Question of the Day: Is This Guy Being a Dick?

comments

  1. avatar Rob Pincus says:

    Excellent job making my point, about OC Activism wasting cops time and reflecting poorly on responsible gun owners. -RJP

    1. avatar Matt says:

      Rob, I completely disagree. I suggest you watch all of this guy’s videos in chronological order. You’ll see the change in attitude in the communities he frequents. He is just one guy and doing a pretty damn good job educating while exercising rights most people don’t realize they have.

    2. avatar Tommy Knocker says:

      RP, I guess that you would have sided with Bull Connor also on those annoying Black people wanting to cross bridges and assemble and protest. Cause Bull Connor was a duly authorized police officer. And he shouldn’t have been inconvenienced. Damm, that Bill of Rights.

      Let’s put it this way. You would have been on the wrong side of history, God, and the Constitution. So I think I’m crossing you off the advice on life list.

      1. avatar Michael B. says:

        Pincus was a cop. Still is one part-time, according to downrange.tv’s bio of him. So he probably would’ve been one of Bull Connor’s most gung-ho deputies.

        1. avatar Not Too Eloquent says:

          Back before cell phone video, I would have popped this clown upside the head. Nothing but an attention ho.

        2. avatar Jake says:

          Well, NTE, that would reflect your namesake well. It would also make you a fascist by action, doesn’t matter what you think.

    3. avatar oldsheepdog says:

      Jerks like this are what hurts the citizen carry cause. Just let the police officer do his job and move on…And that was not a “terry frisk” or violation.

    4. avatar mikeinid says:

      Well, we wouldn’t want to waste the time of our betters, would we?

      1. avatar Don says:

        Betters? They are our employees, and it is perfectly logical to not squander their time we are paying them for on childish nonsense. (They are your employees unless you don’t pay taxes, in which case you are a freeloader)

        1. avatar Mike OFWG says:

          I think the proper term is ‘free grazer’.

    5. avatar Totenglocke says:

      What did he do to reflect poorly on gun owners other than being a bit quick on the “I don’t consent to searches & seizures” part (which can be forgiven given how many times this same encounter goes very differently)?

      Seeing how cops spend most of their time wasting their employers (read: taxpayers) time by harassing them for trying to get from point A to point B, I’d much rather see two cops talking to people on the side of the road than see them working as county / city revenue agents.

      The cop was, surprisingly, not a jackass. However, anyone who’s familiar with guns can look at an MP5-22 and tell that it’s blatantly a .22 from the magazine. If he’s not able to tell the difference between a 9mm magazine and a .22 magazine, that worries me a bit.

      1. avatar APBTFan says:

        Not all cops are gun enthusiasts.

        1. avatar Totenglocke says:

          If they don’t know about firearms, then they’re not fit to be arresting people over potentially violating ATF regulations / gun control laws regarding the function of guns.

    6. avatar APBTFan says:

      I tend to agree with Rob.

      Going out for a stroll strapped and carrying a video camera hoping for a scene with the cops is asinine. Does it make whatever officers are involved more aware of the 2nd? Maybe. Does the way they go about it engender the cops’ sympathy to our cause? Not likely. Cops are busy and taking up their time with a pointless stunt like this gives the rest of us who are satisfied with our codified rights and who carry silently a step in the wrong direction. Like it or not cops are a fact of life. I don’t see any need for anyone to shove a plate of uppity in the face of a cop that just wants to do his job and get home. Having a right doesn’t mean you need to smear it in somebodies face. Personally, let the cops deal with real problems. Lord knows there are plenty non-gun owners out there that need their help way more urgently than those of us that protect ourselves.

      1. avatar Billy Wardlaw says:

        To some degree, I agree with you. But i think many are missing a subtler point – That is, the police are in a position of serving two separate interests. That of the community which reported them to the police, exercising their right to safety and security, and the the right of the guns owners to exercise their 2A rights. These officers did both admirably. But the subtle point I’m talking about is this – the more often this kind of encounter happens the sooner the average citizen will be fully aware of 2A rights and be comfortable with those exercising them. They will come to understand that not everyone they see with a firearm is a criminal. They will learn to respect and perhaps even embrace the idea of an armed civilian population and how it makes their community safer.
        To that end however, I would encourage anyone trying to promote this kind of encounter to exercise a high degree of patience and give the officers the opportunity to do their job properly – give them the benefit of the doubt. After all, if it does go badly, the law is on your side. That is the risk that you are taking in this kind of activism. Be patient, this is progress.

    7. avatar Dukester says:

      I would say that this is far from the norm as far as OC goes. Carrying a .22 that is designed to look like a sub machine gun is just retarded and I don’t need people like that defending my 2A rights. The “Occupy” mentality is not helpful at all. That said, I do disagree with RP that nobody should OC and I think his assertion that he knows what is best for us all based on his “experience” is arrogant in the extreme. I don’t think that people who are so vocal in telling people how to they should exercise their 2A rights any more helpful than a jackass with a .22 walking around looking for a confrontation to record. I think they’re on about the same level.

      1. avatar Matt says:

        Jeez…Having a rifle that looks too military is scary. Let’s ban them. Where have we heard that before?

        1. avatar Jim says:

          That isn’t what I said and you know it so climb down off of that soap box. People like you have an answer for everything and it’s usually something moronic that they heard somebody else say. If a cop sees a gun that appears to be an automatic weapon then it’s reasonable for a cop to want to check it. If you are carrying said firearm for no other reason than to get a reaction from law enforcement so you can make a YouTube movie, you are a jackass that makes the already biased left think we’re all your level of jackass. It’s quite obvious that your mind is made up regardless of any real logic.

    8. avatar Zack Pike says:

      I agree with Mr Pincus.

    9. avatar John Clancy says:

      Couldn’t agree more.

  2. avatar Greg says:

    I think that cop did an outstanding job of dealing with him. the encounter had the potential to go really bad in a hurry

    1. avatar Buuurr says:

      Agreed.

      1. avatar Billy Wardlaw says:

        Ditto.

