Rude cops

[cascadianliberty2012]

Well that is messed up. I was not sure the trespassing charge would have stuck given that he was on a public sidewalk when he was arrested. Intimidation? Way to split the regulatory hairs on that one. However I am stuck on the idea of "intent to intimidate"

If I have the right one, the RCW that seems to come into play is RCW 9.41.270, which states in pertinent part

(1) It shall be unlawful for any person to carry, exhibit, display, or draw any firearm, dagger, sword, knife or other cutting or stabbing instrument, club, or any other weapon apparently capable of producing bodily harm, in a manner, under circumstances, and at a time and place that either manifests an intent to intimidate another or that warrants alarm for the safety of other persons. (emphasis added)

Seeing the first video last night, I am wondering where he manifested the intent to intimidate. Seems he will have lost his CPL (if he had one) at the very least because of it.

Interesting I would like to see how they arrived at that charge and conviction. Can't watch the video right now, but will watch later when I get home.

Exactly. The trespassing charge was dropped at least, but apparently that was the reason for arrest, which I don't understand given his being on a sidewalk. The intimidation charge came later from my understanding.


F___ the government.

 

[old11bravo]

What a bubbleguming idiot!! I can't stand these bubblegums that try and bait law enforcement for a reaction and then try to glorify it on YouTube. Darwinism will take care of this complete fool!

 

[Redcap]

A.C.A.B.

 

[Lange22250]

What a bubbleguming idiot!! I can't stand these bubblegums that try and bait law enforcement for a reaction and then try to glorify it on YouTube. Darwinism will take care of this complete fool!

That complete fool is going to get a payday from the city of Vanvouver. The actions of the officers were clearly illegal and more than likely violate department policy.
And it's all on video.

 

[old11bravo]

That complete fool is going to get a payday from the city of Vanvouver. The actions of the officers were clearly illegal and more than likely violate department policy.
And it's all on video.

That "payday" you refer to will come out of our taxpaying pockets! If the police reacted any differently to an AR toting idiot in my neighborhood, I would be disappointed.

As law enforcement I fully expect them to investigate any retard walking around my neighborhood with an AR slung across his back. If they don't investigate it, they will be harshly criticized for not doing their job. Better them than some trigger happy citizen smoking the fool for carrying in an area where their children walk and play.

I'm all for 2A but this guy is a tard in the way he goes about making his point. He is looking for a payday out of mine and your pockets.

 

[ZA_Survivalist]

Ive never met a street pirate I liked.
Paid bullies in uniform that answer to no one and have a million dollar lawyer team for when they get caught.

 

[bakersman345]

Watch the video again. He tried to leave, but the cops got in his way and wouldn't let him "walk towards them." He then tried to go to his car, but was denied that. Then he went another way and was arrested. "Asking for it" has never been a justification for a crime. Short skirts, twerking, and slutty behavior doesn't make a rape victim "in the wrong."

We live in a hyper sensitive society when a person sees a guy walking down the street with a ar-15 they are going to call the cops and the police are going to be a little nervous about it. They let him leave it seemed like they were hinting at him to go away until they were gone to return to his business. He wasn't convicted by the cops. I don't think comparing cleavage and short bottoms to a guy wondering the streets with a black riffle is a fair comparison.-- but yeah he wasn't breaking the law by carrying his rifle slung in his back but it's a disturbance.

 

[bakersman345]

That "payday" you refer to will come out of our taxpaying pockets! If the police reacted any differently to an AR toting idiot in my neighborhood, I would be disappointed.

As law enforcement I fully expect them to investigate any retard walking around my neighborhood with an AR slung across his back. If they don't investigate it, they will be harshly criticized for not doing their job. Better them than some trigger happy citizen smoking the fool for carrying in an area where their children walk and play.

I'm all for 2A but this guy is a tard in the way he goes about making his point. He is looking for a payday out of mine and your pockets.

+2

 

[Lange22250]

That "payday" you refer to will come out of our taxpaying pockets! If the police reacted any differently to an AR toting idiot in my neighborhood, I would be disappointed.

As law enforcement I fully expect them to investigate any retard walking around my neighborhood with an AR slung across his back. If they don't investigate it, they will be harshly criticized for not doing their job. Better them than some trigger happy citizen smoking the fool for carrying in an area where their children walk and play.

I'm all for 2A but this guy is a tard in the way he goes about making his point. He is looking for a payday out of mine and your pockets.

