This is What Happens to a Disarmed Populace: Panic Button Edition

A New Jersey reader writes:

I was watching a video review of a Ruger Mini-14 on my laptop while riding home from work on a New Jersey Transit bus the other night. I sat quietly against the wall of the bus for a solid 40 minutes traveling from NYC to New Jersey, with my headphones on, minding my own business, anxious to get home since I needed to pick up medication for my wife. Every now and then I noticed the guy next to me was acting squirrely. He was on his phone a lot while drinking his beer in a brown bag but I didn’t think anything of it. The bus finally got off the Turnpike and arrived at its first stop . . .

Suddenly I see a police officer coming to the back of the bus. I take off my headphones wondering why a police officer would be on the bus and what could be happening when he turns to me and asks me what I was watching. Being completely caught off-guard and with a huge lump in my throat, I told the officer I was watching a review video about a rifle. He then asked me to get off the bus and come with him.

Everyone on the bus was looking at me like a convicted felon and a monster. I got my coat and bag and left with the cop. Once outside, we were met by three more officers as my bus pulled away. They then began to ask me, again, what I was watching. It was reported I watching “offensive” material. They wanted to know what was on the video, etc.

I proceed to explain that I was simply watching a rifle review video about the Ruger Mini-14. They then ask me if there was any “German eagles” in the video or beheadings. I was then truly perplexed and started to get really worried. There are no beheadings or even scenes of violence and there were no “red flags” or “German eagles” anywhere to be seen.

It then dawned on me that the Ruger logo had appeared in the video, so I explained that to the officer. Thankfully he was aware of what the logo looked like. After showing them some of the video and explaining what I was watching, they realized I wasn’t doing anything illegal . . . though I didn’t know that watching “offensive” or “political” material while on public transportation is a crime.

The senior officer on site apologized for the inconvenience and even offered to have one of his fellow officers give me a ride back to my house. One officer even made a crack about what he thought of Ruger which I got a chuckle from.

To the oolice officers who handled the situation, I definitely commend them for their professionalism and courtesy. They did their department proud and they all seemed like very affable guys after the initial parts of the encounter. However, the incident is more than a little troubling since I wasn’t threatening anyone or acting violently.

Maybe the person who called the police lied about what was actually going on.  Unfortunately for me — a law abiding American citizen who pays his taxes, a father and husband — I’ve now been publicly ostracized and embarrassed in front of all those commuters. I was made to feel like some kind of terrorist or murderer for non-threateningly exercising my First Amendment right by watching a video about a legal-to-own rifle.

Such is the uphill battle we face in the state of New Jersey and in the United States of America. I wonder if I had been watching an action movie where 20 dudes are using actual machine guns and the body count was piling up, if anyone would have even batted an eye lash.

170 Responses to This is What Happens to a Disarmed Populace: Panic Button Edition

  1. avatarAlex Peterson says:

    God. Help. Us. All.

  2. avatarsoccerdad1150 says:

    wow. this is a scary event.

    • avatarKory says:

      Actually the scary part would have been watching the machine gun part of “The Pacific” when the Japanese were piling high and obscuring the machine gun pit’s view. But then, no one would have complained because they were wearing uniforms.

  3. avatarBlake says:

    And the current administration is doing nothing to fan the flames…./sarc

  4. avatareugene says:

    This is what happens when you have a leader that isn’t uniting but creating more platforms to divide the nation.

    If we all just abided and respected the Constitution, we’d have a lot less of this

    • avatarRoscoe says:

      What leader?
      He’s simply the head Democrat extremist con man playing to his party’s far left, and all the wanna-be ignorant judgmental control freak idolizing stragglers that follow them.
      Divisive is his name and class warfare is his game.
      What class you ask?
      Any class he wants to put a target on that doesn’t think like he does!
      Leadership and practical logic don’t even enter into the equation; only socialism and votes.

    • avatarShawn says:

      Bush did the same thing. Get over the Obama thing and do something.

      • avatartdiinva says:

        Is that your universal answer, Bush did it? Tell me, did Bush attack your Second Amendment rights? Let me answer that for you. No, he strengthened your gun rights so sit down and shut up.

        • avatarLowne says:

          Nope, Bush just attacked the right of Free Speech, the right to assemble, the right to due process and god knows how many others.

          But since he didn’t openly attack the 2nd Amendment then he should be enshrined.

          When the hell will people wake up and realize that NONE of the people in your state or national capitol give a tinker’s damn about us. Democrat nor Republican.

        • avatarSGC says:

          True, Bush did not attack your second ammendment rights…he diluted your fourth and fourteenth ammendment rights with the Patriot Act. Seach and seizure and due process…who needs those?

          None of the worthless bastages in DC are worth urinating on if they were on fire…they all have thier own agendas and they all support government by the money for the money.

        • avatartdiinva says:

          What nonsense. Show me where Bush limited the right to assemble or the right to speak freely. I want citations from events where someone was arrested for speaking his mind or prohibited from holding demonstration that are directly attributable to the Bush Adminstration.

        • avatarBill says:

          Bush was the one who set up the “free speech” zones.

          All of the politicians and bureaucrats in DC and the State houses have a lot to answer for.

        • avatartdiinva says:

          Is that all you got? Not even a citation?

          I will make it simple for you.

          When the NYT illegally held and disclosed classified national security information did the Bush administration prosecute anybody at the NYT under the 1917 National Security Disclosure act? Yes or no.

          Did they seize any edition of the NYT that disclosed classified national security information? Yes or No

          Did they engage in pre-publication restraint against the NYT or any other news organization that illegal held and attempted to disclose classified national security information? Yes or no.

          Did they arrest, detain or otherwise restrict any individual or organization from attacking the policies and the person of the President up to and including fictional depictions of a Presidential assassination? Yes or no.

          I will be waiting for your response with baited breath.

        • avatar16V says:

          “…baited breath.”

          Baited with what exactly? Sardines? Pollock chum? Night crawlers? Chicken livers?

          But in all seriousness, if you missed Bush’s segregation and elimination of protesters, you were either too young to know what was happening, or too blind to care. It is common knowledge and so widely reported that it needs a cite like one about the earth being (roughly) spherical.

        • avatartdiinva says:

          If you are referring to the restriction on protests at the Republican National Convention I’ve got news for you. The Republican Party is a private origination that is not bound by the First Amendment. The Democrats did the same thing and had a right to do so. If you are referring to the violent protesters in Minneapolis then you don’t have an understanding of the First Amendment. Free speech is not a license to engage activities that are otherwise illegal acts.

