This idiot needs to be stopped!

[WhyteCheddar]

I disagree, IF I call in and say that I see someone who looks suspicious to me, and the 911 operator does their job and questions me to see if my concern is at all founded, they can choose to not send out an officer if they determine there is no real risk. IF they have no choice, then I could call in and cause illegal searches all day long. So like the guy in the video said, if he sees someone he thinks is suspicious for some other reason that the officers do not agree with, they will dismiss it. He made a solid point.





we will surely never go back to the 2A side if guys like this give up and we don't support them......

I respect your perspective, but as a fully trained and certified Emergency telecommunications specialist I can say that you are exactly wrong.
The 911 operator/call taker will and should interegate the caller but has zero choice as to passing along the call to the police or not. The police make the decision to follow up on the call, not the call taker/dispatcher. IE, see the 'litigious society' comment again.

 

[addiction]

I respect your perspective, but as a fully trained and certified Emergency telecommunications specialist I can say that you are exactly wrong.
The 911 operator/call taker will and should interegate the caller but has zero choice as to passing along the call to the police or not. The police make the decision to follow up on the call, not the call taker/dispatcher. IE, see the 'litigious society' comment again.

ok, so I had the process wrong, but the result is the same. not every in bound call results in a visit from the police....the decision is made when it warrants a visit or not. So there is a bias towards anti gun in public if they go out to all of those and do not go out for others.....that was my point. If more law biding citizens open carried, it would become more acceptable and the police would find it un necessary to check them all out. I know in CA this resulted in open carry being banned, but really it a question of fight for your rights or not. If you fight and loose, well you know you tried, if you don't fight and they erode well you still loose but you allowed it to happen.

 

[drew]

I hope the next POTUS undoes everything this clown has done, and in short order.

I almost agree with you. I'm currently carrying in a National Park and its legal. We don't need to undo that.

 

[rufus]

I almost agree with you. I'm currently carrying in a National Park and its legal. We don't need to undo that.

You got me there.

 

[Tangent123123]

ok, so I had the process wrong, but the result is the same. not every in bound call results in a visit from the police....the decision is made when it warrants a visit or not. So there is a bias towards anti gun in public if they go out to all of those and do not go out for others.....that was my point. If more law biding citizens open carried, it would become more acceptable and the police would find it un necessary to check them all out. I know in CA this resulted in open carry being banned, but really it a question of fight for your rights or not. If you fight and loose, well you know you tried, if you don't fight and they erode well you still loose but you allowed it to happen.

It's a tricky balance isn't it?

Public safety vs. personal rights.

Where do you draw the line? Where do they overlap and which has priority?

When you make a call to 911 what happens if you don't get a response? What happens when you don't get a response and someone gets hurt or killed? You can bet your *** that someone is going to get sued.

Sending an officer over to do a drive by and make sure the person isn't acting eratic or at least asking for a piece of ID is a lot cheaper then the millions it will cost in court after the fact. So yeah, just from a pure logic perspective, of course there is a bias towards anti-gun in public. Rights or not, it's dollars and cents and covering ones ***.

The public expects to be protected and when it's not the first response is to start pointing fingers so they know who they get to sue.

 

[dmancornell]

It's a tricky balance isn't it?

Public safety vs. personal rights.

What's so tricky about it. The public can protect itself instead if relying on a bunch of state goons to do a crappy job. Problem solved.

 

[WhyteCheddar]

ok, so I had the process wrong, but the result is the same. not every in bound call results in a visit from the police....the decision is made when it warrants a visit or not. So there is a bias towards anti gun in public if they go out to all of those and do not go out for others.....that was my point. If more law biding citizens open carried, it would become more acceptable and the police would find it un necessary to check them all out. I know in CA this resulted in open carry being banned, but really it a question of fight for your rights or not. If you fight and loose, well you know you tried, if you don't fight and they erode well you still loose but you allowed it to happen.

So the issue is how do you go about 'fighting' it.
IMHO this guy is going about it all wrong. The complete absence of any people skills is not helping him at all. The point could of been made in a non-combative manner. He was a real arse.

 

[Tangent123123]

What's so tricky about it. The public can protect itself instead if relying on a bunch of state goons to do a crappy job. Problem solved.

The public being who? You? Sure, maybe you can. But what about grandma and grandpa? What about that blind guy next door? Or is it just surivival of the fittest and f*ck everyone else? Just more victims for the grinder? You can't have a functioning society without someone creacting enforcing some set of rules and setting limits on things.

 

[toywin12]

It's a tricky balance isn't it?

Public safety vs. personal rights.