      2. avatar Brad says:

        Totally agreed. Kudos from one cop to another. Very good job with this. The camera guy is walking a very fine line between lawful carry and disorderly conduct. Some municipalities have “Menacing” laws that go up to felony charges. The open carry of such a weapon like an MP5 22 was a poor choice and in my view needlessly antagonistic. And I am a rapid 2a and OC supporter. He could have made the same point with a Ruger 10/22. And yes, I know they are essentially the same thing but most people don’t, and that’s why this guy was being a dick. He was lucky he didn’t get charged with something. I know many cops who would have made the stretch.

        1. avatar Matt says:

          Menacing? Disorderly conduct? Antagonistic? You’ve got to be kidding. He sure looks like a menace to me. Look at the people fleeing en mass:

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y-I9m9jWPo&list=UULn99vcRkhJkVOq7FDPV3kw&index=3&feature=plcp

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VzjRxZirkRY&list=UULn99vcRkhJkVOq7FDPV3kw&index=2&feature=plcp

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VCnE3OlrHrE&list=UULn99vcRkhJkVOq7FDPV3kw&index=1&feature=plcp

          While the same point can be made with a 10/22, its quite possible he doesn’t have an 10/22 so he chooses to exercise his rights with the firearms he has. Are you suggesting that there be a list of approved firearms for OC? If so, I’m sure you have no problem with the gun laws in California and will champion for identical legislation in your state.

          Wouldn’t the more logical approach be to educate law enforcement about people’s rights and how to respect them?

        2. avatar Matt in FL says:

          Matt, your third video shows the reason I’m personally not interested in open carry. I’m not interested in a 5 minute conversation with some random shirtless guy in a park about guns and gun laws and his hard luck story about getting arrested for doing absolutely nothing wrong. I’m not even going to question the veracity of his story; even if it’s 100% true, I just don’t care. I’m not the type of guy who strikes up random conversations in a bar with strangers, and I’m not terribly interested in doing things that make others want to strike up those random conversations with me.

        3. avatar Matt says:

          The discussion with the guy in the third video isn’t really the point. Although I do agree, I would try to avoid those discussions just due to personal preference. No one is forcing anyone else to OC, but lets just try to not condemn it. While it may not be for some people, it is for others and definitely has a net positive effect if done properly, like this guy does it.

          How the OCer behaved is really what I wanted to highlight here. He’s conducting himself in a very passive manner and explaining why he is doing what he is doing intelligently.

          I’m glad you watched the videos, Matt in FL

        4. avatar Matt in FL says:

          I admit, I skipped my through them. The “walking in the park” sequences consisted of a lot of him narrating in a painfully obvious manner…

          “This is me, just exercising my 2A rights…”
          “Doo doo doo, there’s a fountain, and I’m still walking peacefully exercising my 2A rights…”
          “Hey look, ducks! And they’re not the slightest bit threatened by my AR-15…”
          “Oh, look, a maple tree, and here I am, just exercising my 2A rights…”
          “Still walking, just peacefully walking, kids playing over there, and I’m exercising my 2A rights…”

          If you happen to know this guy, tell him that that stuff made it really hard to watch. It was really forced, and that probably makes him look like a kook to a disinterested observer.

          Also, I just went back and looked at some of his other videos. He seems to revel in his role as a “gun rights extremist.” Case in point: the video where he gets a ticket for “unintentional speeding.” Oregon has no duty to inform law enforcement, but he chooses to, and that’s fine. That’s a personal decision. But when the cop asks, “Where’s it at?,” he responds, “Oh, it’s in my holster, if you don’t know I’m the gun rights extremist* guy?” *Not sure if that’s the word he used, he talks like he has a slight speech impediment.

          Also, there’s his self-description from his YouTube profile: “I am a Oregonian, but support the separation of Oregon to create the state of Jefferson. In the state of Jefferson we will make a new Constitution that resemble the USA Constitution, but with more Individual rights with a dictionary that describe the meaning of the Constitution.”

          Umm, kay. This guy, for all the “good” he’s doing, has all the marks of the kind of person that I end up in involuntary conversations with at the gun store or gun show.

  3. avatar goose says:

    Dickless. Accomplishes nothing and gives POs a bad taste for other gun owners.

  4. avatar miforest says:

    I applaud the OC community and think is great that they are raising awareness of the
    second amendment and I thought the police were courteous and professional. kudos to all involved .

  5. avatar ST says:

    My thoughts.

    One, the cops for the most part are not our enemy. The douchenozzles running around with bandanas and gang tats are the enemy. Antagonizing police on the side of the road does nothing but piss off the cop and make the encounter that much worse for both citizen and police officer alike.

    Does that mean if you encounter Officer Dredd you just bend over? Not necessarily. Remember the real battleground ain’t the side of the road, its the courtroom. A video of the officer acting like a douche won’t matter if the citizen’s an even bigger a$$hole. If the citizen cooperates with the cop’s outrageous behavior and its all recorded, then the situation is different. Witness the video of the Ohio officer ranting about concealed carry .

    As far as the officer’s desire to check out the weapon and its owner is concerned, id quit playing barracks lawyer and let him run the serial number/owners ID/etc. If its illegal for the cop to do that in your state, save the antagonism for the courtroom. If its not , shut up and comply.

    Do not think for a hot minute that your and my gun collections are a secret to anyone.Its the year 2012 folks. Thanks to the ATF’s Etrace database and some state gun registries , any attempt to obstruct a LEO from inspecting a firearm is an exercise in futility.

    1. avatar Steven says:

      Couldn’t agree more. I think the guys video taping have their rights, and everyone on here commenting keeps on spouting ‘education’ but there are better ways to do it. The video above is a cop being VERY nice. Just because I CAN carry my AR in public doesnt mean I SHOULD

      1. avatar Totenglocke says:

        Just because I CAN carry my AR in public doesnt mean I SHOULD

        Right, you should be intimidated into not exercising your rights because of crooked cops who’ll arrest you on bogus charges or assault (maybe kill) you for exercising your rights. Let’s change it around a bit and see if you realize the flaw in your logic: Just because I CAN promote ideas contrary to what the government wants doesn’t mean I SHOULD” or “Just because I CAN marry a member of another race doesn’t mean I SHOULD because of some racist jerks in my town”.

        1. avatar ST says:

          “With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility”.