          So the answer to my questions is no he did not and given the magnitude of the disclosures for anybody to claim that President Bush systematical attacked anybody’s First Amendment rights is an out and out lie.

          We are going to lose the fight because of people like you and Bill. All the anti-Second Amendment crowd has to do is point to these kinds of idiotic and unsupportable claims.

        • avatar16V says:

          I give two good flyin’s about your ‘private party’ gibberish.

          Politics is politics and the attempt to move any opposing view away from the cameras (especially by force) is disgusting.

          I could care less about the fact that it has become a default position. The history tells the story.

          Look, I remember when I was a HS sycophant. Grow up. The people who are happily giving away our rights are people like you.

        • avatarSGC says:

          You might want to read the Constitution again…the forth amendment is SEARCH and SEIZURE…the forteenth is DUE PROCESS…both of which were diluted by the Patriot Act…Jeb…

        • avatartdiinva says:

          16V obvious does not understand the Constitution. The Bill of Rights places restrictions on the government not private parties. Those who wish to apply the Bill of Rights to private partiesare deliberately undermining those rights. The essence of those rights are My House, My Rules.

          SGC: While I am not particularly enamored with the Patriot Act, it is far less restrictive than the Alien and Sedition act, the Civil War suspension of Habeas Corpus and the wartime measures passed in both world wars. It is probably time to end some of those measures however my guess is that if the revived AQ pulls off another mass casualty attack in the US you would be the first person to scream bloody murder about the failre of the US govenment to stop it.

        • avatarWLCE says:

          tdiinva,

          dont be a plumbers tool bag.

          Bush stomped on the 1st, 4th, and 5th amendments. Those are irrefutable fact. We have lost rights and its disgusting.

          http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/02/constitution.html

          His patriot act was essentially the pandoras box of federal legislation in american history. Then there is the Military Commissions Act of 2006.

          Not to mention he was one of the worst presidents in our country’s history. His constant malapropisms were a constant embarrassment of our country and the man made millions while in office.

          Then there’s dick cheney. Who is such a terrifying, emperor palpatine son of a bitch that he shot a guy while quail hunting then the victim apologized to Dick Cheney…

          He also made millions with Halliburton and was complicit in the 9/11 terrorist attacks (dont argue with me statists! “Crossing the Rubicon” highlights the irrefutable evidence that this is true! if you believe the 9/11 commissions report anymore, youre a f^cking idiot, plain and simple).

          Yeah…The Bush Administration was clearly better….(facepalm)

          maybe you need to read about Gwyneth Todd

          http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/08/28/the-truth-about-the-2007-invasion-of-iran-and-the-woman-who-stopped-it/

          Or Sibel Edmonds http://www.amazon.com/Classified-Woman-The-Sibel-Edmonds-Story/dp/0615602223/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1361780773&sr=8-1&keywords=classified+woman

          Quite frankly, im getting more and more sick and tired of reading stories like this.

          Enough is enough. This kind of behavior has no place in a peaceful, liberty-loving american republic.

      • avatarOld Ben turning in grave says:

        Bush isn’t president. Obama is. I never understood this. Because the last guy also violated the consitution, it’s OK for this guy too? This isn’t some school yard game. OK, screw Bush too. Now that we have that out of the way, let’s deal with the a-hole in office now.

        • avatarMichael B. says:

          It’s called the tu quoque fallacy.

        • avatarBill F says:

          You beat me to it.

        • avatarWLCE says:

          exactly.

          im getting sick and tired of the excuses.

          obama is the f^cking commander in chief. he can end bush’s nonsense anytime he wants to.

          But he wont. Because that would mean he’s somehow fundamentally different (hes not).

  5. I’m no legal scholar, nor to I play one on TV, but doesn’t one have the right to confront their accuser? Or do you have to be arrested, booked and charged for that? Again, I don’t know the answer. Any lawyers? If so, then demand to know who called and sue them in civil court for not minding their own business and creating a scene.

    Illustrating Chicagoland Idiocy, Mayhem and Stupidity at heyjackass.com

    • avatarMichael B. says:

      You have the right to confront them in court, which requires you actually be charged with a crime and then subsequently going to trial.

    • avatarAnon in CT says:

      Check the NJ Freedom of Information Act (or equivalen) – you may be able to get the number of the 911 call or something.

    • avatarOld Ben turning in grave says:

      He can sue if he finds out who it was, but would have to prove damages. Hard to do in a case like this. Still, I wonder what the guy said. Even if he were watching some kind of weird material, shouldn’t be a matter for the police.

      It might not be a sign of public hysteria. It could just be some random nut ball.

  6. avatarSplashman says:

    Pardon me while I throw up.

    The cops should have pulled the complainant off the bus as well. One shouldn’t be able to make such an accusation without the possibility of being confronted with one’s mistake, and thus learn from the experience. In this case, the complainant probably has no idea, even now, how the situation played out. So he/she will call the cops again the next time he/she sees something “scary” on someone’s screen.

    • avatarChuckN says:

      I agree, the complainer should have been questioned/interrogated
      as well. The moment it turned out there was nothing wrong they
      should have been cited for filing a false report.

      • avatarstormchaser says:

        +47

        I am tired of these incidents. People need to be held accountable for their actions. Anonymous tip lines need to be shut down. Search the term swatting and you see how out of hand things have gotten.

        People should be adult enough to handle themselves and determine if something warrants police intervention. Obviously if the author was watching child porn it would be appropriate, but why was anyone looking at his computer anyway? Oh I forgot, I have been to Jersey, most of those people have no manners.

    • avatarthatoneguy says:

      or he could have just told the cops to suck it and stayed on the bus. even if he was watching the raunchiest pr0nz on earth with people banging each others beheaded neck holes while wearing hitler staches on their asses its not illegal – so long as the actors were all of legal age and consenting anyway…

  7. avatarMichael B. says:

    To the police officers who handled the situation, I definitely commend them for their professionalism and courtesy.

    This is an example of a masochistic slave mentality. They were ready to do you harm (legal or otherwise) over you exercising your right to free speech and you thank them for not going through with it? What kind of madness is this?

    Furthermore, you dignified their questions with answers and explanations. You did not have to do any such thing, they had no right to them and did not deserve them.

    “What is this about?”
    “Am I under arrest?”

    if yes

    “For what? And I will not speak with you any further until I have legal counsel.”

    if no

    “I’ll be on my way, then.”

    Any good criminal defense attorney worth their salt will tell you never to speak with the police.

    • avatarBrad says:

      +10001

    • avatarBrian S says:

      I agree with you in principle… in reality, the cops are just humans trying to do their best (in this case anyway). It prob wasn’t their decision to respond to the call. Calming their fears and explaining yourself is whole lot less hassle for everyone than making nothing into something.