Police are constrained by the law. You obviously don't like the law but too bad for you, that's life.

The police violated the rule of law and the city/tax payers will pay because that's how it works. I would be surprised if there is not a policy concerning open carry of a long gun in the VPD policy manual and they probably violated that too. That department has issues with professionalism.

Police will always face criticism. That's the way it is and should not induce them to violate the law AND the oath they took to uphold the constitution. Stops such as the one in the video have been ruled a violation of an individuals rights by the US Supreme Court.

Not that long ago the statement from people who didn't understand the constitution was "I expect the police to investigate any N word (hate the substitution program as the intent of a sentence is destroyed) walking around in my neighborhood."

 

[ZigZagZeke]

I think open carry provocations like this are stupid and counterproductive, but the stop was illegal from the time they disarmed him. The officers involved need to be disciplined. Hernandez's behavior should be grounds for dismissal. We don't need hair trigger psychos with a chip on their shoulder patrolling our streets with guns. She's a danger to society.

Let me be REAL clear here. My dad was a chief of police of a small force in WV. He taught me that the police have ZERO business making judgments about the ultimate guilt of suspects, or their worth as human beings. If suspects appear to be violating the law they are arrested, period. That does not include punishment or condemnation by the cops. Name calling, insults, attitudes, and excessive force have no place in police work. He would have fired Hernandez on the spot for being unprofessional.

 

[GrpCapMandrake]

Stops such as the one in the video have been ruled a violation of an individuals rights by the US Supreme Court.

Do you have a citation to a specific court case? I am not arguing your point I am simply asking out of curiosity, as I cannot recall a specific case of this type in the SCOTUS.

 

[etrain16]

This is a bit of a tough one. On the one hand, the guy is out there with a rifle and a camera - why? Because he wants something to happen - he expects something to happen. It's good for his YT video views. Unfortunately, while we do have a POV of the guy who was carrying, we don't have a POV of the cops point of view. So even though it's video, it's still a bit one-sided.

So much went wrong here - and I put the blame on both sides. The guy chose to be non-compliant, though he was polite, he still raises the hackles of the officers by choosing to be a prick about giving them information - and yes, I know he's not 'required' to, but give me a break. The cops, on the other hand, seemed to be far more amped up than the situation appeared to warrant - I have to agree that Hernandez looks like she needs some counseling for that 'chip on her shoulder' attitude she seems to be sporting. That and the fact that the officers were conflicting with each other's commands and you have a situation that's bound to get out of control. When it was time for him to leave, I do have to wonder where he was supposed to go. I agree he shouldn't have gone back on the property toward the officers there, but why wasn't he allowed to walk back to his car? That seemed like a no-win situation for him and I think a review of the officers' commands and planning on that one need some serious review.

Overall, I put the blame somewhat equally on both sides. Personally though, I don't see these types of 'protests' doing the 2nd amendment fight any good. In this case, he's now been found guilty - how the heck does that help us? He's easily portrayed in the media as a crazy guy with a gun and a camera just asking for a confrontation. Again, how the heck does that help us? It's not making converts, I'll tell you that much. If anything, it's turning people away from being accepting of ordinary citizens being armed. Was it illegal? Probably not. Was it poor judgment on his part? Absolutely. I'm afraid I have little sympathy for this guy. Nor do I have appreciation for the clear over-reaction of the police. Both sides need some punishment here IMHO

 

[Lange22250]

Do you have a citation to a specific court case? I am not arguing your point I am simply asking out of curiosity, as I cannot recall a specific case of this type in the SCOTUS.

It is a 4th amendment issue, not a 2nd. Here is a decision by an 11th circuit (IIRC) court citing relevant Supreme Court Cases - http://www.georgiacarry.com/county/richmond_carry/Doc 11 Consent Order.pdf

Bottom line is that the officers need to be able to show that they had some probable cause to believe that a crime was being committed to detain him. Open carry is legal so no PC and ignorance of the law is no excuse.
They can walk up and start a conversation as long as he chose to participate but no detention and no seizure of property.
I really doubt that the orders to walk the other way were legal either.

 

[bakersman345]

After watching many other videos about the same subject I still think walking around with an ar-15 is dumb but the point is good. It is to show you that you as a citizen has rights procured under the constitution and you are protected I like seeing people standing up for amendments 1,2,4,and 5 all at once

 

[Certaindeaf]

I think people who open carry rifles are idiots, but that aside hows the cops attitude?