Where do you draw the line? Where do they overlap and which has priority?

When you make a call to 911 what happens if you don't get a response? What happens when you don't get a response and someone gets hurt or killed? You can bet your *** that someone is going to get sued.

Sending an officer over to do a drive by and make sure the person isn't acting eratic or at least asking for a piece of ID is a lot cheaper then the millions it will cost in court after the fact. So yeah, just from a pure logic perspective, of course there is a bias towards anti-gun in public. Rights or not, it's dollars and cents and covering ones ***.

The public expects to be protected and when it's not the first response is to start pointing fingers so they know who they get to sue.

See Warren v. District of Columbia. The police have no "duty" to protect...
4 pages of posts and so many contradictions...
A few "Right vs. Wrong" gauges need to be recalibrated...
Many statements of fact, so few citations...
IMO, the guy in the video is an asshat, but his facts are pretty solid...

 

[Tangent123123]

Yeah ok, I'll give you that. I just did some reading and it's really quite discouraging. Especially in states where it's very difficult to get a license for a firearm.


(6) Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. 1981).
"...a government and its agencies are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen..." -Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App. 1981)

(7) "What makes the City's position particularly difficult to understand is that, in conformity to the dictates of the law, Linda did not carry any weapon for self-defense. Thus by a rather bitter irony she was required to rely for protection on the City of NY which now denies all responsibility to her."
Riss v. New York, 22 N.Y.2d 579,293 N.Y.S.2d 897, 240 N.E.2d 806 (1958).

(8) "Law enforcement agencies and personnel have no duty to protect individuals from the criminal acts of others; instead their duty is to preserve the peace and arrest law breakers for the protection of the general public."
Lynch v. N.C. Dept. of Justice, 376 S.E. 2nd 247 (N.C. App. 1989)

 

[Hamilton Felix]

Originally posted by toywin12

IMO, the guy in the video is an asshat, but his facts are pretty solid...

That, my friend, is a great summation of the situation.

 

[addiction]

The public being who? You? Sure, maybe you can. But what about grandma and grandpa? What about that blind guy next door? Or is it just surivival of the fittest and f*ck everyone else? Just more victims for the grinder? You can't have a functioning society without someone creacting enforcing some set of rules and setting limits on things.

about the laws...from Covey, "Where mores are sufficient, laws are unnecessary; when mores are insufficient, laws are unenforceable"

basically what he is saying is our morals keep us safe, not laws. Our biggest issue today is that people are lacking morals, and all to often we are counting in laws to fix the problem, they will not until there is a cop on every corner and we follow the gov't motto of "if you see something say something" and have completely lost all your freedoms.

if I have a grandma and grandpa next door and I am not going to be put in jail for protecting them (like I would be today) I could do it, same for a blind guy. If I am walking down a street and see someone assaulting a grandma I could do something to protect them, however we have allowed the lawsuits to get so out of control most do not dare. It really is all about morals, who in their right mind sues someone who tried to help them. You should not fault someone from trying their best to help you, even if they fail in doing so.

I once sat at a table talking to a friend and pointed out that the police are not there to protect you from immediate threats, there is no way they can. The guy next to us gets up, walks over and says I am wrong and he is in fact the sheriff and they are tasked with doing that. During our discussion he revealed that there are 3 on duty sheriffs for 700 square miles of county, I bit my tongue, but he proved my point, no way he can protect me, I need to be responsible fro myself. He can catch BG and put them in jail reducing future crime, but to expect proactive protection is a false promise too many citizens believe in.

Also one of my trainers was a cop, and he said he had no obligation to stop a fight that broke out right in front of him, he would because he likes the action, but there was no "obligation" to do so.

I agree this guy does not do a great job of making his point, but hey, that is a pretty stressful situation and I know I would not likely have done any better, its not easy to be cool under that much stress.

one more thing, I think there is now an obligation to protect, or at least act in an "active shooter" situation.

 

[dmancornell]

The public being who? You? Sure, maybe you can. But what about grandma and grandpa? What about that blind guy next door? Or is it just surivival of the fittest and f*ck everyone else? Just more victims for the grinder? You can't have a functioning society without someone creacting enforcing some set of rules and setting limits on things.

Private security is the answer. Stop paying taxes and use that money to hire protection that is actually answerable to the employers, unlike "protection" provided by the state.

 

[sadiesassy]

INteresting - I moved to Arizona and was shopping in Fry's . AT least 4 guys were open carry in the store with their wifes. Nobody panicked , no issues. Life is normal
I almost think that if we had lots of people Open Carry - we would be a lot safer.

