Police officer vs. Law student (video)

[JMS]

I know you didn't just compare Rosa Parks to this guy. One fighting for rights and one flaunting them in front of those protecting the community he is in.

Both were protecting there rights as they see them. I guess the real difference was one was confronting a law they saw as unjust which would eventually become against federal law based upon such protests... The other was confronting police officers who were violating/ignoring rights already codified into law, which could have the exact opposite effect from what he intended.

I'm a gun guy myself, but believe me if there is a guy walking around my neighborhood with a gun on his hip, for the sake of my family, I'm going to find out what's up or the Police will.

evidently in Portland, that's not a legal option.

[Bang]

You are making a lot of assumptions Bang, none of which is backed up by whats in the video.

Most people are ignorant of the law, and assume that a guy having a gun out in public is illegal so they call the police. Their ignorance of the law doesnt trump this guys right to carry his gun. People saw a guy with a gun, so they called the police. If he was handling his gun, if he was threatening people, he would be arrested because its illegal.

Stop making assumptions, adding stuff to the story that isnt there. You dont like guns? Fine, but there are millions of responsible gun owners that know the law, unlike many of the people calling the police about this guy.

Assumng this guy is an ******* isn't much of a stretch.

Assuming he's wasted everyone's time isn't much either.

I have assumed he did this to cause the cop to react, that's true.

I am not assuming the people who called were nervous.

And I am not assuming the guy could have been a lot less of a dick about things.. sure didn't seem to me like the cop wanted to hassle him, just do his job and move along so he could ease the nerves of the concerned citizens (who's rights are just as important as anyone else's.)

Likely had the guy been a decent person, the cop would have told him to cool it, and try not to make people nervous

I'm also not assuming that the lesson most are getting from his video is he's an *******. Just read the thread.

there's better ways to do things. Everyone is so confrontational anymore, no one cooperates with anyone for any reason unless it serves them.

~Bang

[DC9]

Both were protecting there rights as they see them. I guess the real difference was one was confronting a law they saw as unjust which would eventually become against federal law based upon such protests... The other was confronting police officers who were violating/ignoring rights already codified into law, which could have the exact opposite effect from what he intended.

Check that. Rosa Parks didn't have any rights. She was trying to peacably protest to obtain rights.

This guy has the right and he is flaunting it, trolling for attention, and then gets it and films it.

He should be embarrassed and you should be ashamed for that comparrison. That's not how you further this topic. And I am a pro second ammendment guy.

[JMS]

Check that. Rosa Parks didn't have any rights. She was trying to peacably protest to obtain rights.

This guy has the right

Which is what I think I said.

and he is flaunting it, trolling for attention, and then gets it and films it.

He has a legal right, but does that matter if the police ignore it? No he's demonstrating for his rights and he's really not alone on this.

He should be embarrassed and you should be ashamed for that comparrison. That's not how you further this topic. And I am a pro second ammendment guy.

[pjfootballer]

Alot of us aren't disagreeing with the guys right to not only carry a holstered gun or his right to not have an illegal search and seizure. I think the cop screwed up when he took his gun away.

Misterpinstripe, you keep saying we are assuming what happened prior to the recording. You are assuming he wasn't. Even if he wasn't waving the gun around or letting people know he had a gun, it's actually very unusual to see someone carrying a gun around, concealed or not. Other than seeing cops, I can't recall the last time I've seen Joe Shmoe carry a gun on him. So why would the cop come up to him? Did he make up all the people who saw the gun?

Thing is, like Larry said, if the cop had come up to him and said, "sir, we have had some complaints that someone has a gun on them. Do you have a gun on you?" He should have answered yes, I have a permit to carry. Cop asks, "sir may I see your permit and ID?" All the jerkwad had to do was say, yes sir. Cop says, "thank you very much sir, have a nice day." And that would have been all of 1 minute of conversation.

But he decided to record it, which tells us this was preplanned (assumption, I know, but a very good assumption). I actually commend the cop for not stooping down to his level of douchbaggery, because it could have got ugly and it would not have come out good for the student.

