Tormund's police and other miscarriers of justice thread.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

FB,

I would not do what that man was doing. That said, so long as he isn't bothering anyone wih his weapon, why to I care that he needs to have a substitute penis in his hands as he walks?

[Fragile Bird]

I think that the natural reaction of people, at least people outside the US, and some people inside the US, like the ones who called police, to a man carrying a gun is the expectation he may use it. After all, I don't know you, a stranger, from Adam (:P). You may be someone out looking for someone to shoot.. 150 years ago it may have been commonplace for men to walk around with revolvers slung on their hips or with rifles in their hands, on the frontier, but not walking down a city street.

[Larry of the Lawn]

I think that the natural reaction of people, at least people outside the US, and some people inside the US, like the ones who called police, to a man carrying a gun is the expectation he may use it. After all, I don't know you, a stranger, from Adam ( :P). You may be someone out looking for someone to shoot.. 150 years ago it may have been commonplace for men to walk around with revolvers slung on their hips or with rifles in their hands, on the frontier, but not walking down a city street.

I can understand the reaction, but at the same time he's not breaking any law. It might seem weird or out of place, but it's legal. In Connecticut you need a pistol permit to buy a handgun, and this permit also allows you to carry a concealed weapon. One of the requirements for getting the permit is that the head law enforcement official in your municipality has to deem you "suitable" (board lawyers, have fun with interpreting that).

A few years ago this guy, who had a permit, decided to openly carry in a Pizzeria Uno. A bunch of patrons complained and the staff called the police. They ended up confiscating his gun and revoking his permit because a 'suitable' person wouldn't create a panic in public. I think he ended up getting the permit back a couple years later on appeal.

I'm sure it's different in each state, for example, I know that in Maine you can openly carry. A lot of these states just never put a law on the books to ban openly carrying a gun, and I'd only assume that's the case because it hasn't really been an issue.

[edit: or like CT they may have something like the suitability clause that gives law enforcement a lot of wriggle room]

[baxus]

The same thing he does when he sees any other citizen that isn't breaking any laws... He is supposed to do nothing.

as i said, i understand that u.s. gun laws are different than the rest of the world's and that it's legal but didn't the cop say people were calling to report a guy carrying a gun walking down the street?

i would be the first one to report someone walking down the street carrying a gun.

that just seems unsafe to me.

[lupis42]

Ser Scot, it still doesn't answer the question - why does someone walk around openly carrying a gun? If you are in hunting season and you are carrying your rifle, if you are a farmer out shooting pests of some kind, most people around the world say yeah, ok. But why do you walk down the street openly carrying a handgun? Handguns are essentially meant for killing people. In all likelihood, you will never in your life kill someone, you may only be a fan of handguns who shoots at a range, you may be an Olympic Games aspirant. Why does a man walk down the street carrying a handgun? My reaction to that man is that he's carrying a substitute dick to show the world he's a big swinging one.

Because you might need it, and hiding it is in some way inconvenient. I.e., the same reason the police walk around openly carrying a gun.

[Fragile Bird]

Because you might need it, and hiding it is in some way inconvenient. I.e., the same reason the police walk around openly carrying a gun.

Look - the police get a call from people in a neighbourhood saying there's a man walking around with a gun. A police officer drives out to investigate, sees the man with the gun. What is he supposed to do? It's a state (wherever it is) where you are allowed to openly carry a gun. Is the officer supposed to look out his cruiser and say, yep, there's a guy with a gun, it's legal, and just drive on? Or is the problem at the dispatch office. When someone calls and says, there's a man walking around with a gun, should the police now be saying to the public, yes, so what's the problem? Has he shot the gun? No? Well, we aren't sending anyone out until shooting starts.

I just don't understand why you would do that. And reading down the comments, I see most people say hooray, he's defending liberty, while others are saying the same thing I said. Pardon me if I suspect he was wandering around a neighbourhood hoping he's draw a police officer to stop and investigate, so he could pull out his video camera and record to all and sundry how to walk around with a gun in your hand and tell the police to go get lost.

Every man is a vigilante now in those states. You have no idea if the guy walking around with the gun is a proud citizen defending his rights with a permit to carry, or a criminal wandering around with a gun looking for someone to rob or kill, and a police officer can't even ask a simple question like, do you have a permit.