      • avatarChris Mallory says:

        They had to make a choice to respond or not. “Just following orders” got a lot of German and Japanese boys hanged. If a government employee does not disobey unconstitutional orders, then they will deserve any punishment they get.

        • avatarPwrserge says:

          That’s where the “Allies” messed up. On the Russian side of the occupation zone, anyone captured in a Ghestapo uniform was always shot “attempting escape”. Giving scum like that a trial is a waste of resources.

      • avatarMichael B. says:

        Every authoritarian government has people who are “just doing their jobs” enforcing their edicts and guess what?

        They’re part of the problem and should be held responsible. Some (but not enough) of those types were at the Nuremburg Trials.

        Imagine if our founding fathers had been so law-abiding, respectful, and obedient to their British masters because they were just human and doing their jobs?

        The Sons of Liberty tarred and feathered sons of bitches who were “just doing their jobs” and worse if they had to.

        • avatarblue_bleeder says:

          +1 X 10,000!!

          So sick of this mentality that the LEO don’t hold any responsibility for the mess we are in. They are the ones enforcing these unconstitutional laws – gun control, patriot act, federal drug laws. Quit doing that and maybe we would support you.

    • avatarAlex Peterson says:

      Agreed. Once the person voluntarily removed himself from the bus, he was not technically being detained. Had he refused, and the police removed him, the would count as detainment, which is illegal unless they suspect he had committed a crime. Nowhere in the story was there anything remotely resembling a crime.

    • avatarMichael B. says:

      Furthermore, to Robert, Dan, or whomever the current admin on duty is:

      The spam filter is so prohibitive that it’s mistaking some of my longer posts and posts I’ve tried to edit as spam and deleting them. I would respectfully like to know if this a feature or a bug.

    • avatarSertorius says:

      This is almost great advice. But the magic question is not “Am I under arrest?” but “Am I being detained?”

      Police have the power, if there is a “reasonable, articulable suspicion” of a crime, to detain you while they investigate (even if they don’t have enough to arrest).

      • avatarMichael B. says:

        +1

        Yes, you’re right.

      • avatarheboone pickens says:

        The only problem with your suggestion is that these f*cking pigs will arrest you to bother you. So, you say, “Am I being detained” and they say no and you say, ok, then piss off and, they say stand up your under arrest.

        You spend a night in jail, and fearing that the same Nazi bullshit might matriculate into the DA and ‘justice system’ you hire an expensive lawyer.

        So then you go to court, for probably like 6 days over the course of a year until the case is dropped. Meanwhile if you miss a court date you will be arrested and charged with Failure to Appear.

        So the case is dropped, you still have an arrest record and are anywhere from 5-10K dollars short from where you started on you little commuting problem. Anytime another pig pulls you over you will be treated differently and in the pigs mind, they will think ‘one of my fellow brothers thought this POS was guilty and arrested him and he got off cause he hired a big shot attorney’. So for two years you better not even get pulled over, at least until you can get the arrest expunged.

        These pigs need to be corralled and have their power stripped because at the rate we are going now, it can’t continue.

        Ask this business owner and law abiding family man how I know… In my case I was the one that called the police because I needed help with a former employee showing up at my business demanding pay, making a scene and pushing his way into my office, after telling him to leave the premises. That is not how you request pay that I am completely unaware of that I owe you.

        I’ve needed HPD’s help several times in the past five years, and I honestly can’t think of a single time that they have actually helped me. Thankfully I don’t live in Houston anymore.

        FTP

    • avatarblehtastic says:

      In this case that likely would have resulted in them confiscating his computer and arresting him.

      I think you’re right, but it’s not always that easy.

      • avatarMr. Obvious says:

        Uhhh uh – and that’s why you film all encounters with police. For them to confiscate a laptop / camera, they need to believe that the computer had actual evidence of a crime AND that it was likely to be tampered with in the time it would take to get a warrant. More likely, they’d arrest him and get a warrant for the laptop.

        Problem? What’s the arrestable offense? He was viewing offensive material with German logos? That’s a facially illegal arrest that won’t shield the cops with qualified immunity.

    • avatarJim says:

      Always remember the three important questions to ask:

      1) “Am I under under arrest?” If yes – “I will not answer any more questions until my attorney is present” and go to jail. If no, go to #2.
      2) “Am I free to go?” If yes, then leave and don’t answer any more questions. If no, go to #3.
      3) Dear officer XYZ, please articulate to me the reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed, which is prompting this stop. If no good answer, repeat question #2 until the answer is yes. If officer XYZ can articulate a reason, then go back to #1.

      You do not need to utter a single word more than what is laid out in those three question. NOT A SINGLE WORD MORE. This is a free country, and you have the right to go about living your life without fear from the state. It is up to THEM to make the case against you, and not for you to make their case against yourself.

      Yes, going through the decision tree will make the interactions with the officers less “civil”, but you will find out very quickly that police officers actually also have to operate under somewhat strict legal guidelines. Learn your rights, and learn to assert them. We will all need to learn these skills with what’s coming down the pipeline in the very near future.

      • avatarJim says:

        I am a lawyer, by the way…

        • avatarMichael B. says:

          What’s your opinion on SGC’s comments, Jim?

        • avatarJim says:

          To be fair, I am NOT a criminal lawyer. Civil rights are what interest me, but not what I get paid to advise people on.

          SCG is correct in that IF the police officer is capable of articulating a reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed, then he/she entitled to stop you to ask you further questions. However, you are under no obligation to answer any of their questions (remember the 5th amendment, which rich white white-collar “criminal” ALWAYS make sure to invoke during show hearings). My point was that by working with the decision tree I outlined above, you put the seizing officer on the spot and force them to show their hand.

          Never answer their questions. You will either be arrested, which is highly unlikely because there is plenty of paperwork that goes with an arrest, where the police officer has to put down on paper the very basis for the arrest and can be tied back to him/her later on in a lawsuit for unlawful arrest. Police officers are also human; nobody likes to fill out damn forms. The most likely scenario is that they try to punk you into consenting to give up your constitutionally protected rights, then they give up and let you go.

          Stop being afraid of cops. They are not magical. However, they are legally entitled to trick you into consenting to giving up your rights. Don’t.

          Two caveats though:
          a) Given the society we live in, I would not recommend using the tree if you are not an upwardly mobile white male. If you are not part of that category, then
          b) I strongly suggest you do this in public with witnesses, and/or record the encounter on video. Cops have no trouble falsifying records, and that makes it more difficult to fight without solid evidence that proves otherwise…

    • avatarSGC says:

      “Any good criminal defense attorney worth their salt will tell you never to speak with the police.”