        2. avatar Dukester says:

          I think the overlooked point is that if you are carrying something that could possibly be an automatic weapon in the cop’s eyes such as was the case in the video, you cannot act like a jackass if he wants to check you out. I think there is reasonable suspicion there and the cop did the right thing. A situation like that would only be unreasonable if a guy was carrying a holstered sidearm in a responsible manner, in which the police officer would have no probable cause.
          IMO, if you have a reason to carry some type of firearm that cannot be holstered then so be it, but if you’re doing it with a camera in hand just to get a rise out of law enforcement you are only hurting the pro-gun argument. Yes, you are still within your rights but people will see you for what you are.

        3. avatar Totenglocke says:

          @Dukester

          The odds of that being fully automatic are so incredibly slim that it’s not ‘reasonable suspicion’, it’s highly unreasonable. As I pointed out in another comment, it’s pretty damn easy just to look at the magazine and tell if it’s a 9mm or a .22. As for the camera? The video doesn’t show enough before the encounter to say if the guy was filming the whole time or if he saw the cruiser pull up and grabbed his phone just to cover his ass.

        4. avatar Dukester says:

          You’re right, it WAS easy to check the mag. I’m all for the 2A, and I believe people should be able to exercise it freely. I don’t have a problem with black guns or any other “scary” firearms, I own some myself. That fact of the matter is that the officer had doubts as to the status of that weapon and investigated. He was professional and friendly and only took a couple of minutes. The stop would have been completely unreasonable had the gun been a holstered sidearm but in this case it was one that was designed to look like an automatic weapon. You can say it’s unlikely that a person would have one and I’d be the first to agree, however there’s always that one guy stupid enough to have one and want to use it.
          A lot of progress is being made to the benefit of gun ownership and and more people are on the fence than before. While I hope to see carrying guns openly as the norm across the country some day, we can’t expect it to happen all at once and pushing too hard by creating confrontations as in the video will only serve to strengthen opposing views. we’re getting our way slowly but surely, but rubbing the grabbers’ noses in it will only make them fight harder.

  6. avatar Aharon says:

    IMO, those OC guys were being rude dick heads. Those OC guys are like the Slut Marchers wasting the time and efforts of the police to baby sit them when the police could be patrolling and dealing with real problems. The officer was great and very professional. The two OC guys immature behavior only reflects negatively on all responsible gun owners. If they want to march for gun rights and get attention without scaring people then keep it light and fun marching with a real or replica musket.

    1. avatar HAVE GUN says:

      Great reply.

    2. avatar Matt says:

      “If they want to march for gun rights and get attention without scaring people then keep it light and fun marching with a real or replica musket.”

      Oh Lord, those black ‘military grade’ ‘high power’ ‘assault weapons’ sure are scary… Really??????

      1. avatar Brad says:

        Yes, yes they are. Those black military grade weapons scare the shit of most people. To the uneducated, even a solar eclipse was terrifying once. That’s reality. That’s life, being an asshat in an OC encounter with the police doesn’t make you cool. It just makes you an asshat.

        1. avatar Matt says:

          He was an asshat how, exactly? By informing the officer of his rights and expecting those rights be respected? He wasn’t rude and he did not resist. He doesn’t have to like having is rights violated. If the citizens have to go by ‘ignorance of the law is no excuse’ the ones enforcing the laws should actually know the limits of them.

  7. avatar Threatt says:

    I did indeed think the guy was being a jerk.

  8. avatar Skyler says:

    Cops were thoroughly professional.

    Gun toters were immature punks hoping to stir something up. The thing is, if anything had gotten stirred up, these punks would have much regretted it.

    Leave the constitutional challenges to people who actually know the law.

    1. avatar Totenglocke says:

      Gun toters were immature punks hoping to stir something up.

      What was immature about being very cautious about your legal rights or pointing out that the overwhelming majority of guns of that design in civilian hands are .22′ / semi-auto?

  9. avatar tomrkba says:

    The officer was very professional. When the person open carrying asked what the RAS was, the officer had a clear and concise answer. He made it clear what his lawful order was and why he was giving it.

    I saw nothing in that video that was objectionable. The citizen stated his view and the officer stated his. There was no “Do as I say because I said so” on the part of the officer.

    Many gun people who oppose open carry often claim the person carrying is “rude” or “obnoxious”. The point of the exercise is to avoid becoming a customer of the government. Sometimes being firm is required because the officer attempts to pass a voluntary stop off as an involuntary stop. Open carry is constitutionally legal in many states and many police officers do not understand this. Citizens have allowed law enforcement to do whatever they want for too long and many officers have emotionally changed the limits of their authority. Furthermore, they are supported by corrupt prosecutors who will bring charges as a form of financial punishment. Many of you would do well to remember this.

    1. avatar Michael B. says:

      +1

      1. avatar LongPurple says:

        + 1

    2. avatar Phydeaux says:

      +1

      I also thought it was interesting that the PO gave them a sales pitch on his department’s Citizen’s Academy – even dangling the chance to fire a real automatic weapon.

    3. avatar int19h says:

      Why not go to the website of the Klamath Falls police department, and leave a message of support for officer Nork, so that he knows that not all Second Amendment supporters are jerks?

      http://kfpd.us/contact-us

  10. avatar Josh says:

    I think the guy with the camera should have just shut the fuck up about half of what he was “exercising”. The LEO wasn’t being a dick, was just checking the status of the firearm for the purpose of public safety. The only person being a dick was the two people that were off camera trying to make a statement. Simply put, that LEO deserves some kind of recognition for how he handled that.

    -Josh

  11. avatar Ralph says:

    I think that people who carry guns openly should learn their place, shut their mouths and do what they’re told. Just who the f^ck do they think they are, exercising their legal rights for all to see? They must think that they’re free or something. Shame on them for standing upright when they should be bending over.

    And let’s not forget that, if the cop had been Officer Harless, the OCer would be dead by now.

    /sarc off

    Actually, I though that the officer handled things very well. He must be a temp.

    1. avatar Michael B. says:

      Tell us how you really feel, Ralph.

      +1000

  12. avatar sum yung guy says:

    The policeman handled himself well in the face of a citizen who clearly started his walk with the intent of testing boundaries in a quite rude manner.

  13. avatar Rydak says:

    These OC ass clowns do more to hurt the 2A cause then they do to help it. Honestly don’t know how this kid could even upload that video…….id be embarrassed after reviewing it.