[MisterPinstripe]

Misterpinstripe, you keep saying we are assuming what happened prior to the recording. You are assuming he wasn't. Even if he wasn't waving the gun around or letting people know he had a gun, it's actually very unusual to see someone carrying a gun around, concealed or not. Other than seeing cops, I can't recall the last time I've seen Joe Shmoe carry a gun on him. So why would the cop come up to him? Did he make up all the people who saw the gun?

Thing is, like Larry said, if the cop had come up to him and said, "sir, we have had some complaints that someone has a gun on them. Do you have a gun on you?" He should have answered yes, I have a permit to carry. Cop asks, "sir may I see your permit and ID?" All the jerkwad had to do was say, yes sir. Cop says, "thank you very much sir, have a nice day." And that would have been all of 1 minute of conversation.

But he decided to record it, which tells us this was preplanned (assumption, I know, but a very good assumption). I actually commend the cop for not stooping down to his level of douchbaggery, because it could have got ugly and it would not have come out good for the student.

I am assuming that he wasnt waving his gun around, because if he was, it wouldnt have mattered what the he said to the cop. He would have been arrested. I am in no way saying I have a problem with the cop coming up to him, with the people calling the police, besides saying its ignorance of the law. Im sure plenty of people saw his gun as he was carrying it on his hip.

The cop could see he had the gun on his hip. Since he had it on his hip, he does not need a permit, nor requires ID. If it was concealed, by law he is required to provide his ID and permit to the officer when requested.

You are correct, if he did whatever the officer wanted it would have gone quicker. BUT that is an infringement on his rights, he is not required to provide that information to the police officer. I wouldnt be surprised if he was upset at the cop for illegally taking his gun, perhaps that also changed the interaction. But that is all just speculation.

He could have given the police officer information that he is in no way required to, put he wanted to protect his right to privacy. The fact that people are upset that he didnt want to provide his private information to the officer is ridiculous to me. If they would do it differently, fine, but he wanted to keep his information private. I would not open carry, just concealed, so I would not be in that type of situation. I would be required be law to provide the information, and I accept that for the type of carry I want to do.

I would agree with your assumption if he had started the recording as the police officer was walking up. But he started it after he had already started talking to the officer, even if briefly. We cant know his reasons for recording. Its an assumption either way to assume he was looking for trouble and waiting to record, or that he just pulled out his phone when he saw the police. So I can agree there isnt much point in arguing that.

[Shiv]

You don't need a concealed permit to openly carry a gun in some states, I'm willing to bet if that's Oregon then that is the case. I know Washinton state is open carry. If the gun was concealed then the officer could ask for the concealed permit. If the gun was openly hip holstered then he is in his right to carry the gun. IF he was in fact pacing up and down the street with a gun I see no reason why he couldn't and shouldn't be stopped for loitering and menacing.

[Bang]

Well, the cop doesn't say he was loitering or even walking up and down,, he just says several people have called and are concerned about a guy walking around with a gun.

so who knows, Misterpinstripe has a point in that we don't know if he was just walking along going to the store, or whether or not he was walking up and down, or being annoying or anything.

My whole point is: people can be nice, and things like this can be easily handled.

I don't see this as some sort of random stop or act of fascism or anything.

I se it as a policeman responding to calls of concern, and trying to ascertain what this guy is doing in a calm manner.

I see the guy being uncooperative, which is his right, but really, it only gums up a relatively easy situation.

not everything is oppression.

~Bang

[Shiv]

He could still be stopped for menacing. If I'm walking down the street past this man I notice his gun and I feel threatened I can call the cops and the cops should arrest him for menacing, end of story. These cops backed down because the guy wouldn't shut up about legal crap when he was in fact doing something illegal.

[MisterPinstripe]

Well, the cop doesn't say he was loitering or even walking up and down,, he just says several people have called and are concerned about a guy walking around with a gun.

so who knows, Misterpinstripe has a point in that we don't know if he was just walking along going to the store, or whether or not he was walking up and down.

My whole point is: people can be nice, and things like this can be easily handled.

I don't see this as some sort of random stop or act of fascism or anything.

I se it as a policeman responding to calls of concern, and trying to ascertain what this guy is doing in a calm manner.

I see the guy being uncooperative, which is his right, but really, it only gums up a relatively easy situation.

not everything is oppression.