      Of course, he wants your a$$ to end up in JAIL so you have to pay him to get you out of a mess you could have avoided by just acting like a reasonable human being…

      • avatarMichael B. says:

        I honestly hope you’re arrested, tried for some stupid **** you didn’t do, and have your cooperation used against you in court.

        The cops should’ve behaved like reasonable human beings. In no way is it reasonable for them to detain him and ask what he’s watching.

        Go to hell.

      • avatarDoug says:

        I can’t reply to your post above where you link to the Terry Stop so I’ll place it here.

        Terry stops are detainments. If the answer of “Am I free to go?” is no, you’re being detained, and unless you’re under already arrest it’s probably a Terry stop. You do not have to speak to the police during a Terry stop except in some states that require you to identify yourself to police when being detained, and you would be best served by not doing saying anything beyond what is required by law. Nothing you say can help you, it can only hurt. If you try to bring up something exculpatory you said in court, the prosecution will object to that as hearsay and they will be right. But the cops can use what you say against you in court in order to convict you.

        The OP got lucky. By running his mouth he admitted to cops that he was watching videos about guns and researching those guns probably with the intent to buy (watching a review of a weapon). Do you know US code and your state code well enough to know for 100% certain that that is not in some way a crime or evidence that could be used to convict you of another crime?

        “Your honor, the defendant confessed to me that he had been researching the Ruger mini 14 assault rifle and was watching videos of them being fired. The defendant also informed me that the video included red symbols resembling the German Eagle of the Nazis.”

        Don’t talk to the police. Ever, but ESPECIALLY if you are being investigated/interrogated/interviewed.

        • avatarJim says:

          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ This.

          Just because it’s a Terry Stop does not mean that you have to answer their questions. It just means you can’t leave. So don’t answer any questions. By doing so, you squarely put the onus on the cop to have a really good reason to escalate a Terry Stop to an arrest.

          Keep asking them if you are free to go, and if not, if you are under arrest. They will tire, eventually, and usually let you go. If not, they will unlawfully arrest you, for which you can sue them. Yes, it’s a pain in the ass, but people really need to stop being meekish and learn how to properly assert your rights. You’d be amazed at how effective it is. For good examples, watch the border patrol seizure interactions that occur within the U.S. territory:

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDCXzqgD99o

          See how the officer just asks to give up the rights? If you do, you’re fair game. If you don’t, you find out how the system is supposed to work. You are all free men.

        • avatarJim says:

          I should have said free citizen… The fact that I am a man shows my own bias…

        • avatarg says:

          +1

          Big fan of that video.

      • avatarWLCE says:

        bullshit.

        they can FOAD.

        If im not a criminal and not breaking the law, and im not under arrest, my response? “good day officer “*walks off*

    • avatarDave says:

      And he would have to pay that criminal defense attorney well For services provided.

  8. avatarWilliam says:

    If New Jersey is this far gone, how far behind can the rest of Amerika be? This post actually made my blood boil.

    Sheeple. Love ‘em or hate ‘em, you still gotta hate ‘em.

  9. avatarMike in NC says:

    Every one of these incidents (and man-with-a-gun 911 calls) needs to end with a police visit to the caller/ninny/idiot for a good lecture about wasting police resources… after a rear-seat courtesy trip “downtown” if possible.

  10. avatarBrian S says:

    what a joke, I’m glad to hear it didn’t escalate. Pretty funny how the guy actually breaking the law with an open container of alcohol gets looked over / ignored. I’ll be it if you were watching a horror movie with scenes of murder or torture they wouldn’t have called on you.

  11. avatarLance says:

    Well say reading abut guns is 1A protected and if you harass me expect a VERY LARGE LAWSUIT!!!!!

  12. avatarmiforest says:

    Its not the guns they hate, it’s us. americans spying on each other about what video’s we watch, the press deliberately changing stories and using lies to support a political agenda. we are now bulgaria,russia or east germany.

    looks like the economy is going there too.

  13. avatarJWhite says:

    “I proceed to explain..”
    ” and explaining what I was watching, they realized I wasn’t doing anything illegal ”

    First off, I dont know about this guys, but me? Hell no.

    “Sir step off the bus”
    “Is there something I did wrong?”
    “Sir off the bus”
    “Sir, is there something I’ve done wrong, or something I can help you with?”
    “We got a report of you watching something offensive”
    “I dont know what your talking about, and unless I’ve done something wrong, and you’re arresting, I’m free to go.”
    “What where you watching”
    “Officer, is there something I can help you with? I’m just trying to get home, and unless I’m being arrested or detained, I would like to be on my way”
    “we heard you where watching a movie with nazi eagles in it, what was in the video?”
    “Officer, if there is something I can do for you, please let me know, other wise, I’ll be on my way.”
    “Hey lemme see your ID”
    “Officer I’m not required to provide you with my identification unless I’ve done something wrong. Now, if I haven’t done anything, and you’re not detaining me, and I’m not under arrest, good day sir.”

    If they, say stop, tackle, draw on your, or detain/arrest you, well… Willkommen in Amerika!
    Shut your mouth, and keep it closed at that point. Do not consent to a search, and refuse to answer any questions until a lawyer is present. You just got your night ruined for being a patriot and refusing to submit to their BULLScheiße requests.

    I’ve had my night ruined a couple times, but I’m usually let go. I dont play that “stop show me your papers Scheiße”

    Call me stupid, but any officer worth his salt should A) know YOURS and HIS rights and limitations B) Realize that what they are doing is unconstitutional, and C) A flagrant misuse of power.

    • avatarSertorius says:

      This.

      Watching violent videos is not a crime, and cannot be a crime under the First Amendment. See U.S. v. Stevens (law banning “crush videos” of animals unconstitutional).

      The officers had no right to detain or interrogate you, as they lacked a reasonable, articulable suspicion of a crime. “Am I being detained” is the magic phrase in this situation. They either have to let you go, or be held to account for why they didn’t.

    • avatarAnon in CT says:

      My God – imagine if he HAD been watching something like a PBS documentary on WW II!

  14. avatarDoug Richards says:

    Probably just an undercover jerk for Emanuel, Bloomberg, Christie, or Obama. Just the tip of the iceberg for harrassment to us gun owners. Stand tall, stand strong, we have a fight to fight.

    • avatarNeonCat says:

      No, it was just a jerk on a bus. See something, say something. Can’t be too careful in this day and age, you know.