You see this as normal. The rest of us outside the USA see this as bizarre.

[Merentha]

I would expect the police, when called about someone carrying a gun, to respond and investigate the situation. "Carrying a gun" can mean many different things depending on his attitude, bearing, and affect, and I would expect the police to arrive, observe, and possibly respectfully communicate with the gun owner and maybe talk him into not open carrying because while the police understand that he has a right, he is making his neighbors slightly nervous. If he refuses politely, is calm, and so on, sure.

edit: vvvv hey, look at that!

[kungtotte]

.

[Greywolf2375]

Ser Scot, it still doesn't answer the question - why does someone walk around openly carrying a gun?

What difference does it make his reasoning?

My reaction to that man is that he's carrying a substitute dick to show the world he's a big swinging one.

And my reaction to this statement is you are just trying to enflame another thread beacuse that person carrying a gun doesn't live up to your holier than thou ideas on the topic. YAY! Do you feel better for having said it now?

[lupis42]

Look - the police get a call from people in a neighbourhood saying there's a man walking around with a gun. A police officer drives out to investigate, sees the man with the gun. What is he supposed to do? It's a state (wherever it is) where you are allowed to openly carry a gun. Is the officer supposed to look out his cruiser and say, yep, there's a guy with a gun, it's legal, and just drive on? Or is the problem at the dispatch office. When someone calls and says, there's a man walking around with a gun, should the police now be saying to the public, yes, so what's the problem? Has he shot the gun? No? Well, we aren't sending anyone out until shooting starts.

Well, essentially - I would expect the dispatch to say things like "What's he doing?" "Has he shot anyone? Threatened anyone?". If not, there's no reason for them to be hassling him.

I just don't understand why you would do that. And reading down the comments, I see most people say hooray, he's defending liberty, while others are saying the same thing I said. Pardon me if I suspect he was wandering around a neighbourhood hoping he's draw a police officer to stop and investigate, so he could pull out his video camera and record to all and sundry how to walk around with a gun in your hand and tell the police to go get lost.

It's quite possible that he was carrying openly, instead of concealing it, to make a point - open carry is the 'out and proud' movement of the gun world, and the people I've met who walk around with a gun on their hip on display (and no badge) have had a very similar attitude about it to the people I know who march in pride parades. As for the video camera, frankly, if you're an activist for anything that the local PD might get irritable about, not being equipped to record your interactions with them is rank stupidity.

Every man is a vigilante now in those states. You have no idea if the guy walking around with the gun is a proud citizen defending his rights with a permit to carry, or a criminal wandering around with a gun looking for someone to rob or kill, and a police officer can't even ask a simple question like, do you have a permit.

You had no idea he had a gun before. Now you do. If anything, that means he's less likely to be a criminal, since he's not trying to hide.

You see this as normal. The rest of us outside the USA see this as bizarre.

The rest of the world has a long history of seeing things as bizzare that USians see as normal. That this is among them is not surprising.

[Fragile Bird]

What difference does it make his reasoning?

And my reaction to this statement is you are just trying to enflame another thread beacuse that person carrying a gun doesn't live up to your holier than thou ideas on the topic. YAY! Do you feel better for having said it no

That's just nonsense. Men do things to show what hotshots they are. They buy luxury cars to make a statement, they wear $50,000 watches to make a statement, they grow their hair long to make a statement. The statement may be saying I'm richer than you, I'm cooler than you, I'm better than you. Handguns were made to kill people. You walk around with a handgun in open display (which he must have done, since people saw it and called) you are making a statement. Lupus interprets the statement as, I'm a gun owner and proud, but Lupis is a proud gun owner. I'm not, and I see him as an arrogant dick law student, a very common type seen at law school.

Why? Because he lives in a state that allows people to openly carry weapons, which means that people are used to seeing people openly carrying weapons. Did the neighbours say, oh so what? No, they called the police. So he went out and chose a neighbourhood where he'd get a reaction. Maybe it was one where people have said they don't like it, maybe it was a high crime area and he scared people, maybe it was just the way he was strutting around. I would like to know the story behind his actions, but he doesn't provide it, likely because it didn't suit his agenda to do so. But I am perfectly entitled to see he did it to show what a big dick he is, and Lupis is perfectly entitled to see someone being a proud gun owner.

