. Be an @sshole and I'll respond in kind (and I submit that I'm a much bigger @sshole when the line is drawn). LEO approaches me in a dignified and civil manner and he'll get a dignified and civil response. It's really up to him. I just follow his lead.

You can take the boy out of the South, but you can't take the South out of the boy.

 

[ArgyleAdams]

I have to ask a hypothetical question regarding this situation. Those of you that are saying not only everything this guy was doing is legal (Which I agree), but feel police were in the wrong and should be sued, What would you say if your two children go to the city park by themselves if they are old enough or close to home and such, and such man walks into park with similar long gun and wearing bullet proof vest. As he is hanging around the playground which is full of kids and a few parents who are not carrying, a police officer walks up and in your minds, simply ask, "are you a felon"? The man responds, "no". The cop then says, " Ok, I can't detain you since you are exercising your rights" and then leaves. Two minutes later, the guy unloads his gun killing or wounding just about everyone in the playground vicinity and then is ready for police to show up to continue fighting.
What do you believe the police could or should have done? If your kid was killed, would you tell the news reporter, " I hate this person but nothing could have stopped this because he was legally correct when the police talked to him and could sit in the park or where ever it was with a gun, even though his bullet proof vest helped him last a bit longer in order to kill a few more adults who happened to be police".
Can one of you please give a polite, serious response to this question, or am I going to get stomped for asking a specific moral and ethical question.
P.S. I love guns, and love being able to carry!

The police absolutely have the right to stick around and keep an eye on the guy if they want. There's nothing preventing that. However, having a suspicion which may be reasonable is not the same as having "reasonable suspicion" which is the minimun of what is required to detain someone. So, yes, the police go up to him and ask him if he's a felon. He says he's not. They have no authority to detain him. If I were that cop I'd probably still stick around and keep an eye on things, but detaining him is not legal, it's harassment.

 

[MinnesotaORnewbie]

At least in the Willamette Valley the LEO have recognized that open carry is legal and they have training in contacting persons that have been reported. There is a current thread in Legal and Political of just such an encounter in McMinnville, OR.

I recently had a conversation with a Polk County deputy where he mentioned that open carry activists are testing LEO response and trying to get a chance to sue. The various departments in the area have briefed the officers on how to handle these situations and the McMinnville video shows that the officers seem to be handling it well.

The LEO's should have training that enables them to determine the intent of the person they contact. We (the public) hire them, train them, and expect that they deal correctly with situations not only like the McMinnville one, but like the one you (MinnesotaORnewbie) describe. With a proper interview, the LEO should be able to discern the evil intent of your theoretical playground shooter. Believe it or not, the type of personality that would do a deed like that is not very sophisticated about hiding their real intent, and LEO training involves divining that intent.

This is one reason why we rely on the pros in situations like that. As a CCW holder, would you feel competent to determine the intent of your theoretical shooter?

In the case referred by the OP, the LEO did not do a good job. It was either a failure of training or an order from above to "do something" even if it was wrong.

Great response, thank you for taking the time to share this. This was the type of response I was hoping for.

 

[Martini_Up]

Leonard Embody is a hero, IMO. If guys like this weren't out there exercising our rights, those rights would fade away due to the sheep crowd that believes in keeping your guns at home locked up until they become illegal altogether and are then taken away all awhile the sheep crowd complying with whatever any LEO says to do. History is filled with examples of how this ALWAYS goes bad for citizens.

 

[Father of four]

... If guys like this weren't out there exercising our rights, those rights would fade away due to the sheep crowd that believes in keeping your guns at home locked up until they become illegal altogether and are then taken away all awhile the sheep crowd complying with whatever any LEO says to do. History is filled with examples of how this ALWAYS goes bad for citizens.

I agree.

 

[Father of four]

... If guys like this weren't out there exercising our rights, those rights would fade away due to the sheep crowd that believes in keeping your guns at home locked up until they become illegal altogether and are then taken away all awhile the sheep crowd complying with whatever any LEO says to do. History is filled with examples of how this ALWAYS goes bad for citizens.

Don't forget the other crowd, the..."I am glad I got my CHL. Those laws don't apply to me."

 

[hermannr]

The police absolutely have the right to stick around and keep an eye on the guy if they want. There's nothing preventing that. However, having a suspicion which may be reasonable is not the same as having "reasonable suspicion" which is the minimun of what is required to detain someone. So, yes, the police go up to him and ask him if he's a felon. He says he's not. They have no authority to detain him. If I were that cop I'd probably still stick around and keep an eye on things, but detaining him is not legal, it's harassment.

and If the guy was a felon, he is under no obligation to even answer the question. 5A

 

[Father of four]

More bull crap, different day, from the police...» Seattle Journalist Threatened with Arrest, Workplace Harassment for Filming Police Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!

And...http://www.infowars.com/tulsa-police-deparment-no-thin-blue-line-here/

Great job to the good LEOS for holding that bad cop accountable! Keep up the good work!

 

[Misterbill]

That video is worthy of another thread in it's own right.

Journalist Says Seattle Cops Threatened Him For Filming Them - YouTube

 

[deen_ad]

I have also chatted with a friendly officer while I let him go through my car because he was so polite and considerate in how he requested to be allowed to. It was perfectly legal for him to search because I chose to give permission, and I chose to give permission cause he was so well mannered in asking. I ended up having a blast chatting with him while we hung out in the sun.

Unless the law has been changed in the last session the officer actually has every legal right to search your vehicle even if you didn't allow it. Been to the State Supreme Court too. It's for "officer safety", they can search your vehicle for weapons.

 

[hermannr]

Unless the law has been changed in the last session the officer actually has every legal right to search your vehicle even if you didn't allow it. Been to the State Supreme Court too. It's for "officer safety", they can search your vehicle for weapons.

IF you are suspected of a CRIME (a traffic infraction is not a crime) they may search your car in conjunction with an ARREST.

HOWEVER, for a simple traffic stop, or casual conversation on the street, they have absolutely NO RIGHT to search anything, or even pat you down.

I do not care how sugar sweet the words, he needs your consent to search, unless you are suspect of a CRIME!!!!

READ Delaware V Prouse (US Supreme Court)

 

[Kwikrnu]

After reading the posts on this thread, my hope that people will stand up for their rights is renewed.