      • avatarTotenglocke says:

        We need to use this against them. Start buying burner phones and calling in “suspicious behavior” and “man with a gun” reports when you see a cop.

        • avatarHenry Bowman says:

          911, yes, there are a couple of guys wearing gang colors, visibly armed, driving a dark sedan, forcing people over to the side of the road. Please help!

        • avatarTotenglocke says:

          @Henry

          You forgot that when 911 sends a car or two to investigate – “OMG! A few more cars of armed gang members just pulled up! I think they’re his friends!!”

  15. avatarSilver says:

    The callers for these BS incidents need to start being arrested and charged with harassment. Stupidity needs to start being punished.

  16. avatarHuman Being says:

    Who else here read that and immediately thought of the Stasi and Cheka secret police organizations that monitored public behavior using the words of informants?

    • avatarNeonCat says:

      Only us crazy people who know history and who fail to see how benevolent and special OUR government is and ALWAYS WILL BE, how it could NEVER be twisted into something democidal.

      We must just be racists. No, no way could we have a point or valid concern about too powerful government. Racists.

    • avatarAnon in CT says:

      More like those incidents of “SWATting” out in California targeting celebs and conservative bloggers.

  17. avatarDaveL says:

    I’d love to hear what this guy told the police. Did he seriously report someone for “watching an offensive video?” And if he did, the police actually decided this was worth investigating?

  18. avatarFred says:

    And *we’re* the paranoid ones…

    Seems like pretty soon you won’ t be able to say “gun”, “firearm”, “range”, “bullet”, or anything related to firearms in public without being labeled a terrorist. I wonder if the writer is on the terrorist watch list now, after all, we have no idea what makes up the criteria. Then again, we’ll never know because the list is a government secret.

  19. avatarBuckeyecopperhead says:

    His first mistake was not moving to a free state.

  20. avatarDBeans says:

    I wonder what the charges would have been had he been watching some weird Crap. I need to leave this state badly I wanna move to tx Soooooo bad. Any body know of some nice safe but mostly FREE towns in TX with nursing vacancies?!

  21. avatarDan Y says:

    Seems to me to be a clear violation of the 1st and 4th.

  22. avatarJohn says:

    A link to the actual video would be great.

    • avatarScott D. says:

      Seriously. I liked the good ‘ole days when there were gun reviews on here.

      • avatarBill in IL says:

        Yes, let’s all forget the fight that was brought to us, put our heads back in the sand and read gun reviews. What a great idea! Why don’t you just pick up a copy of Guns & Ammo and skip over the editorials.

  23. avataramagi says:

    I would have asked why I was being detained, because as you said, watching “offensive” or “political” material is not justifiable cause.

    The person who reported you makes me sick.

  24. avatar16V says:

    “Hey lemme see your ID”
    “Officer I’m not required to provide you with my identification unless I’ve done something wrong. Now, if I haven’t done anything, and you’re not detaining me, and I’m not under arrest, good day sir.”

    Amazingly enough, NJ is not a “stop and identify” state. In 24 others, you are legally allowed to be stopped for no probable cause at all and required to produce ID. Wilkommen? Nein, we’ve been here for decades.

    • avatarDr. Kenneth Noisewater says:

      TX is also not a “stop and identify” state, though giving false information if lawfully detained or as a witness is a misdemeanor.

  25. avatardarksied says:

    Dude Move i did it can only get worse what they should have done was go after the bus and pull the person off that called and arrested him for having a open container of beer and calling in a bogus report and wasting there time. didn’t they even smell the beer on his breath

  26. avatarAndrew Wood says:

    But if the OP had been watching the latest Borne or Bond flick, there would have been no problem… :(

  27. avatarJosh says:

    This is why I make a point of reading my gun magazines on the bus from NJ to NYC. So far no complaints; just looks. I consider it important for these people to see someone is a respectable man and also a gun owner.

    I hope the author of the email, and all other NJ readers, will make sure to watch gun videos and read gun magazines while on the bus.

    • avataruncle nunzie says:

      I was thinking this myself. I take the bus between NJ and NYC daily and when I watch or read gun related stuff I’ve kept it out of view. I will do this no longer.

    • avatarSome Guy says:

      Good for you! It’s time for all of us in the occupied zones to start acting up. We may not have the numbers but we’ve got the ‘tud. As I keep reminding everyone, sue, sue sue! What exactly did this clown report? Why did the cops even bother with this nonsense? I know it’s a hassle but the object is to inflict more pain on the grabbers than they do on us. We owe it to yourselves and to our posterity.

  28. avatarAndrew Wood says:

    But if the OP had been watching the latest Borne or Bond flick, there would have never been a problem… :(

  29. avatarTommy Knocker says:

    Just a note to the gentleman who was stopped. It ain’t over. Your name and address (not clear if he provided them to the police, but I assume he did) are now “in the system”. I would expect that something like “stopped in investigation of terroristic activities”. Doesn’t matter if he was let go. The file is now 1 page thicker.

    For me the best example of police state is the post war East German Stasi. EVERYTHING got written down. EVERYONE had a file.

    • avatarbontai Joe says:

      I read your post and immediately got to thinking is he now on the “no fly” list? I realize that he didn’t have to answer their questions, but by being co-operative and calm, he calmed the whole situation down. In my limited experience with police, especially in NJ, if a person becomes unco-operative and argumentative, then that person can fully expect to receive a very hard time from the police. To be arguementitive just to be arguementative in an effort to assert your rights ticks the police off. Remember that they approach the public with their own “us vs. them” attitude in full force. A lot of you folks live far enough away that the events on Sept 11, 2001 were just a news item on TV, For those of us that live or work in north NJ, it was a life changing event. TO THIS DAY, there are armed military personnel stationed at Kennedy airport. People are hypersensitive to any behavour that is out of their norm and frightened of packages left unattended, etc. I’m not making excuses, just that within a 50 mile radius of NYC, things are a lot different than most of the rest of the country. Is it right? In my opinion, no, but it is a current fact of life here. Just my opinion, but the original poster did the right thing in being patient and calm in explaining what he was doing.

  30. avatarPascal says:

    Under the “see somthing, say something” compaigns (at least in the NY Metro area) what is to stop and anti-gun jackhole from calling the police because you are reading a copy of Gun’s &Ammo and say you have a gun and he is afraid you are about to do something? Since those tip lines are anonymous, and those making the call cannot be held accountable, what is to stop more anti-gun smucks from doing this?

    • avatarmountocean says:

      Snitches get stitches.

      Of course I only illustrate that as an observation of responses to similar stimuli in other cultures, I’m not promoting such

  31. avatarJarhead1982 says:

    You have the right to request that a police incident report be made out even if you are not arrested and should have as this makes it an official documented incident, which can then be used to prove a pattern of harrassment that can be used to press charges for filing false police reports, harrassment, or stalking charges.