[Sturn]

I don't have any other information other then what I see on the video. It appears the video tapers were out following the police and taping purposely based on the statements of the first cop that stopped them and the female announcing they were part of the, "Peaceful Streets Project". After the tirade by the driver, they are even giggling when it's over like they had a good time while around 3 cops were tied up that could have been out doing something else more important.

If you are a citizen and you find yourself being followed in a car by an unknown person, you may call the police and this unknown person will probably be stopped and questioned. If he did nothing else wrong, the follower will be released. The person being followed will be advised of such things as getting a protective order and the follower will be advised of the state's stalking laws.

The stop itself may or may not be legal. I don't have all of the information, but appears there was PC to stop the vehicle. The police officer is of course going to be worried about being followed, just like any citizen. Apparently he advised other cops about himself being followed, and the vehicle was stopped. Depending on the state and the local DA's interpretation, the act of following the cop MIGHT be a violation of Interference with a Police Officer / Obstruction. Also, depending on the state laws on Stalking, the follower could be arrested for such if it was an on-going thing with the same officer being followed more then once by the video taper. But, from the video I have no idea. It appears from what I know there is no Stalking, but probably was Interfrence / Obstruction.

What should have happened? The police stop the person to ID him, get a feeling of whether he really is a threat, and advise him of the laws he could be violating by following the police. A cop can't do his job at all if he's having to watch the person following him constantly for fear of another cop hater wanting to kill him. So, the cops stop him, determine he's just an ass hat trying to provoke him, tell him to get lost and advice him what the local Stalking and Obstruction laws are. The angry mans goes on his way and gets some footage for youtube. Cops get back to doing their real job.

What did happen. The cop could have just kept talking to him through the window while demanding a driver's license, asking why he was following the police, and advising him of Interference and Stalking laws. Perhaps the window was over-tinted (sometimes illegal) and the cop couldn't see what was in the guy's hands. I don't know. However, it is also a common practice for a cop to have a driver step out of the car when speaking to them for safety reasons. The driver, when he did get out, then became angry and in my jurisdiction, would have been guilty of Disorderly Conduct x20. He is screaming and cursing even when told not to in a public place with non-cops walking by in the background taking note. He could have easily been taken to jail. He wasn't.

What made me giggle was the female saying something about how the police could have been out protecting women instead of stopping them. I completely agree, they tied up the police from doing their real jobs just to get some giggles, get some cool youtube video, and feel righteous about themselves. The police showed restraint. If the stop was legal (probably was) I would have told the cops to take him to jail for Disorderly Conduct. They actually announced they were part of the, "Peaceful Streets Project", while out violating the peace of the streets.

Miscarriage of justice? Self-righteous ass out having fun at the expense of public peace and safety.

[Sturn]

Open carry laws can vary by local ordinance. Often there are no laws against open carry in a public place since such laws can easily be in violation of the 2nd Amendment.

Privately owned places often and can refuse weapons on their premises whether concealed or open.

Lots of people have tried to make a point about open carry and video tape themselves doing so. Again, like the video above, they are taking up the time of the police just to make a point. Some uneducated and hot-headed police have responded stupidly to these persons. Most haven't.

If a dispatcher gets a call of someone walking around with a gun, of course the police are going to respond even if there may not be a law being violated. If they don't respond and someone gets shot, the incident would probably make it to, "miscarriage of justice" threads across the internets. :)

So the cops are forced to respond having no idea if they are going to drive up on a 2nd amendment defender, a guy walking to his pickup with a rifle to go hunting, or a man about to go on a killing spree. Hopefully it's not the later, the cop knows the law, and everyone gets to go home.

Concealed carry spawned the "no firearms" signs that have sprouted up on businesses across the US. Before those signs were in place, a man could have legally dressed up in camo from head to toe, put a handgun on each hip, two assault rifles across his back, ammo across his chest, and walked into Walmart without committing a crime. This could still be legal in some places. Of course this is going to lead to panic and police response. Walmart could tell him to leave and if he didn't he could be arrested for simple Trespassing. He MIGHT be guilty of Disorderly Conduct due to the fear this could cause to others.

