Cop to WI Open Carrier: “I Think What You’re Doing is Detrimental to the Constitution of the United States”

I’m all in favor of open carry. Like Ralph, I don’t think that “being a good little gun rights advocate” and keeping your firearms hidden from view makes it any more likely that the enemies of firearms freedom are going to stay their collective, metaphorical hand. Open carry creates “gun normalization” that protects our rights. Besides, if something is legal to do then it’s legal for you to do it. Ipso facto. And yet the Neenah Wisconsin officer felt free to . . .

threaten to shoot the open carrier in the head if he made a furtive move. Twice. This despite the fact that the officer clearly knew the “suspect” was exercising his Constitutional right to keep and bear arms without any intent on shooting anyone. “Oh we’re playing that game are we?” The threat of violence was entirely unnecessary. It was a verbal assault. Not illegal, but hardly designed to de-escalate the situation. Which wasn’t what I’d call tense.

At 6:52, the officer gets into it:

I’m a pro-Second Amendment Patriot American and I love my Second Amendment rights. But do you realize what you’re doing could very well cost us, me, my Second Amendment rights because this is so egregious to the general public that it’s gonna cause them to make decisions legally that, you know are going to restrain us. Do you realize that? Do you care about that?

Who the hell is this police officer to debate open carry with a legally armed American? Imagine if the officer walked up to someone on a street corner preaching the gospel/demonstrating for or against abortion, drew his gun and started warning them that their demo was dangerous to the officer’s First Amendment right to free speech and the U.S. Constitution? GTFO.

Note: there are plenty of people who agree with the officer’s argument against open carry but he’s holding an American citizen at gunpoint. He’s acting a civil servant. Or, if you prefer, a representative of the government. He’s not supposed to “take sides” or debate the law. He’s supposed to serve and protect. Period.

The second officer (Gonzales) steps up to argue against open carry. And then the first officer starts up again. “The road to hell is paved with good intentions,” he lectures. Ain’t that the truth. The last comment is even more ironic: “what an awesome opportunity to learn.”

comments

  1. avatar A-Rod says:

    Cops would not be little Napoleans if we took away their guns. The majority of good police work does not involve the gun. It is just a tool but some cops feel it is their only tool. Tools with tools….

    1. avatar Taylor Tx says:

      “Youre either the weapon and the gun is the tool, or youre a tool and the gun is the weapon.”

      Id say youre correct in your assertion 🙂

    2. avatar Totenglocke says:

      This. Police should be disarmed unless a situation (such as a hostage situation) warrants using weapons. They’d be far more respectful to the public that employs them and there would be a huge decreased in innocent people being murdered by police officers.

      1. avatar CG-23 Sailor says:

        “and there would be a huge decreased in innocent people being murdered by police officers.”

        You forgot to mention the mass INCREASE of innocent people shot by Non-cops as a result of your idiotic “should be” policy.

        1. avatar DaveL says:

          You forgot to mention the mass INCREASE of innocent people shot by Non-cops as a result of your idiotic “should be” policy.

          I’m sorry, but that just just doesn’t follow.

        2. avatar Totenglocke says:

          Yes, because we have so much of that right now….wait, no, we don’t.

        3. avatar Stilicho says:

          Moron. Remember that cops are, in part, selected for low intelligence so that they don’t get bored (see, e.g., the recent court case from the Second Circuit upholding a department’s policy to not hire applicants who scored higher than average on an intelligence test). Constitutional scholars they generally are not. Nor are they preventing crime except in rare circumstances. What they do (when they aren’t playing meter maid or harassing citizens for fun and profit) is after-the-fact investigation and punishment. Quite frankly, their role should be to simply keep the peace and issue citations rather than the would-be Rambo games so many of them (yeah, I’m looking at YOU East Podunk SWAT and Dept. of Education SWAT) play. We have collectively traded Sheriff Andy Taylor for a bunch of up-armored Barney Fife’s who finally got their bullets and can’t wait to use you for target practice. Because security.

    3. avatar Soccerchainsaw says:

      There’s got to be a video somewhere in which a cop pulls up to an open carrier and says something along the lines of: “You’re just open carrying, right? Ok, if you don’t mind I’m going to walk along with you for a few yards to give the appearance that I’m finding out what’s going on, then I’ll get in my car and drive away. That way the pansy that called in about you will maybe get the idea that you’re not a threat, although I’m not holding my breath.”