    It is how we forced some anti hunter PETA fanatics from calling the DNR & police on us when goose hunting, that and some simple physics calculations and proper property charts to show the claim had no merit cause if the laws of physics state clearly the waterfowl shot couldn’t have reached that distance from the pit blinds, then they are documented as lying. Thats when we had them by the short hairs, amazing that person moved from the area soon after, somehow all the neighbors found out who was making all those false calls for other things as well, LOL, wouldn’t know who did that either………

  32. avatarslow says:

    If you are a young person with skills and you live in NY or NJ leave now.

  33. avatarCR Cobb says:

    The Department of Homeland Security’s directive, “If You See Something, Say Something,” is being taken serious by the proles.

    Takeaway?: I thought we needed to normalize gun ownership again, but I guess we need to normalize thinking and learning about guns, too.

    AND I’ve been a fan of Ruger and owner of their firearms for decades. This story might compel me to finally stick one those red, legless, screaming-eagle stickers on my bumper.

  34. avatarST says:

    Gun control is social engineering with a different label.

    By making guns illegal to use or carry,you remove the incentive of the uneducated bystander to buy one.Without a counterpoint by educated and lawful gun owners, the politicians and press own the dialogue.So more laws are passed, gun owners in the voting base are reduced,and the cycle continues until watching a hickock45 video on a train is a felony.

  35. avatarHasdrubal says:

    People lie to the dispatcher all the time. I take great personal satisfaction in refusing to act on obviously ridiculous and/or false statements, but the prosecutors don’t want to go after the idiots who make the calls. They are afraid of discouraging 911 calls in general.

    Unfortunately, you can’t tell if it’s a lie until you get there and talk to people. People must do what they think is right, but if you get confrontational on private property owned by other people, you may get a trespass notice and never be able to go back there. And that’s not my call, either. If a business asks me to issue the notice, policy says that’s what happens.

    • avatarHasdrubal says:

      I feel I should clarify, I have never had any such confrontation over anything gun or weapon related. Only for people yelling at store employees for trying to prevent shoplifting, or asking drunks to leave and such.

    • avatar16V says:

      Hopefully you haven’t had too many of the “McDonald’s is out of cheezburgers and I want one” calls.

  36. avatarDon says:

    That’s pretty crazy. Imagine if he was looking at “evil” stuff. There’s no law against it but he’d probably be in trouble now.

  37. avatarsdog says:

    how is this in any way, legal?

  38. avatarMike Z says:

    Next time watch porn. Preferably clown porn.
    Its less offensive to the general public and has already stood up in court to be Constitutionally protected.

  39. avatarjosh ogkw says:

    the last line is my biggest problem.

  40. avatarPwrserge says:

    Reacted better than I would have. I would have told the cop to FOAD.

  41. avatarRandy Drescher says:

    What are you doing going in the front door boy? Don’t you know that N are supposed to go around back? What are you doing looking at those pictures boy, are you some kind of terrorist? We have aways to go, Randy

  42. avatarcurz says:

    “I told the officer”

    You don’t tell him anything. He’s not your friend.

  43. avatarJim says:

    Everyone on this board, CCW holders, and general liberty-minded people should be intimately familiar with the 10 Rules of Police Encounters:

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

    I am glad that you felt it was reasonable for you to get off the bus to answer some questions, but as far as I am concerned, I’m not going anywhere until the officer can articulate a reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed before I go along with a police-stop. Perhaps it’s because I went to law school, and learned what rights we are born with, which are in turn supposed to be “protected” by our constitution. Or maybe it is just my nature.

    I also understand that having a spine about these kind of things means that I may very well be unlawfully arrested or detained by an immunity-granted police officer who just wants to ruin my day because I had the temerity to question his “authoritah”, but that is a risk I am willing to take. Remember, a right unexercized is a right lost.

  44. avatardisthunder says:

    Those of you guys who are on social networking sites need to reprint this story everywhere you can. There are still people I’m the fence out there, and the more they hear about disgusting events like these, the less they’ll want to be a part of it.

  45. avatarMr. Obvious says:

    Why play into this? You have a right to view content that is offensive, even if the underlying content is illegal, subject to certain limited exceptions (e.g. child porn). If the cops came on my bus and asked me what I was watching, I’d whip out my phone and start recording IMMEDIATELY. The police will lie about what you said and what they asked. Whilst recording, I’d tell them flatly that I’m not talking to them. For any reason. Ever. If they asked me to get off the bus – I’d ask them whether they were asking or ordering. If the former – refuse. If the latter, demand to know why they were detaining you.

    The police were stupid enough to box themselves into an easy 1st Amendment violation. Play this right and strike a blow to the police state while earning yourself a nice $20k+ settlement.

  46. avatarMy Name Is Bob says:

    Just so everyone knows, NJ is really this bad. Can we please just shove it into the ocean already?

  47. avatarCJ says:

    This used to be the country that people fled to in order to escape a police state.

    In soviet satellite states if your neighbor wanted your apartment he’d call the authorities and share his “suspicions”much like the man did on the bus. Maybe he wanted the window seat.

  48. avatarGlenn Billings says:

    I am not a lawyer. Although the officer who questioned you did sound that he was respectful, but I think you had the right to refuse being detained without REASONABLE SUSPICION or PROBABL CAUSE.
    You definitely did not have to show the police anything on your computer without a SEARCH WARRANT and without a SEARCH WARRANT, he did NOT
    have probably cause. And with that if the officer still insisted that you be removed from the bus and hereby DETAINED, you had the right to have your accuser be present when you were questioned. Have you laptop password encrypted. They can not force you divulge you password (which is Self-Incrimination) and they don’t have a right to search it. I would tell them, “I respectfully decline to leave the bus. Am I free to go?” If they have no grounds for lawful detainment, then you have a case for UNLAWFUL DETAINMENT. I would say that, or “I wish to contact my attorney.” And then don’t say another word.

  49. avatarDave says:

    We do have rights, but we also have brains. If this is the climate in which we live, we need to be smarter. Meaning, don’t watch a gun review video in a public place! Is it not sinking in to you people that a low profile is the best profile? I don’t like any of this any more than the rest of you, but common sense needs to be applied. I kept quiet about the “this is my rifle” and “I am a gun owner” campaigns, but I think they were unwise. The last election should have shown you that we are in the minority. Wise up and ride it out, it will change. But really, think real hard before being in your face about things. If your face is on the internet with your potentially banned weapon, that is probably not the best thing.