~Bang

I agree. People can choose to give the police whatever information they want. This guy did not want to. I have no issue at all with the police getting a call, and stopping to check him out. Its part of their job, and I would expect them to do so. The biggest issue I have is the police illegally taking his gun, since he had done nothing illegal. Them going beyond what is allowed by law when stopping this guy.

I agree the guy was being uncooperative, but the question then becomes, how cooperative should when you are being detained illegally, your gun was taken illegal, and you are have an officer keep asking for information that you are not required to give.

Its not something personally that I would do, but I can understand where the guy is coming from.

To me, its a balance of being "nice" and standing up for your rights as a citizen. I dont think you can be nice and stand up for your rights. I will say for the cop that at least he was calm, and didnt became belligerent. He showed professionalism that you dont always see. He obviously knew the law, as he avoided saying that he was being detained, or that he had committed a crime.

---------- Post added February-28th-2013 at 12:07 PM ----------

He could still be stopped for menacing. If I'm walking down the street past this man I notice his gun and I feel threatened I can call the cops and the cops should arrest him for menacing, end of story. These cops backed down because the guy wouldn't shut up about legal crap when he was in fact doing something illegal.

Thats not actually true. He would have to be doing something outside of just legally carrying a gun. Legally carrying a gun, not brandishing it, threatening anyone, etc, you cannot be arrested for. You being intimidated by someone that is not committing a crime, that is acting lawfully, does not mean they then lose their rights just because you dont like it.

[GoSkins561]

He could still be stopped for menacing. If I'm walking down the street past this man I notice his gun and I feel threatened I can call the cops and the cops should arrest him for menacing, end of story. These cops backed down because the guy wouldn't shut up about legal crap when he was in fact doing something illegal.

Carrying a gun on your hip, isn't menacing, if he was pacing back and forth in front of his ex girlfriends house, then they might be able to call him a menace.

[DisplacedRedskinsFan]

Firearms may be openly carried in cars without any license except where localities have made open carry illegal; however, an Oregon concealed handgun permit holder is exempt from all local open carry bans. To our knowledge, only the cities of Portland, Beaverton, Tigard, Oregon City, Salem, and Independence have passed loaded firearms bans encompassing all public places.

Oregon is a traditional open carry state. However, their preemption statute only covers concealed handgun license holders from city or county passed bans against loaded firearms in public places. To our knowledge, only the cities of Portland, Beaverton, Tigard, Oregon City, Salem, and Independence have passed loaded firearms bans encompassing all public places, and other cities have passed bans specific to Parks. Also, all “public buildings” are also off limits throughout the entire state unless you have a concealed handgun license.

http://www.opencarry.org/?page_id=290

Open carry is generally allowed. Localities may prohibit open carry by persons without a concealed carry license.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Oregon

[Shiv]

Carrying a gun on your hip, isn't menacing, if he was pacing back and forth in front of his ex girlfriends house, then they might be able to call him a menace.

It doesn't have to be stalking a girlfriend in order for it to be menacing. If any citizen feels threatened it can be considered menacing. If I walked by him and he shot me a glance I felt was intimidating while his gun is visible, even if it isn't visible, it could be considered menacing. I posted a definition earlier in this thread.

[MisterPinstripe]

It doesn't have to be stalking a girlfriend in order for it to be menacing. If any citizen feels threatened it can be considered menacing. If I walked by him and he shot me a glance I felt was intimidating while his gun is visible, even if it isn't visible, it could be considered menacing. I posted a definition earlier in this thread.

Again, this is completely false. I citizen feeling threatened by a lawful act does not count.

By definition, it means you have to threaten someone with violence or physical force.

Example in Colorado law:

Colorado Felony Menacing

Menacing is the criminal charge that arises if you "knowingly" place someone "in fear of imminent serious bodily injury." In other words, you try to make someone believe they are going to get seriously hurt right now – not at some future date.

[Stadium-Armory]

I think the thing about this one is that he must have been doing something out of the ordinary.

The cops didn't just randomly stop him for going about his business. I'm guessing he was either brandishing the weapon or doing something to draw out the concern of the neighbors and the police.

Cops just don't stop people for having guns as this video attempts to insinuate. I see people occasionally walking around with guns on their hips at Costco, and elsewhere and while it draws peoples eyes to the gun, nobody says anything and police don't come running.