  14. avatar Swarf says:

    Those guys were itching for a cop ignorant of the law. They instead got a cop who was aware of their rights as well as his own. The cop treated them with professional respect and they behaved like simpering twerps.

    I get as pissed off about some police issues too, such as the militarization of our civilian police force and no knock warrants, but this kind of thing seems banal and childish to me.

  15. avatar Rydak says:

    Little prick even tried to tell the officer where to park…like really?

  16. avatar Matt says:

    Well done by both parties.

  17. avatar tomrkba says:

    Another way to put it: interacting with a police officer is NOT a social interaction. Maintaining social courtesy is not the primary goal. Standing firm and invoking your rights to stop unnecessary police harassment is far more important. Recording such interactions has become a necessity in light of systemic corruption (police outright lying to magistrates and the courts, corrupt prosecutors, etc.)

    I find it unfortunate that open carry is the forefront of the resistance to state tyranny. I wish people would stand up to politicians and refuse to be relegated to “free speech zones” and areas outside the hearing of politicians. We should also be far more fanatical about stopping “No knock” raids, warrantless searches, and property seizures. Unfortunately, open carry seems to be the only area in which citizens are really ready to stand firm.

    1. avatar LongPurple says:

      + 1
      True, there are other violations of the BOR, but the ACLU has taken responsibility for seeing to them, while ignoring 2 A. rights.

  18. avatar Dirk Diggler says:

    this guy is an ass. What’s the point of the video? Show how cool he is with a .22LR ???

    1. avatar Totenglocke says:

      How was he an ass at any point in that encounter? Pointing out that it’s a LONG stretch to assume that A) a college kid has $10,000+ to drop down on a full auto weapon and B) the fact that there are hundreds of thousands of guns of that same design that are semi-auto only in civilian hands and that new production of the full auto version for civilians stopped 26 years ago?

      99.5% of that was the cop being nice, but he was pulling shit out of his ass to try to claim it might be full auto.

  19. avatar Rambeast says:

    It is refreshing to see the officers in some areas being more and more accepting of citizen’s rights. I also agree the OCer was being slightly arrogant in tone. He was hesitant in his communication, and obviously not rehearsed his comments for the eventual stop. The officer handled this extremely well and shows that this particular department has it’s training on dealing with OC citizens down pat. I have a feeling this officer is either a trainer, or the spokesperson for the department when there is reason to believe that they will be recorded.

  20. avatar chip says:

    The police officers were being very professional and they had very reasonable concerns in their detaining the OC guys. The OC guys were kind of being jerks and seemed to be trying to pick a constitutional fight. I wish we could open carry in FL but we cannot. If we could you can bet that I would not be open carrying a 22 cal look alike MP5! That kind of stuff scares the general population. Carry something that looks “nice”, like a revolver or Glock…Something the population is used to. Then over the years, move up to the MP5 look alike. Let’s acclimate the population to guns like the TSA has acclimated us to being searched at Airports.

    1. avatar JeffD says:

      Florida has limited open carry.

      790.25(3)(h), (j), and (k):

      (h) A person engaged in fishing, camping, or lawful hunting or going to or returning from a fishing, camping, or lawful hunting expedition;
      (j) A person firing weapons for testing or target practice under safe conditions and in a safe place not prohibited by law or going to or from such place;
      (k) A person firing weapons in a safe and secure indoor range for testing and target practice;

  21. When are they going to make a semi-auto MP5? It would most certainly sell. That was a .22 version in the video, which there was a review about previously on this site. Same goes for a Thompson.

    Anyone know what state this was in?

    1. avatar Matt says:

      Albany, Oregon. Here is the guy’s YouTube channel.

      http://www.youtube.com/user/Markedguardian

      1. avatar TacticalAdvantage says:

        It was Klamath Falls oregon.. not Albany

        1. avatar Matt says:

          oh my bad…

    2. avatar Joe Grine says:

      “When are they going to make a semi-auto MP5.”

      HK used to make them. They were called the HK 94. Other than teh funny-looking 16 inch barrel and the lack of teh traditional mag release paddle, they were pretty much dead ringers for an MP5. Good luck finding one nowadays, however. They come up for sale very once in a blue moon, but the asking price is usally 4k or so. Ditto for the HK SP-89, which was the pistol version with a 4-inch barrel;

      There are lots of semi-auto MP-5 clones out there, but buyer beware. Most of them suck. Esp. if they are made by Bobcat, Special Weapons, etc. I would not buy one unless the seller lets you send a couple hundred rounds downrange with it first, or offers a full 10-day money-back guarentee.

    3. avatar jwm says:

      i think auto ordnance made a semi auto thompson at one time. it’s a very expensive design to make. and i could be wrong but i think the mags were pretty pricey too.

      1. Stick mags can’t be bad. Most states wouldn’t okay a drum mag anyway, which I guess takes away some of the appeal of wanting one…GANSTA

  22. avatar TD says:

    yep, huge A hole. accomplishes nothing other than wasting a cop’s time…. just because you have the right to do something doesn’t mean that all reason flies out the window and you’re not an idiot for exercising that right in certain ways….

    I appreciate that more often than not anymore these videos turn out to be a giant waste of time for the people filiming them. seems the word is out among the LE community on how to handle these situations. Some of you love to point out Harless, he’s now out a job and a pension, so who cares? He’s done more to help the cause for us than any of the guys do who set out to make a point with their video camera. I wonder how many OC crusader videos have never seen the light of day because the crusader didn’t get the desired reaction? If these guys think they’re ever going to see the day where the police don’t respond when someone calls in about a person with a gun, keep dreaming…. if they’re so set on open carry, they should accept that having this conversation comes along with that regardless of what they perceive their rights to be. I suspect that many of you who disagree with me and think any interaction with a police officer like this is somehow violating your rights are all for voter ID laws… think about it.

  23. avatar Phantom says:

    All cops should be this nice!

  24. avatar Don says:

    Yes, he’s a jerk.

    While it is possible he took his mp5 clone out for a walk for some reason other than baiting cops for sport, it isn’t likely.

    Guns are used for war, defense, and fun. Not peaceful activism.