    • avatarTotenglocke says:

      Is it not sinking in to you people that a low profile is the best profile?

      Yea, that way the people who’ve never seen a gun outside of movies can have even LESS exposure to guns! Plus, the “HIDE!!!” tactic has worked out SO well seeing how millions of gun owners don’t report themselves as gun owners when polled, so Democrats can claim that gun ownership is much lower than it really is and thus use that as a reason to infringe upon our rights.

      The last election should have shown you that we are in the minority.

      Except we’re not. We’re only a little less than half of the adults in the country (and growing). The problem is that there are too many Fudds like yourself who want to run and hide instead of making your voice heard, thus giving more ammunition to our enemies.

      • avatarDave says:

        Wake up, you can’t win it with a PR campaign and Democrats are going to lie with the help of the corrupt media. My point is that you won’t change the minds of people by being “in their face” about it. But you may draw attention to yourself, which is probably not the best.

        And we may not be in the minority, but we are a voting minority.

        Time to face facts.

        • avatarmountocean says:

          Are you ceding defeat? PR is everthing whether it’s a fight in the polls, courts, or streets. We need to convert the uninformed and we can’t do that by hiding from them or making enemies amongst ourselves.

        • avatarJosh says:

          In other words, you don’t mind if we believe in liberty in private, so long as we don’t act like it in public.

          Hiding will not save us from the leftist fundamentalists.

    • avatarStacy says:

      While I agree with you that the I Am A Gun Owner campaign in particular ended up really confirming a lot of negative stereotypes about us (really – look at the pictures) I disagree that being ‘out’ as a gun enthusiast is a bad thing. Bloomberg & Co are on a mission to demonize gun owners. Their goal is to make us feel ashamed and like we have to hide our hobby from respectable society. If you give in to that, then what happens is they get to define gun owners in the minds of everyone else. Then we lose legislatively, because no politician wants to be seen supporting an out group.

      You need your friends and neighbors, family members etc. to know that you are a gun owner, so they associate gun owners with you (presumably you’re a good guy) and will then be skeptical of the messages they get from elsewhere about what bad people those ‘gun nuts’ are.

      • avatarDave says:

        In general, you are trying to change the minds of people who aren’t open to another viewpoint. There has been a distinct plan, well executed, to indoctrinate the liberal, non-liberty point of view. It begins early in the schools and is continued by the corrupt media and ruling class. This will not change by convincing people that gun owners are not nuts. It will change by returning to the principles of individual liberty and freedoms that this country was founded on, the right to bear arms being one of them. It’s the REASON that we have to communicate. That isn’t accomplished by being “out” as a gun owner.

        • avatarmountocean says:

          What better way to demonstrate individual responsibility and liberty than being an “out” gun owner? And who are you suggesting we communicate with if not those that follow other points of view? We won’t convert the gun-grabbing leaders, but we can bring the misinformed to our side when we teach them that an interest in our human rights does not make us a nut.

        • avatarJosh says:

          There are a lot of people out there who ARE open to another viewpoint but don’t know that another viewpoint exists. There is a loud leftist minority, and an ignorant group of voters in the middle who follow them because they don’t know any better.

          In any case, the Left took power by fighting year after year without compromise. The only way to knock them out of power is to do the same to them.

          Ultimately, we are willing to exercise our freedom and defend it, or we are not.

    • avatarRedleg says:

      That strategy worked out real good for the Jews too didn’t it Dave? Just ask Anne Frank about it.

      They gave their people the same advice as you did above and unfortunately everybody listened to them. I hope gun owners don’t take that advice…that story doesn’t have a happy ending.

  50. avatarEd Head says:

    Unbelievable. We are not sheep, don’t act like one
    1. Ask what was the probable cause for being detained
    2. Ask if you are under arrest. If not leave. Most of the time they will play the game, huddle and maybe get on the radio
    3 if the wait is over 15 minutes , ask them to call a supervisor over ( most of the time they will tell you to go)
    4 ask to use your cell phone to call your lawyer as you feel the detention is excessive
    5 they will either let you go or arrest you , or you will need your lawyer

    I am not a lawyer but this is the advise I was given by one for taking pictures of an old courthouse. Someone felt it was suspicious… An old man taking pictures

    • avatarGlenn Billings says:

      Agreed. I would be respectful. The officer believes he is only trying to do his job. From what I read in the article, it appears that the caller was lying. I think his intention was only to cause you a little grief and embarrassment. I would not give him the satisfaction by making a big scene. That would icing on the cake for him. To not stand up for your rights is to be a sheep. Ever read the essay “A Nation of Cowards”? If you don’t stand up for your rights against bullies, how are you going to stand up of someone starts shooting at you in a violent confrontation?

  51. avatarCYRANO says:

    This is all well and good about claiming your rights but I was falsely accused of illegally hunting on some woman’s property, killing, and gutting one of her horses. The story was quite a tall tail but the sheriff still came out, he cleared me but then called the DNR to clear me and then I was detained in a sheriff’s vehicle for 2 hours until the DNR cleared me and then the sheriff threatened to arrest me for wanting the woman arrested for disturbing the hunt and making a false claim against me. Its sometimes just better to shut up and walk away no matter if you are in your rights. BTW, no horses were harmed, only two deer that were down on my side of the property line where I legally shot them.

    • avatarMichael B. says:

      Not talking to them is your right under the fifth amendment.

      You did not shut up and walk away. You were detained, talked (inadvisable), were still treated poorly, and let go. He bullied you and you took it to avoid hassle even though it could’ve easily caused you more hassle because cooperating is no sure guarantee you’ll be let go.

      It is a sure guarantee, however, that they’ll use whatever you tell them against you in a court of law.

  52. avatarGene says:

    Red flag, political material, eagle – illegal? Does that mean reading the politics section of the washington post is illegal?

    Was the accuser arrested for filing a false report?

    Good Lord. What has become of us?

  53. avatarJAS says:

    If you’re sure of this it the way it went, send this post to Megyn Kelly at FOX. She will run the story. Prepared to be pre-interviewed and grilled. Worth it if you’re right

  54. avatarRalph says:

    Cops are professional bullies. It’s what they do. It’s what they are. Don’t talk to them and don’t trust them. If you have an encounter with cops, be polite. Be calm. Be respectful. Then STFU.

    The more time you spend talking to cops, the more likely it is that you’ll be charged with something, anything, even if they have to make sh!t up and fabricate evidence. Which is something that they do thousands of times a year.