Hopefully we aren't going to see mobs of angry self-righteous 2nd Amendment defenders swarming public places heavily armed dressed as milita. Public peace will be violated and eventually someone will be accidentally and tragically shot by police.

[Shryke]

That's just nonsense. Men do things to show what hotshots they are. They buy luxury cars to make a statement, they wear $50,000 watches to make a statement, they grow their hair long to make a statement. The statement may be saying I'm richer than you, I'm cooler than you, I'm better than you. Handguns were made to kill people. You walk around with a handgun in open display (which he must have done, since people saw it and called) you are making a statement. Lupus interprets the statement as, I'm a gun owner and proud, but Lupis is a proud gun owner. I'm not, and I see him as an arrogant dick law student, a very common type seen at law school.

Why? Because he lives in a state that allows people to openly carry weapons, which means that people are used to seeing people openly carrying weapons. Did the neighbours say, oh so what? No, they called the police. So he went out and chose a neighbourhood where he'd get a reaction. Maybe it was one where people have said they don't like it, maybe it was a high crime area and he scared people, maybe it was just the way he was strutting around. I would like to know the story behind his actions, but he doesn't provide it, likely because it didn't suit his agenda to do so. But I am perfectly entitled to see he did it to show what a big dick he is, and Lupis is perfectly entitled to see someone being a proud gun owner.

I don't see these two views as contradictory. The open-carry, out-and-proud movement is partially based on doing shit like this. Flaunt your gun to try and provoke a police reaction, tape it and hope for some blowup by a dumb/inexperienced/etc cop so you can post it on youtube and talk about how oppressed you are and how the man is trying to keep you down but the law is on your side so you showed him.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Sturn,

Out of curosity how is it obstruction or interfearence to follow and film police who are in public and acting (purportedly) in the public interest.

[Sturn]

It MAY be Interference or Obstruction, it depends on the wording of the local statute. I personaly wouldn't arrest someone on a first offense of such, just advise them and ID them. If they did it repeatedly I would arrest them. If the wording of the Interference/Obstruction statute is broad enough, you are guilty if you simply do anything that distracts police from doing their job. Police responding to a call note a person following them, taking every corner they are taking. This draws the time and attention of the policeman who is now no longer responding to whatever call he was on. Interference/Obstruction.

Edit: Someone standing a fair distance away filming police shouldn't be arrested at all. When they get up in the cop's face while he is trying to cuff someone, the cop for safety reasons now must turn his attention to the filmer, thus leading to Obstruction charges. Filming too close has been deemed Obstruction by courts. I don't know of any court interpretations yet on the following by car incidents. I'm all ears. If you just follow a cop for a bit, then turn off, nothing's going to happen. If you are constantly following a cop he of course is going to take note and be distracted from what he is doing, call for backup, and thus tie up police. A DA could easily interpret this as Obstruction.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Sturn,

If a cop follows me everywhere I go can I call and report the officer for "stalking"?

[Sturn]

Sturn,

If a cop follows me everywhere I go can I call and report the officer for "stalking"?

You could try. If you are under a criminal investigation, I don't see the allegation going very far. :) If you are not, and there is a cop truly harassing you, there could be an IA and possibly criminal charges if the allegations were founded.

Edit: Stalking can vary wildly by definition. In my state it was worded such that it could hardly ever be charged. The wording was changed a few years back and can now very easily be charged. Now the key is, "repeatedly", doing anything to another. Follow a person once and leave two unwanted notes on their windshield and you could be charged with stalking. Follow them on 3 different occassions and you could be charged with stalking.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

My point is that if you are part of a citizens campaign who are investigating reports of police abuse why should they be subject to detention and arrest where an officer doing the same thing is not?

[Sturn]

So, you don't want police following criminals since the average citizen can't do the same to police without possibly being detained?

Police can kill in situations when a citizen can't.

Police can detain in situations when a citizen can't.

Police can batter in situations when a citizen can't.

Police can speed in situations when a citizen can't...

etc.

It isn't about being fair.

Police are given powers that a typical citizen will never have. That power, like any (political, corporate, familial), can be abused. Is the answer to take away that power? Or is the answer to give all citizens the same powers? If either happens, I don't have much faith that it will not lead to anarchy.