    There is a big difference between peaceful gun activism and peaceful activism using guns. One makes sense and is effective, the other is a damned moronic and is not. The most effective and safest way to fight legal and constitutional battles is with lawyers in courts, not with cops in the street. Number 1 goal in life at all times is to not die when you don’t have to. Whether the cop is right or wrong, playing lawyer with them will get you hurt, especially if he happens to be a lowlife on a power trip. Figure the odds on that one for yourself, then pick your battles more effectively and on the right battlefield where you have the best advantage.

    -D

  25. avatar Greg says:

    That cop was super cool and super professional.

    The guy with the camera is a douche. Someone else said it however provoking encounters the cops is lame and wreaks of attention whoring.

    We don’t need the cops as adversaries, we need them as advocates.

    Knock this crap off.

    1. avatar HAVE GUN says:

      +1

  26. avatar Michael B. says:

    For the cop worshipers:

    1. avatar TD says:

      Illinois did something right! looked like the good cop was an illinois state guy, basically have to have a bachelor’s degree to get on with them, so they’re probably some of the more educated officers out there.

      1. avatar Michael B. says:

        I don’t know which department he belonged to, but he seems to be a heck of a guy.

        Departments that are service-oriented, professional and not full of “crime fighter” macho men tend to produce good police officers.

        Also, I’m glad that our state of FL’s very own Pensacola PD weeds out its bad ones:

        http://news.yahoo.com/florida-police-officer-slams-woman-car-goes-jail-175620064–abc-news-topstories.html

    2. avatar Mike S says:

      Promote that man.

      1. avatar Michael B. says:

        Agreed.

    3. avatar Matt in FL says:

      That video with the Illinois officer was pretty interesting. I’m too young to have lived through the civil rights era, but I have to imagine that image of the big bellied sheriff telling people “Y’all just move on down the road, now” is very reminiscent of how things were back then.

      1. avatar Michael B. says:

        It’s how things still are in some areas, apparently.

  27. avatar Joseph says:

    The cop was professional, the activist, like most, could wear a condum for a hat.

  28. avatar Joseph says:

    Ok, no edit….that should read condom, but you get the idea.

  29. avatar PANTERA VAZQUEZ says:

    Being from South Florida, I am absolutely blown away by the professionalism of the PO, while not EVERY cop down here is an asshole, one would be hard pressed to compare ours to the commercial ready cop on this video. That being said, while I understand their OC rights, testing it on cops with the intent of catching them screwing up on film could go south real quick. Be thankful you have this privilege, and leave it for when you truly need it, the aftermath of a natural disaster or civil disturbance, not for egging on cops…….

  30. avatar Mr. Lion says:

    1) Cop was professional and aware of the law. This is a good thing.

    2) Cop had no reasonable suspicion to detain the guy. This is a bad thing.

    3) The OC guy was a bit over the top, but there’s absolutely nothing wrong with normalization of firearms. If the cops get enough of such calls, eventually they’ll start actually asking people if it’s some guy simply carrying a firearm, or someone actually doing something illegal with it, and that is a very good thing.

    The pants-crapping hysteria among the population has reached stupid levels and really needs to be brought into check. This kind of stuff is one of the most proactive ways of doing it, so, more power to them.

    1. avatar TacticalAdvantage says:

      In Reality… The Kid was Carrying a gun that looked like an MP5, which does not come in Semi Auto… so he had reasonable suspicion, and would not know any more about the gun until he looked at it….The kid was LOOKING for an encounter… which is why he was carrying such a gun… It is a good thing for him that the Officer he encountered was Officer North… with an Orem, Utah cop, the kid would have been arrested . The cop had a very professional manner which respected the 2nd Amendment… and when the Officer told the kid that he was “glad” the kid was exercising his 2nd Amendment rights… the kid should have known that he was dealing with a cop that knew the law, and respected the constitutional rights of the Citizens, the kid should have just shut his mouth. The kid complying with the Lawful order of the Officer without argument would not have violated any o the kids rights

      1. avatar Mr. Lion says:

        Maybe he was looking for an encounter, maybe he was simply taking his rifle for a walk. Doesn’t matter– his motives, so long as they were all legal, are irrelevant.

        In order for the OC guy to be detained legally, the cop would have had to have suspected him of “having been, is, or is about to be” engaged in a criminal activity. Construing a PSH 911 call into “maybe this guy doesn’t have a tax stamp for a NFA item” is really, really stretching it.

        Did the cop act in a professional manner? Sure he did. Were they responding to a 911 call rife with The Vapors? Sounds like it, yes.

        However, upon laying eyes on a random law abiding citizen taking their rifle for a walk, a decision was made to detain the guy, which based on the facts, was wrong. I have no doubt 99% of cops would have reacted similarly, in that they would have detained him, but that doesn’t make it right by the letter of the law.

    2. avatar Matt says:

      Well said.

  31. avatar Joe Grine says:

    I think the cop’s justification for the search was pretty weak (Your gun MIGHT be full auto, in which case it MIGHT be illegal to carry IF you don’t have your ID and a copy of your BATFE Form 4 / Tax stamp). I think that is two too many “Might be’s” to make the search legit. And that “training and experience” line is a crock of shit. You mean to tell me that he is “trained” and “experienced” but he still can’t distinguish a semi-auto GSG 522 or HK .22 LR from a “Real-Deal” Mp5 from 5-10 feet away? As if the skeletonized mag would not be a dead giveaway.

    Having said all that, I’m sure in Oregon the Lib judges would give the cop a whole lot of leeway to fuck with Mr. OC. Don’t ever make the mistake of thinking that judges put away their politics when they rule on these types of issues. As an attorney, I can usually predict how a judge will rule on issues based on their political affiliation.

    1. avatar RKBA says:

      Exactly.

      When did it become acceptable to stop someone on the street to inspect personal property because it may (or may not) be illegal to possess, and/or you may not (or you might) have the proper documentation authorizing possession to said property?

      Do you own the cell phone you are using right now? Mind if I detain you and inspect said device for evidence that it is not stolen?

      Is that your bicycle? Mind if I just detain you here and run the numbers because it may be stolen?

      How about your shoes? Those look just like the type some people will kill for… Do you have a receipt to prove they are yours?

      Other than a purely BS reason for stopping the OC, and the illegal search and seizure with detainment of the OC (who was not in violation of any laws), the Police officer was polite and professional.