      1. avatar Jus Bill says:

        Now THAT would be actual good police work. Pity…

        1. avatar William Burke says:

          I have HUGE doubts as to whether this idea of yours is practical, and it all revolves around the word, “walk”….

    4. avatar ThomasR says:

      I’ve seen alot of videos of cops stopping people OC’ing, This cop is one of the most arrogant, condescending, self-righteous and threatening A- holes I have ever seen.

      Threatening to shoot someone in the head, twice and then lecturing him about the use of his civil rights; meanwhile the other cops with drawn weapons after they know this guy is not a threat.

      This cop is more of a threat to our freedoms, not some citizen practicing a civil right.

    5. avatar ThomasR says:

      I was so upset with this cops actions, I called the Neenah Police Dept. phone line and told the lady what I thought, matter of fact, but to the point. I said most of what I posted, I just left out the A-hole part.
      1-920-886-6000

  2. avatar Jeff the Griz says:

    “I’ll shoot you right in the head” and your little dog too…

  3. avatar Chris Mallory says:

    “It was a verbal assault. Not illegal,”

    In many places making a credible verbal threat is considered assault and is illegal. Battery is the crime of actually carrying out the threat. This thug should be charged with assault and terroristic threatening.

    508.080bTerroristic threatening in the third degree.
    (1) Except as provided in KRS 508.075 or 508.078, a person is guilty of terroristic
    threatening in the third degree when:
    (a) He threatens to commit any crime likely to result in death or serious
    physical injury to another person or likely to result in substantial property
    damage to another person;

    1. avatar Conway Redding says:

      To me it was more like a warning — “If you, armed as you are, make any sudden moves, I will respond in thus and such a way.” I, unlike many of the other posters to TTAG about the incident, thought the officer was being eminently reasonable, considering that once a citizen had made a complaint about someone walking around in public with a long weapon, the police were duty-bound to respond to check the situation out. The bottom line is that once the officer had satisfied himself that he probably wasn’t dealing with a James Holmes or an Adam Lanza, he ended the contact. In the meantime, he took steps to ensure his own safety. So let me ask those of you who are upset about the behavior of the police in this incident: Suppose someone showed up on the sidewalk in front of your house with a rifle slung across his back, in a jurisdiction in which open carry is perfectly legal. How would you respond? Would you be likely to say to yourself, “Oh, it’s just some guy exercising his Constitutional 2d Amendment rights” and go on about your business as if he weren’t armed at all? Or would you want to know a little bit more about the guy?

      1. avatar Bruce L. says:

        If said person was in front of my house, I would talk to him about his long gun, what is it, how it likes it, how it shoots. I would think any normal person would.
        My dad and I have walked up to strangers houses (farm houses) to ask to hunt quail many times.

      2. avatar David says:

        Conway,It’s like this… a man with a long slung across his back is most likely not a threat. It is the guy with the weapon in his hand’s or at the ready that is the threat. The cops over reacted because the were scared and did not know how to deal with their fear and they do not know the law.

        1. avatar Andy says:

          I agree a lot of cops really don’t know how to react to legal open carry.These cops are threatening these guys,in a round about way.Actually they have violated these guys Civil Rights by detaining them for so long,and not placing them under arrest for anything.Be prepared and ready.Keep your powder dry.

      3. avatar Joe says:

        Yes I would ignore it, especially now in hunting season… If we called the cops about every open carrier in town they would have no time left to give speeding tickets. We have open carriers in walmart (usually pistols) and nobody blinks… It’s called being normal.

      4. avatar Drew says:

        [q] once a citizen had made a complaint about someone walking around in public with a long weapon, the police were duty-bound to respond to check the situation out. [/q]~Conway

        [sarc] no they were duty bound to over react and escalate the situation [/sarc] but I digress.

        The above quote is incorrect on its face, the police have no “duty to respond” to any complaint received by a citizen! This is well established with the SCOUS and no matter how many times a person would wish [or demand] a LEO would respond will not make it so! There is so much info on this subject if you would but search it out.