    • avatarJim says:

      Cops, as part of their duties, attempt to get you to consent to searches and to incriminate yourself. They are legally entitled to do so, and are trained in the best techniques to get you to do so. Do not say anything to them other than the questions I outlined above. Yes, it is “rude” as far as normal interactions go, but then again most people on the street do not have the power to throw you in jail or kill you. If a police officer is asking you questions, he is not your friend. He is doing what he is employed to do. Don’t answer their questions. Ever.

      • avatarBrad says:

        Unless you called them, then, maybe you should answer their questions.

        • avatarJim says:

          I’m rather new around here. Is Brad a habitual troller? Of course if you call them, then you have a reason to do so and should talk to them. I’m talking about when a police officer approaches you or stops you on the road.

  55. avatarEvan says:

    Honestly, not suprirised whenever I am On this site I always have to watch who’s around me. Please, shove my state into the ocean. I’ll go with it if it saves the rest of the country. Well, that is after we shove off California too but it looks like plate tectonics will do that for us…eventually.

  56. avatarRon says:

    False Arrest, Unlawful Detention, Violation of Constitutional Rights, Holy crap what are they going to do to us next. People you had better wake up and start yelling hard and long or I can guarantee you, your behinds will be in some sort of detention center sooner or later. It must stop and only YOU can stop it. God Help Us All.

  57. avatarAnmut says:

    You can’t let the cops off this easy – it is as much the fault of the idiot that called in as it is the fault of the dispatchers who dispatched and the officers that took it.

    The call should have gone as such:
    “yes, 911, there is a guy next to me on the bus that is watching a video and I saw a gun and maybe a nazi symbol.”

    “okay, was he threatening anyone? does he have a gun?”

    “no, he’s just watching a video”

    “if he is minding his own businesses you mind yours.”

    END OF CALL.

    I don’t care how courteous the cops were – this was DISGRACEFUL, DISGUSTING – and possibly illegal.

  58. avatarsmaj says:

    The progtard indoctrination of NJ is nearly complete. Sounds like the cops acted rationally and professionally.

  59. avatarpat says:

    I would like to take a ball peen hammer to the lower jaw of the communist bed wetter who made the call.

  60. avatarSixpack70 says:

    And they wonder why Americans don’t want to take public transportation? Some people need to mind their own damn business.

  61. avatarg says:

    Terrible…. and yeah, profiling sucks. I’d be pretty upset if that happened in the middle of my commute…

    It reminds me of an incident that happened about a year after 9/11.

    I happened to be at the airport with family… dressed in my standard jeans, sneakers, warm-up jacket, baseball cap, and a scarf around my neck (a simple green & black shemagh that was a gift from a friend). The airline flight was delayed (of course), so I started walking around with my wife. I had my camera, and I was walking around, taking pictures of her, and taking shots of random things that piqued my curiosity, such as food being sold at the news stands, and of course, some pictures of the airplanes landing and taking off outside on the tarmac. We weren’t always in immediate reach of each other, as I would wander back and forth to snap shots of stuff.

    Out of nowhere, a pair of cops walk up to me, hands on their holsters, asking me to stop and freeze. They immediately began asking questions about why I was taking photographs… huh? It was a confusing conversation, because I didn’t know what was going on… turns some other passenger reported to the police that a man wearing a “terrorist scarf” was walking around, and acting suspicious, “spying” on the airport. I wanted to burst out laughing because…

    1) I’m 4th generation Chinese American, and a very pale one at that. I don’t have any accent when I speak English. Last I checked, I don’t appear to be Arab.

    2) Taking pictures is “spying”? Haven’t they seen an Asian guy with a camera taking pictures before? C’mon…

    It was at that point that I got serious and realized that these guys could haul me away, and detain me indefinitely if I didn’t ease their fear. I explained calmly that I was just traveling with my wife and we were waiting for our flight, so I was passing the time practicing taking pictures with my camera as we walked around. By this time, my wife had rushed over, worried, and we showed them our tickets and state-issued ID.

    The cops quickly realized some dumb arse person had raised a stink over nothing. They let me go and asked me to not take anymore pictures of airplanes outside of the airport window (OK…). They left without a word, including NO apology.

    I wish I could say that was the only time something like that has happened to me, but for many people of color in this country, getting randomly profiled by the police because of some other person’s phony call happens waaaaaaay too much. It sucks.

  62. avatarBarstow Cowboy says:

    If you want my advice, don’t get one of those mini14 guns. They’re harder to aim and they’re harder to shoot, and you don’t 30 rounds. Just get yourself a double barreled shotgun. They’re easier to shoot and easier to aim.

  63. avatarAlan Rose says:

    I would have been sorely tempted to either:
    1. Ignore him; or
    2. Advise him that if he was asking questions, he probably had no reason to be bothering me, so buzz off or get to work.

  64. avatarJosh says:

    If the man watching the video had been a Muslim, there would have been a lawsuit from CAIR (and probably the ACLU, too).

  65. avatarGobe says:

    So let me get this right. Your beef is with the guy who reported you, not with the government. Right? I can sympathize with the indignity that occurred, the guy who reported you was an idiot, but what happened is a far cry from “The Man” wanting to take your guns away. Had you been put in jail rather than just questioned, well, that would have lent credibility to your fear of the government. But that’s not what happened. By the way, what would the outcome have been had you been viewing pornography? Food for thought at least, and not intended to offend.

  66. avatarWrex says:

    “What are you watching?”
    “None of your business. Now, am I being detained? No? Move along then and stop impeding my travel. Before you go, please give me your badge number and precinct number. Thanks. Bye.”

  67. avatarUnapologeticallyAmerican says:

    there is two ways to handle this situation. like this guy did or like some of the commenters suggest which is to be a pain and use your freedom of speech and stand your ground. The cops are put in a tough spot. Most are well meaning and think as we do. Most have concealed carry permits and support that. But if they are called they don’t know whats going on. They had to investigate. “offensive video” could have been child porn which is very illegal and yes you should get some matching chrome braclets and a free ride downtown. But once the cops figured it out, they didn’t just let him go, they gave him a ride home. They went out of their way to make it right.

    I would hope they would investigate the clown who called it in. False accusations is a crime too. don’t think it is necessary to spend tax dollars to haul the tool in and charge him, but give them a stern warning and make it an official record in case they try this again.

  68. avatarTheSleeperHasAwakened says:

    Albeit I was in another country (the UK), but it reminds me of the time I was going through airport security with a couple of gun mags in my carry-on and airport security pulled me aside and read me the riot act for the “Violent Literature” I was traveling with.

    It really is scaring when pictures of things can cause such a strong reaction out of people!

Leave a Reply

Please use your real name instead of you company name or keyword spam.