      The OC was slightly antagonistic, and certainly has an agenda, but again, the OC was not violating any laws.

      If we are going to allow this form of government harassment based on any ‘suspicions’ the government agency representative can create, why then did we fight so hard to defeat the Nazi’s the first time?

  32. avatar Elijah Corliss says:

    I find absolutely NO reason for ANYBODY to be carrying around an MP5 for open carry just to take a stroll. A handgun would have been more than enough and he probably wouldn’t have been stopped if he was carrying openly a normal handgun and not something that could be perceived as a full auto firearm. I applaud the officer! I personally think he handled the situation with perfection and upmost professionalism.

    Carrying to draw attention intentional isn’t exactly the best way to go about exercising or fighting for our constitutional rights. There are way more professional and responsible ways to fight and defend our rights.

    So in short yes the firearm owner was being a dick because he is doing this with the intention of drawing/gaining attention to himself and the firearm.

    1. avatar RKBA says:

      Elijah,

      Who are you to decide what reason(s) may or may not be acceptable for exercising ones right(s)?

  33. avatar Clint Sheets says:

    The officer conducted himself professionally and does have the right to disarm the person for the protection of himself and everyone else throughout the contact. There is no Terry vs Ohio violation here, and yes this is within the curtilage of a Terry stop. Yes he does have reasonable suspicion based on the call and his observations/experience. He was very concise and professional throughout the contact. But, he didn’t identify them and check them, nor their firearm serial numbers through TCIC/NCIC (TCIC in Texas) for wants/warrants and if the firearms were reported stolen.

    1. avatar Matt says:

      Actually he doesn’t have the right to disarm, search, seize, detain, demand identification or anything else unless he has probable cause that a crime has or is about to be committed or a search warrant.

  34. avatar JimD says:

    I think in any encounter between the police and an armed individual, it is reasonable of them to secure the weapon while they determine what the situation is. It’s simply a matter of officer safety.

  35. avatar Rob Pincus says:

    For those of you with Facebook Accounts… the prevailing opinion is still “YES”:

    http://www.facebook.com/rob.pincus/posts/197639217033603?notif_t=share_comment

    1. avatar Chas says:

      Rob, I’m not disagreeing with you on this particular issue, but should public opinion drive whether or not one exercises a right? Should I refrain from saying something just because the majority doesn’t like it?

    2. avatar RKBA says:

      Just about four years ago, the prevailing public opinion was that Barack Obama was the best choice for president of the USA.

      Do you agree, Rob Pincus, with that public opinion?

      Uh Huh.

      1. avatar Henry Bowman says:

        Not to split hairs, but BO only recieved ~30% of eligible voter support. That’s based on voter turnout records and percentage of votes recieved.

        Regardless, your point about public opinion is well made.

  36. avatar Matt Gougler says:

    Yes he is, and I do not see a very bright future as a videographer if he continues with this approach.

  37. avatar Mike S says:

    I like to speak up about the videos where cops are the a$$holes, so I gotta say, this cop handled this situation very well. He’s an excellent representative of the profession.

    As to the question, yeah. The kid, while doing something perfectly legal, was, IMHO, unnecessarily adversarial in conversation. Good on the officer for not letting that color the encounter.

  38. avatar Geoff says:

    Look the officer had a call for an automatic weapon, he stopped someone meeting that description, upon verifying that no automatic weapon was present he terminated the encounter … as proffesional as it gets.

  39. avatar John Boch says:

    Open carry is one thing. Carrying a fricking rifle? That’s bordering on above and beyond the call of brains.

    Of course the kid is gonna get stopped. He’s inviting the man into his life.

    The older I get, the less enthusiastic I am about open carry outside of limited circumstances (primarily hot weather and non-urban settings). The risks outweigh the benefits for me, but your mileage may vary with your own knowledge, skills and abilities.

    Unless it’s an organized outing, I couldn’t imagine OCing a long gun just to “exercise my rights”.

    Didn’t watch the last half of the video, but the first half was tolerable and the cop handled it VERY professionally – a true credit to his department.

    John

  40. avatar Chris Archer says:

    I really wish Rob’s comment had a like button.

  41. avatar Dracon1201 says:

    What a dick! The cop did an amazing job handling the situation. The camera man was an idiot with the Amendment junk he was spouting off, didn’t he listen at all? The cop even announced the reason for the search before he actually started checking the gun. Trying to illicit a response from the officer was done so poorly by these peons. They took a dirty tactic, and kept on with it though it wasn’t working. Don’t waste the cops time with this crap, they have better things to do.

  42. avatar Levi B says:

    Which guy are you asking about?

  43. avatar jwm says:

    i have a question about open carry. if you’re walking around with a weapon in plain sight shouldn’t the police have the right to make an id check on you? i know of nowhere in this country where a convicted felon and in some cases misdemeaner convictions can carry,own or use a modern firearm. do the police have the right to check for that even though open carry is legal in your area? as for the cop in this video, he was on the money in his behaviour.

    1. avatar Michael B. says:

      They don’t have “rights” to do anything to you. They have powers. Governments and their agents have powers we grant them and can take away via the democratic process, not rights.

      That being said, it probably depends on state law.

    2. avatar Matt says:

      This is the exact reason, this guy is doing the right thing. The Bill of Rights protects the citizens’ right to privacy and against unlawful search and seizure. So are you suggesting that cops can stop and detain anyone at anytime because they might have a warrant? If drinking juice out of a red cup should a cop have the right to search me because it could be alcohol (if alcohol is not permitted where I am)? Why stop there, why not just pull someone over for having a tail light out and search the entire car because he feels like it? Don’t cry about 2A rights but think its acceptable for the others to be trampled on.

    3. avatar gabba says:

      no the cops cannot pull you over on suspicion of driving without a license unless they have a reason for thinking that you are driving without a license. that’s what reasonable suspicion is, you have to have a better reason than “well i don’t know that you’re not committing a crime”.

  44. avatar John Fritz says:

    I wish the guy making the video would’ve shook the cop’s hand at the end. Or at least made the gesture.

    Everything else can be debated ad nauseam.