Don't know. Didn't click. Rude?. back in the old days you'd just get clubbed upside the head before hello. hello?

 

[John H]

Police are constrained by the law.

Really, you sure can't tell by the way they act, all around the Country.

 

[mkwerx]

1.) This guy is a moron who, if he continues such antics, is likely to get shot by the police at some point.

2.) Just because you "can" do something doesn't mean you "should."

3.) The cops were way over the top in how they handled this. I agree Hernandez was the most out of line, and she needs to be flipping burgers someplace and asking if they want fries with that, rather than being in any position of authority. The likelihood that she is going to wax a citizen seems high. I bet she's one of the cops that won't engage a suspect until there's a half dozen other cops around either - afraid of her shadow alone but full of bravado once she's got plenty of backup.

4.) The city of Vancouver is probably going to be paying this asswagon a tidy sum of money, so you Washington taxpayers get to pay for this guy's stupidity, and the stupidity of your police officers.

5.) Every situation like this needs one officer in charge of the scene, one officer who issues commands and deals with the suspect while the others maintain the security of the scene. The confusing, conflicting orders set him up for the arrest, and maybe that is exactly what they were planning? They couldn't arrest him for non-compliance, as he'd committed no crime and was not under legal compulsion to ID himself or answer their questions. That commits the unofficial crime of Pissing Off the Police and he got popped for it.

6.) Walking around with a long gun in an urban place is not normal socially accepted behavior and it never will be in our society. Walking around with a long gun and a camera baiting police does nothing to help the pro-gun rights movement, nor does it help with the tax payers who must pay for at the minimum your waste of police resources, potentially escalating into your arrest, trial, incarceration and potential civil trial and any receipts from such. One bubblegum clown pushing the limits can cause hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not millions - because of his asshattery. What do these Mensa members THINK is going to happen when they bait the police like this? He's lucky he didn't get shot. Next time maybe he won't be so lucky.

7.) VPD needs a refresher on the laws and caselaw covering the 4th and 5th amendments as well as Washington's own gun laws. They could also take a clue from say, Medford PD in how to handle an OC stop when they're made. From the OC vids I've seen, Medford's PD handles these same situations with a lot more tact and respect from the officers.

8.) The actions of these YouTubers make less sense to me than seeing a bunny rabbit with a pancake on his head.

 

[ZA_Survivalist]

they have too much time in their hands.

tired of seeing people whoring out open carry right and make huge big deal out it.

I didn't see any rude cops in this video.

You've got to be joking?
I suppose with that logic when a leo shoots an already detained civilian, it must somehow be the civilians fault right?

The leos were out of line and very on edge. The comments made by what should be "professionals" were inappropriate.

They dont get paid to speak their mind.. But apparently they can do and say whatever they want without any kind of repercussion.
Try that at your job jack.. Doubt you have a million dollar defense team in your corner ready to bail you out for your actions.

Have any of you anti OCers thought that without documentation of these events that even more of the said individuals rights might be ignored?

Leos are power hungry on edge armed bullies. Apparently they can do and say whatever they wish.
But I guess thats alright with you guys?

You know what else isn't "normal"
What about folks with religious garb that completely covers their face in high security areas? Why should they get away with that? Its only a matter of time before criminals catch on.

Again, when it comes to self expression and self identification who are you all to say whats right and whats wrong?

A defensive lifestyle is an individuals choice, OCing may not be the "norm" but neither is: religious clothing, urban street thugs, cross dressers and furries.. The list goes on.. They are no more a threat than an OCer.

Thats not to say OCing a rifle is like cross dressing, but to some perhaps they just feel more natural carrying a firearm. I know I do.

Yet we never take the time to get to know the individual.. Yet you all still make stupid, uninformed, biased, rash, judgmental comments having never OCed before.. Most of you are secret shame firearm owners that do little to help the cause anyway.
..Monday morning quarterbacks.

A house divided fellas.

 

[Lange22250]

"they're pointing guns at me right now..."

Yeah, they don't get to do that unless they believe and can articulate that he is breaking the law and an immediate threat.

apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.41.230

 

[Redcap]

Yeah, they don't get to do that unless they believe and can articulate that he is breaking the law and an immediate threat.

apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.41.230

...you don't seriously believe that, do you?