This situation was a set-up.

Add: If it were an honest video, he's show what he was doing prior to the start of this tape. I suspect the video starts where it does because he doesn't want to show what he was doing to provoke the incident.

[GoSkins561]

It doesn't have to be stalking a girlfriend in order for it to be menacing. If any citizen feels threatened it can be considered menacing. If I walked by him and he shot me a glance I felt was intimidating while his gun is visible, even if it isn't visible, it could be considered menacing. I posted a definition earlier in this thread.

Being a menace can be considered a felony in some states, you need to do a heck of a lot more than shoot someone a stare, even if you're legally wearing a gun on your hip.

Now, if carrying a gun was illegal, which in this case it wasn't, you might have something.

[MisterPinstripe]

I think the thing about this one is that he must have been doing something out of the ordinary.

The cops didn't just randomly stop him for going about his business. I'm guessing he was either brandishing the weapon or doing something to draw out the concern of the neighbors and the police.

Cops just don't stop people for having guns as this video attempts to insinuate. I see people occasionally walking around with guns on their hips at Costco, and elsewhere and while it draws peoples eyes to the gun, nobody says anything and police don't come running.

This situation was a set-up.

Add: If it were an honest video, he's show what he was doing prior to the start of this tape. I suspect the video starts where it does because he doesn't want to show what he was doing to provoke the incident.

That's not true. Cops do stop people who are wearing guns, either because someone called or because they don't know the law. Depends on the area and police force.

It's really not that hard to understand. If he was brandishing the gun, he would have been arrested. The cop himself said people called because he had a gun, nothing else. Brandishing the gun is illegal and he wouldn't have been having that conversation with the police. He would have been in cuffs.

[Stadium-Armory]

That's not true. Cops do stop people who are wearing guns, either because someone called or because they don't know the law. Depends on the area and police force.

It's really not that hard to understand. If he was brandishing the gun, he would have been arrested. The cop himself said people called because he had a gun, nothing else. Brandishing the gun is illegal and he wouldn't have been having that conversation with the police. He would have been in cuffs.

I'm sure you're right that the police have stopped people for wearing a gun and minding their own business. I'm not saying it has never happened. I'm saying its less likely in this case and that you can't tell for sure given what's on the tape. My opinion is that he might have done something to draw out the police and concerned citizens and isn't just a helpless victim in the wrong place at the wrong time. I believe this because he has a camera with him and seems prepared for the confrontation. It leads me to believe that he was doing something to provoke the situation that isn't shown on camera.

[MisterPinstripe]

I'm sure you're right that the police have stopped people for wearing a gun and minding their own business. I'm not saying it has never happened. I'm saying its less likely in this case and that you can't tell for sure given what's on the tape. My opinion is that he might have done something to draw out the police and concerned citizens and isn't just a helpless victim in the wrong place at the wrong time. I believe this because he has a camera with him and seems prepared for the confrontation. It leads me to believe that he was doing something to provoke the situation that isn't shown on camera.

Why is it less likely in this case? Especially when the officer only mentions people calling because they saw he had a gun? To think that, you would have to assume something beyond what's indicated in the video. What in the video points to him having done anything beyond walking down the street with a gun on his hip?

I don't know why people reference the camera as proof he was looking for trouble.... Every cell phone these days has a camera on it. It's a standard feature.

[Bang]

Why is it less likely in this case? Especially when the officer only mentions people calling because they saw he had a gun? To think that, you would have to assume something beyond what's indicated in the video. What in the video points to him having done anything beyond walking down the street with a gun on his hip?

I don't know why people reference the camera as proof he was looking for trouble.... Every cell phone these days has a camera on it. It's a standard feature.

His attitude is more proof for me.

I mean , if he's really just minding his own business and not looking for trouble, it wouldn't be too hard to say to himself, "Well, I never intended to bother anyone or make them feel nervous. What can i do to help them feel safer around me?"

Nah, the reaction is more "You're nervous? well then **** you. I'm not changing anything. Get over it.." as i said before,, like there's no one else in the world who matters but him.

Put it this way, if the cop says to you or me that people have called expressing concern, would your reaction be to put your back up and act like their feelings don't matter, or would you feel some empathy for those who you may be making feel uncomfortable?

it's pretty simple to me. i don't see how simply being courteous and understanding is having your rights violated.