  45. avatar Greg Camp says:

    The young fellow with the gun and camera wins no support for the Second Amendment in that video–other than showing how at least one police officer feels about the subject. The kid was out to show off. He wasn’t taking home a new acquisition. He was looking for a scene, but the officer didn’t give him one. I’m solidly in favor of gun rights. We must be able to own and carry firearms. That being said, I don’t think that walking down the street with that particular weapon in the open is the best choice. Out in the countryside? Sure.

  46. avatar Stephen says:

    What a COOL COP!

  47. avatar McNabb says:

    Awesome cop, but the guy recording is not being very polite. Some will argue that politeness is not the point, i don’t care. Having people talk to you like an ass is just annoying.

  48. avatar Josh says:

    I think the guy with the camera should have just shut the heck up about half of what he was “exercising”. The LEO wasn’t being a dick, was just checking the status of the firearm for the purpose of public safety. The only person being a dick was the two people that were off camera trying to make a statement. Simply put, that LEO deserves some kind of recognition for how he handled that.

    -Josh

  49. avatar PCnotPC says:

    The only purpose of this video was to bait the cops. Period. Dickhead and assistant dickhead should have been ticketed for being assholes in public.

    1. avatar Joe Grine says:

      Not a crime to be an asshole in public.

  50. avatar Erik says:

    Oregon law specfically says it is illegal to own a fully automatic firearm, unless it’s properly registered per the NFA, NFA registration is specifically an affirmative defense under statute.

    As states the officer recieves a call about a man with a machine gun, he proceeds calmly (not running code) to the location and sees a gun that could reasonably be percieved as a MG. so he proceeds to check it and determines it is not full auto and OCer is on his way. I see nothing wrong here

    1. avatar Joe Grine says:

      Using your logic, then a cop should be able to ask every Mexican to show their ID /Green Card / Visa, etc. when any citizen calls in a complaint that they saw an “illegal alien.” Is that your position?

  51. avatar Mark Horning says:

    Definitely illegal search.

  52. avatar Phil says:

    Cop did a great job. While i support open carry, it bugs me when people do it just for attention

    1. avatar Matt says:

      If you watch watch his videos you’ll see this isn’t a one time attention grab. He walks the streets, passes out informational flyers, and tries educate people and he is doing a really good job.

  53. avatar Steve says:

    Being a DICK… There is no point in open carrying a weapon of this sort in town to solicit a confrontation with the police. There is no need to antagonize or worse terrorize the public to demonstrate 2nd Ammendment rights. Open carry demonstrators flaunting their “assault weapons” do significantly more harm to long term gun rights than good. In my mind this type of activity is reckless and dangerous.

    What if this clown approached a car in traffic at the intersection that happened to have a CCW with his family in this post Aurora world? A potentially dangerous situation with no upside for sure. If he walked near my car in town with that weapon he would subtly have my 45’s full attention that’s for sure until I could get clear.

    1. avatar Totenglocke says:

      If he walked near my car in town with that weapon he would subtly have my 45′s full attention that’s for sure until I could get clear.

      I think that says more about your fear of others owning guns than anything else. Someone calmly walking around with a holstered / shouldered weapon is no threat to anyone and no criminal would calmly walk down the street carrying a machine gun.

      1. avatar Steve says:

        There is a huge difference between open carrying a holstered handgun and a “shouldered” MP5 in town. In my case, one gets a nod and a smile and the other gets me doing a threat assessment. Why? There is no good reason for any person to conspicuously open carry an MP5 knock-off down a street in the USA. You see a guy exercising his rights calmly on a stroll. I see an immature, misguided, and reckless dick looking to intimidate the public who is asking for a confrontation with the Police.

        Finally, I don’t fear others owning guns. I do have the fear that activist gun owners who flaunt their 2nd amendment rights in this manner compromise our ability to maintain these rights over the long term. These confrontational style activities empower anti-gun activists and poison the well of passive support from the general public for the 2nd Amendment.

        1. avatar Totenglocke says:

          So you’re using the same bullshit argument hunters try to use to restrict / ban semi-auto weapons – “I don’t use them, so no one has any reason to own one – they should be banned!”. Not to mention, it’s a damn right and as has been firmly established many years ago, you do not need a “reason” to exercise a right – the existence of the right is all the “reason” a person needs.

          Sorry, but your own words are that merely seeing someone calmly walking down with a type of firearm that you don’t prefer to use yourself makes you want to go for your gun – that’s fear of others owning guns. The facts don’t support your argument – we keep seeing more and more people open carrying and incidents like this being publicized and yet we see support for guns increasing in the country. What matters is the population on the whole, not if you or some granny peed your pants because you saw a scary looking gun.

  54. avatar Chris says:

    I am not frequently a fan of the police…

    That being said, these cops did a great job.

    If more cops were likes these guys, I would be more of a fan of cops.

    The guys filming were within their rights.

  55. avatar gabba says:

    the cop, no. the guy behind the camera, yes.

  56. avatar Kevin says:

    Dude with the MP5 .22 replica is a dork. The cop did a FANTASTIC job.

    1. avatar James says:

      Seriously, the cop probably later laughed that he had a 22 MP5. What a doosh.

  57. avatar James says:

    Completely irresponsible in my opinion. I would never carry my AR down the street just to prove a point. I get what they were trying to do, but were going about it in the wrong way. Besides, I am sure these officers had other calls they could have been attending to.

  58. avatar James says:

    In response to the question of the title….yes, this kid was being a dick. Thers just no reason to walk down the street with an MP5. He was looking for the cops to jack him up.

  59. avatar Bob says:

    The title of the post serves to scew the comments.

    1. avatar Robert Farago says:

      Should I add “Or What?”

    2. avatar Don says:

      Some people can form opinions independently of those pushed by their media outlets.

  60. avatar Matt in FL says:

    The guys were within their rights. The cops handled it well. The guy was kind of a jerk, yes.

    Is doing this the physical equivalent of “trolling?” It certainly seems so. He was not “exercising his 2nd Amendment rights” while doing something else. He was doing it specifically to get a response so he could put it on YouTube. If he had gone for his walk and nothing had happened, I’m 100% certain he would have returned home disappointed.

    I’ll leave you with this gem that I found in someone’s signature on arfcom a few days ago:

    “I think the kids call it trolling, but back in my day before the internet we just called it being an asshole. Stop being an asshole, asshole.”