        Your hypothetical statement concerning “open carry” is a moot point, if it is legal? It is legal! If your scared defend your self OR sit back down and enjoy that cup of joe. Either way you will be judged by your actions and/or your perceptions to any open carry.

        Just sayin
        Drew

      5. avatar Xanthro says:

        Suppose someone showed up on the sidewalk in front of your house with a rifle slung across his back, in a jurisdiction in which open carry is perfectly legal. How would you respond? Would you be likely to say to yourself, “Oh, it’s just some guy exercising his Constitutional 2d Amendment rights” and go on about your business as if he weren’t armed at all? Or would you want to know a little bit more about the guy?
        ——————————-
        Why would I care? Seriously, how on Earth am I affected by this?

        If the long gun were interesting, I may want to inquire about it, but outside of that, I couldn’t care less if he or she had a firearm anymore than I would care the color of his or her socks.

        My level of concern wouldn’t even raise to the level of thinking of a reason why s/he would be carrying, anymore than I’d need a reason why s/he chose to walk there that day.

        Why would you care? Do you really think someone is going to walk around with a slung rifle to go and commit some crime?

        Wouldn’t the person trying to hide a rifle underneath clothing be far more dangerous?

        The only reason I may want to know more about the person is to possibly develop a friendship with a like minded soul, much like I do when I run into people at the LGS or purchasing ammo.

        I’d have zero concern at all about the rifle itself.

      6. avatar Ralph says:

        @Conway Redding, I sincerely hope that the officer will keep his pants on while you’re kissing his @ss.

        1. avatar William Burke says:

          🙂 DAMN. That was GOOD!

      7. avatar John in Ohio says:

        “Suppose someone showed up on the sidewalk in front of your house with a rifle slung across his back, in a jurisdiction in which open carry is perfectly legal.”

        It happens here in public (and on our private property as we encourage everyone to carry). If they aren’t threatening me with the firearm or otherwise making some very credible overtures then it’s a non-event. Believe it or not, people actually argue in ‘gun country’ while armed. They aren’t planning on running each other over with motor vehicles, stabbing each other with knives, or even punching each other. It’s no surprise that they aren’t inclined to shoot one another either! I’ve been armed all of my adult life and carried a lock blade knife on my belt in school. There were altercations at school and nobody used a knife. I’ve even gotten my butt handed to me in my young adult years and never even would’ve considered producing a firearm or other weapon. There has to be something much more to the situation than simply that the individual is armed for me to interfere with their private affairs. I mind my own business in public and expect other people to do the same.

        Part of asserting an individual right is understanding that one must also ‘live and let live’ regarding the rights of others. If the only thing that is making you nervous is that a person is armed then perhaps the problem isn’t with them or their gun. The problem may lie within you.

      8. avatar Steve says:

        “Reasonable”?

        Holding someone at gun point who wasn’t doing anything illegal and was of no threat? This is akin to doing felony stops on all cars then enter a shooting range parking lot, and you’re going to defend it?

        1. avatar Cliff H says:

          No, this was in no way reasonable, even though cop1 tries to come off as though he were being reasonable his “daddy in lecture mode” attitude was off-putting.

          Three armed officers respond and hold a man at gunpoint who is not breaking any law? How is that reasonable?

          That said, and I am a whole-hearted open carry supporter, if you walk around an urban area with an MSR slung over your shoulder you WILL spend time talking to the cops and it will most likely not be real fun. If that is not what you set out to do, you are a fool. Just for now, could you consider trying to make your point with a REALLY big pistol in a holster? The whole point is to exercise your 2A right while normalizing the presence of guns in public. Scaring the piss out of your neighbors with along gun may not be the best tactic. Just sayin’. Anyway, these guys got more balls than I do. As long as they know what they are about and are ready and willing to manage the encounter, even scaring a few folks and then walking away with no incident drives home the point a little more each time that not every guy with a gun is a sociopath mass murderer.

      9. avatar Chris Mallory says:

        The citizen would have been fully justified in defending himself from the thug who says “I am going to shoot you in the head if you move.”. If it is wrong for a citizen to say something then it is wrong for a government employee to make the same statement.