~Bang

[Predicto]

Why is it less likely in this case? Especially when the officer only mentions people calling because they saw he had a gun? To think that, you would have to assume something beyond what's indicated in the video. What in the video points to him having done anything beyond walking down the street with a gun on his hip?

I don't know why people reference the camera as proof he was looking for trouble.... Every cell phone these days has a camera on it. It's a standard feature.

To me, it's not just the camera. It's the fact that he was acting like a jerk, and rattling off a clearly pre-prepared spiel for the camera. I'm an attorney, and the only one of those cases I could have pulled up from memory was US v. Terry. This dude was jerking around the cop on purpose with a script.

The difference between this jagoff and Rosa Parks was that Rosa Parks opposed an unjust law and was willing to get arrested to challenge that law. All this guy did was jerk around a police officer who was politely trying to do his job.

[Destino]

His attitude is more proof for me.

I mean , if he's really just minding his own business and not looking for trouble, it wouldn't be too hard to say to himself, "Well, I never intended to bother anyone or make them feel nervous. What can i do to help them feel safer around me?"

Nah, the reaction is more "You're nervous? well then **** you. I'm not changing anything. Get over it.." as i said before,, like there's no one else in the world who matters but him.

Put it this way, if the cop says to you or me that people have called expressing concern, would your reaction be to put your back up and act like their feelings don't matter, or would you feel some empathy for those who you may be making feel uncomfortable?

it's pretty simple to me. i don't see how simply being courteous and understanding is having your rights violated.

~Bang

If this were annoying neighbors complaining about some other entirely legal behavior this thread would be entirely different. Being nervous is not a valid reason to force people to stop doing something that is entirely legal nor it is a good enough reason for a cop to search and background check you. People will complain about anything these days and their being uncomfortable can be their standard state of being. What makes this situation different is that there is certainly something unnerving about wandering around with a gun. Strangely that remains entirely legal behavior in a lot of places. I think the reason people almost never do it anymore is because it's a virtual certainty someone will call the police.

---------- Post added February-28th-2013 at 08:09 PM ----------

To me, it's not just the camera. It's the fact that he was acting like a jerk, and rattling off a clearly pre-prepared spiel for the camera. I'm an attorney, and the only one of those cases I could have pulled up from memory was US v. Terry. This dude was jerking around the cop on purpose with a script.

The difference between this jagoff and Rosa Parks was that Rosa Parks opposed an unjust law and was willing to get arrested to challenge that law. All this guy did was jerk around a police officer who was politely trying to do his job.

His sneering tone is what does it for me. Political stunts are a reality of our democracy but the guy clearly wasn't happy to simply prove his point, he wanted to be an ******* about it.

[dfitzo53]

To me, it's not just the camera. It's the fact that he was acting like a jerk, and rattling off a clearly pre-prepared spiel for the camera. I'm an attorney, and the only one of those cases I could have pulled up from memory was US v. Terry. This dude was jerking around the cop on purpose with a script.

I think it's plausible that if this law student is also a gun enthusiast he has spent more time than you have combing the case histories related to carrying a firearm. If he truly did nothing other than walk around with his gun on his hip I have no real problem with his actions. I have no problem with what the officer did either, but the law student kept reasonably calm and was within his rights.

If he does walk around intending to stage confrontations with officers who are not fully versed in the law, then yes, he's being a tool.

[Larry]

Put it this way, if the cop says to you or me that people have called expressing concern, would your reaction be to put your back up and act like their feelings don't matter, or would you feel some empathy for those who you may be making feel uncomfortable?

it's pretty simple to me. i don't see how simply being courteous and understanding is having your rights violated.

~Bang

Uh, might want to look at a lot of threads in Tailgate. There's a whole lot of "Eff anybody who doesn't like my opinion!" going around.

[Bang]

Uh, might want to look at a lot of threads in Tailgate. There's a whole lot of "Eff anybody who doesn't like my opinion!" going around.

Well, yeah, but I like to think that people tend to be a little different when not safely behind their internet anonymity.

And, lest that sound bad, the intention of many of our conversations is to argue.

~Bang