Discussion in 'Legal & Political Archive' started by dmancornell, Jun 26, 2012.
The police need to know the laws. What should have happened is that the dispatcher should have told the people that called that open carry was legal and all of this could have been avoided.
Not saying the guy was wrong. In fact, he had plenty of legal stuff to back up his actions and do what he did. Just seems like both the guy and the LEO made that a lot more difficult than it had to be.
Sir the video doesn't work
Original video gone, here is a copy
That was absolutely beautiful!!!! you know that LEO had to feel about an inch tall after his boss let the guy go! Good for him.
Very unsettling. (and humerous)
So it's not just our children that must be educated about guns.
That video should be MANDATORY watching for all officers.
If by "proper" you mean "educating the officer on individual rights while acting like a smug a-hole that used to get beat up a lot before he could carry a gun" then yes, I think this thread was titled properly.
There are plenty of ways to make your point without being a dbag. It's a pity that so many people choose the alternative.
Law student = smug a-hole in training.
What would you do differently, please share ?
Don't forget to mention your opinion of lawyers to Alan Gura.
I've never met him. But every single attorney (without exception) I have dealt with has been. Even the ones I've had working FOR me. I stand by my opinion.
First thing? Shut off the video camera. Maybe it would end up that one chance in a thousand where I get roughed up/abused, but I'd be willing to take that chance.
Two? I would communicate the law to the officer in as a respectful a tone as possible indicating my understanding of it. If he chose to disagree still, I would politely ask him to contact his shift lieutenant or sergeant to come mediate what would appear to be a dispute in understanding of the law.
This guy made a show of it to make a point. In the short term, I'm sure it felt really good to him. In the long term, he's being a dbag that that officer and all in his department will attach to anyone OC'ing. And they'll bear the brunt of his transgressions.
Now this is the opposite problem. Why would you take that chance, what for ? What do you have to prove ?
I didn't see too much of impoliteness there. Our guy was a bit nervous, but overall handling of the situation on his side was pretty good.
That I agree, and it was a necessary show.
I think you're forgetting how civil rights work - use them or lose them The department has to suck it up and provide better training to their officers and dispatchers.
I kind of agree with you SonicBlue, but if an officer decides not to educate himself in the core laws of his trade, I find that to be of greater concern than whether he will hold a grudge against the next citizen.
As I have been told by the law in the past. Ignorance of the law is no excuse.
Well, you don't realize it, but Alan Gura has been, and is working for you. You may want to check it out in here Alan Gura - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and in here Second Amendment Foundation Online
It's not officer's responsibility to educate himself. It is department's responsibility to ensure the officers are suited for the job.
Ignorance of the law is no excuse unless you have qualified immunity
Agree very much with that last sentence. And also agree that there's an issue if the officer isn't fully aware of the law. As citizens we have the opportunity to educate them in a non-confrontational way and give them the chance to better themselves or - in some cases - not.
@fd15k - why would turning the camera off be a mistake? So you'd prefer immediate escalation of the situation vs. managing it in a calm, rational way? At the end of the day, even if an officer gives me attitude I'm not that worried that I can't handle myself appropriately to de-escalate a situation.
Ultimately moot anyway - I don't OC because I don't see any measurable value to it.
The guy sounded more nervous than smug to me. Him being a law student shouldn't even factor into this conversation. Just my $.02.
Because "playing" with firearms and cops is a dangerous business. We have seen many examples of LEO encounters going wrong. Many officers have been convicted over the years. You (or anybody else) don't want to end up having your word against theirs, because in absence of witnesses their word wins. That's just the practical side of it. Second thing to remember is that the guy is clearly involved in political activism, and camera was necessary for achieving his objectives.
Yes, I am not gay either, and I would rather deprive people of marriage benefits all equally
Separate names with a comma.