Yes there are stores - particularly in Malls that have no firearms allowed. SO there are areas you cannot take them.

 

[Phather]

I don't know what this guy's agenda is. As far as I know, OR is an open carry state and allows concealed carry as well. Most people that stage open carry rallies or demonstrations are doing so in states that don't allow concealed carry. This way they can (hopefully) garner enough support to pass concealed regulation so the sheeple aren't peeing themselves each time they see someone walking around with a holstered weapon. This situation could have easily gone down like this:

Officer: Sir, can you please put the sign down?
D-Bag: (While putting sign down.) Hello officer, I am trying to spread awareness on the legal right to openly carry firearms in this state.
Officer: Okay sir, can I see some ID?
D-Bag: I don't feel comfortable giving you my ID, as I have done nothing illegal, but my name is _____.
Officer: We received a complaint about a guy with a gun, that is why we are contacting you now.
D-Bag: I understand, and that is why I am carrying today. I am trying to educate the public.
-meaningless banter/small talk-
Officer: Okay sir, be safe.

At this point, the officer had better be calling the complainant to advise him/her that unless he was actually doing something intimidating using the weapon, he has every legal right to walk around holding a firearm. Of course, had the dispatcher acted accordingly, the cops should not have been sent at all and the dispatcher could have educated the caller.

 

[DAPSRT]

I apologize because I just posted on this thread a few ago and didn't pay attention to which specific thread this was! I combined comments to two different threads into one!!

An officer may ask for ID from anyone they contact. Most of the time it is provided without question. Sometimes, people flat out refuse like this guy. At any rate, what this comes down to is what legal authority do the police have to "Stop", detain or contact someone and ultimately what they can do to compel one to provide identification or their name. Police have the authority to contact anyone on a voluntary basis. That being through words and or conduct, presenting the option to the person if they want to speak to the Police or not. The difference between, "Can I talk to you for a minute?" and "I need to talk to you for a minute" is quite different. Based on what we see in this video, I believe a stop happened. The man was most certainly not free to go once his firearms were taken from him.

I think in this circumstance, it's hard to tell precisely what's going on because we only know part of the story. We don't know what kind of history the police have with this guy. We know he can legally possess and own firearms because the Officers figured out who he was and didn't arrest him. What we don't know is if he has caused concern to the Officers in the past or made statements or even idle threats to harm people. We can only speculate, just the same as we can speculate that the Police must just be "Harassing" him.

Cameras are neat, but as perfect as they are, they do not see things from the perspective of a living, breathing officer who was there. We don't know and can't see what the guy was doing with the guns he had on, where his hands were, etc. We just don't know beyond that the guy didn't do anything to get himself shot.

Certainly, as WhyteCheddar suggests, some liability may be presumed if the officer does not do what he should do to protect. The issue is that if the officer asks, is denied, and ultimately has no legal authority to compel ID then things are done. Liability ends when the officer does all he can legally do within his authority. If he was expected to do more then the law would allow him to do it. Since it does not, then he must stop, or be LIABLE for his actions.

Also, someone else suggested that liability exists for failure to act (in particular with an active shooter). I agree. There is no question in my mind that an officer has a legal obligation to stop (or attempt to stop) a "Murder in progress" if he has the means to do so. Granted, if the officer cannot within reason do so, then no legal obligation exists to stop it. In other words, if the officer is on the other side of town, how can he be expected to stop the action? Officers are not omnipresent and cannot assume personal responsibility for every person, every hour of every day.

 

[GreginWA]

Last saturday I would of been calling this guy crazy, but now I fully support his actions.

I was pulled over, and after I told the officer I was conceal carrying, he checked my permit, DISARMED ME. He then told me it was now an officer safety situation and I was NOT ALLOWED to provide proof of insurance since I had not handed it to him yet, and he wrote me for $674 in tickets, after pulling me over in my driveway.

I no longer am in support of the bullbubblegum that is going on, LEO have lost all respect and support from me.

If you are to scared to do your job, FIND A NEW ONE.

 

[DAPSRT]

I'm sorry that happened. Sounds a bit over the top to me. The way I figure, if someone has a permit, there were some initial steps taken to ensure the person was reasonably competent and law abiding. Unless there is a specific reason to suggest otherwise, I'll presume that will continue. Especially when someone has the decency to tell me they're armed (even though they're not in most cases legally obligated to) that makes me feel even that much better about who I'm dealing with.

That being said, if you're in a potentially criminal confrontation like a bar fight or otherwise, expect the gun is going to be taken until I'm done doing my job.