  61. avatar matt says:

    ITT, police apologists. What a flimsy suspicion to grab someones guns, to check to see if it was full auto. Even if it was, it doesnt mean it is illegal.

    For all you boot lickers, how would you like it if the police starting pulling you over to verify you have a catalytic converter on your car, or searching your home to ensure that you have GFI outlets in your bathroom?

    1. avatar Matt in FL says:

      I’m gonna write down a new law, a la Godwin’s Law with Nazis, that states that no thread involving law enforcement can be considered complete until someone references “licking boots.”

      On that note, this thread is now complete. I’d like to congratulate matt, although it took six hours, which I believe is a new record. Usually it’s between 60-120 minutes.

      1. avatar Michael B. says:

        With all due respect, there is a lot of boot licking going on in here. Needed to be called out.

        1. avatar Matt in FL says:

          “With all due respect,” that’s just contrarian BS. The closest you can get to “boot licking” in this thread is one person saying “awesome cop” and a bunch saying some variation of “thoroughly professional.”

          To hear you tell it, there’s a bunch of people acting like the guy should have bent over and spread for the cop and how dare he question the cop’s authority.

          The cops got a call. They checked it out. If it had been some guy with his 10/22 slung over his shoulder and they could identify it as such with a drive-by, that would have been the end of it. However, based on what I saw in the video, they couldn’t identify it, so they checked further.

          Perhaps someday we’ll get to the point where this guy wouldn’t get checked out any more than someone with a holstered pistol on their hip, but we’re not there yet (clearly). In the meantime, you have to expect that if you behave this way, the cops are going to check it out, because we’re not there yet. People are going to call, and we are not yet to the point where the police will simply dismiss the caller’s concerns out of hand. Giving the cop some respect for doing his job professionally and politely does not equate to licking boots, in my opinion.

          Also — and I may have said this in the past — there are several phrases that when used, cause me to have little to no respect for most everything else that commenter says, regardless of the veracity of those additional statements. “Bootlicker” and its variants is one of those phrases. People throw it around because it sounds tough and using it doesn’t require them to put any additional thought into their comment. Conveniently, it’s also a flag that I don’t need to put any additional thought into their comment, either.

        2. avatar Michael B. says:

          Did you somehow miss the “HOW DARE THESE CRETINS INCONVENIENCE OUR BRAVE CRIME FIGHTER MASTERS WITH THEIR PESKY LEGAL ACTIVITIES” tone various commenters have taken?

          What would you call that?

  62. avatar jwm says:

    one glamce at the responses and you can tell the people that have a “history” with the cops and those that don’t. for those that have “history” with the cops i used to hear their same comments coming out of the cells when i worked at the state prison.angry bitter people that have brought so much trouble into their own lives and have to blame someone else.

    1. avatar Matt in FL says:

      “…angry bitter people that don’t take responsibility for having brought so much trouble into their own lives…”

      Fixed it for you.

      I have “history” with the cops, though since I legally own guns, it was clearly of the non-felonious variety. I’ve had my share of run-ins though, and the common thread in all my adverse interactions with the police is I screwed up. At every point, the attention I had from the police was a direct result of me doing something I was not supposed to, and that I knew I was not supposed to.

      In all those interactions, throughout several jurisdictions, the officers I dealt with were unfailingly polite and professional. The only one that came close to not being so was an occasion where I was written a ticket for my window tint being darker than legal after I refused to allow the officer to search my vehicle. He already knew the tint was illegal; it’s what drew his attention in the first place. He asked to “take a look in my vehicle” and I declined. He got a bit irritated, and ended up writing me the tint ticket. Would I have gotten the ticket if I’d allowed the search? Who knows? (There was nothing remotely illegal inside my vehicle.) But again, the entire interaction was predicated on me doing something illegal to begin with, and even though he was visibly irritated and gave me a ticket, he never strayed beyond the bounds of polite civility. For that matter, neither did I.

  63. avatar John Clancy says:

    I just don’t understand why you open carry and look for a confrontation with the police. I don’t have a problem with open carry, my problem is open carry looking for a confrontation with the police. I see most cops most of the time as the good guy. I always carry concealed. Why look for trouble? And don’t tell me it’s your right, I got that.

  64. avatar Stacy says:

    I think many/most of you are missing the point. Yes there’s some contention between the OCer and the cop. It’s an inherently contentious situation. I’m recording you, you’re recording me, we’re both on edge now. Grownups should be able to handle having a camera running.

    This cop may have been a naturally laid-back and courteous person, or he may have been ready for this eventuality after observing multiple officer Harlesses posted to YouTube in all their abusive glory. Making these videos is what 60s activists used to call raising awareness. We’re here, we’re open-carrying, get used to it.

  65. avatar Henry Bowman says:

    While the police officer may have acted “professionally,” he was still enforcing an un-Constitutional (illegal) and immoral law. The reality of this encounter is that a free man (cop) encroached upon another supposedly free man’s (videographer) right to property and right to travel. He was peaceably going about his business (neither threatening or harming anyone or anything) and was forced under threat of lethal violence to submit to a false claim of ownership. Many say he was acting like a jerk… I say he was reacting with righteous indignation to being enslaved.

    1. avatar jwm says:

      i guess you and i will have to disagree on the difinition of the word “enslaved”. we do have a system in this country for addressing the other issues. and it is working. over my life gun rights have gotten better for most of us and will get better for all of us.

      1. avatar Henry Bowman says:

        Enslavement is when someone other than yourself assumes a claim over your body, your labor, or your property without your consent. If you agree to that, then the discussion is merely one of degree.

        1. avatar jwm says:

          then i’m enslaved, to my wife and family. that i can live with.

  66. avatar John Botts says:

    Obviously the OCer was looking for a confrontation, especially by wearing a rifle around in public. So by definition he is being a dick.
    The PO was very professional, and handled the situation well.

    My question is: Is it legal for the PO to stop the OCer just because it might have been an automatic weapon. So what if it was? Do you have to carry and provide your BATFE Form 4 / Tax stamp? Is it illegal to OC or even CC an fully automatic firearm, in states where fully automatic weapon are legal?

  67. avatar Kimberley says:

    “Did he put the magazine in my butt?”
    I had to laugh at that one.

    1. avatar jwm says:

      wishfull thinking on his part, maybe?

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email