      10. avatar Doc 03911 says:

        The officer called him stupid for following the law and by doing so, he’s potentially going to ruin it for others because fear mongrels that see him following the law will freak out and demand more laws. How asinine is that? That’s like buying a Ferrari, being legally able to drive it but an officer pulls you over and suggests that you park it in a garage, hidden from sight because the public might have fears that you will use it to travel well over the speed limit intoxicated.

        The officer is an anti bully well rehearsed in pro 2A doctrine. His only concern for gun rights are for his and his “only ones” constituents.

      11. avatar CT Resident says:

        That police officer is showing irresponsible behavior and should be reprimanded as a start. Threatening to shoot someone in the head when they are clearly not a danger is irresponsible and a misuse of authority as sworn officer with a gun.

      12. avatar Ardent says:

        A rebuttal in two parts:

        One: To call the police every time you see an armed person is anti liberty and irrational at best.
        When I observe people in my environment I, like most people, gloss right over anyone whose demeanor is consistent with the environment. It’s only when their behavior deviates from the norm that they receive any real attention at all. Thus it’s suspicious behavior and not the presence of a weapon that garners attention. Do I notice armed people? Of course, there are a great many CC and OC armed people in my environment, which is why they get an attention pass. I make note that they are armed, give them an extra moment’s scrutiny to confirm my initial impression that they aren’t a threat and go about my business.

        Note that the presence of a gun is not itself suspicious nor should it be considered so. If you’re actually disturbed by the mere presence of a person who is armed you may be experiencing hoplophobia and may wish to try desensitization therapy or other appropriate measure to alleviate the symptoms of irrational fear. Other methods of dealing with these sorts of fears include being armed yourself and completing appropriate training to become confident in the use of arms. If the presence of arms equated to danger the antis would have been right about CCW laws resulting in blood running in the streets. All fact point to more guns equaling less crime and so reacting to an armed citizen as if they were a threat solely because they are armed is irrational.

        Two:
        To suggest that such an encounter with police doesn’t have a chilling effect on the exercise by the people of their rights is either absurd or dishonest or both. If the police were only to arrive and perform a non detention non invasive threat assessment (something each citizen should be capable of themselves without the police) it would be bad enough. When the police arrive and engage in political arguments and debate of relevant law with the citizen detained at gunpoint I think ‘chilling effect’ is a massive understatement. To be threatened with immediate death for the mere exercise of a right negates that right altogether and to suggest that some other citizens might murder this citizen merely because he exercises his rights is such an egregious threat as to make one wonder if the officer(s) ought not face charges under the 1964 Civil Rights Act Re: denial of civil rights under color of law.

        The calm demeanor and polite language the officer uses in making these threats only illustrates how comfortable he is with threatening people who exercise rights he doesn’t agree with. This is no less disgusting because it didn’t end in unlawful arrest.

  4. avatar I_Like_Pie says:

    I would be very similar in attitude to that officer….without the lecturing. You can’t “not” be cautious enough with approaching strange angry young men.

    But this guy was well in his right to do what he was doing.

    1. avatar Robert Farago says:

      What made you think he was angry?

      1. avatar I_Like_Pie says:

        Isn’t that exactly what the policeman is there to find out?

        Well…being a young, white male typically qualifies one as such. The typical assumption he is either angry, horny, or responsible in descending order.

        Stereotypes are unfair at times and police are supposed to look past such assumptions. He turned out to be responsible in our eyes, but roll the dice on exposure to the general population and the stereotype is pretty spot on.

        1. avatar I_Like_Pie says:

          I suppose you bring up a good point.

          Is open carry considered passive aggression in the eyes on the general public?

        2. avatar Robert Farago says:

          Young white guys are generally angry? I thought the [racist] meme was the “angry black man.” Who knew?

        3. avatar Ralph says:

          If a cop can’t assess a situation like this in ten seconds, he should find out if Walmart is hiring.

        4. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

          Bingo. Though I think you are being generous. 3-5 seconds should do it.

    2. avatar Brent says:

      +1, minus the anger

      Like it or not, the cop was right. A futive move would’ve been reason to pull his own piece.

      Yes, open carry is legal in WI. And yes, this man was well within his right to be doing this.

      However, while we may not appreciate the cop’s lecture, he had a point. Doing an “in your face” demonstration – which is what many open carry advocates are doing – is not only offensive to some, it is intimidating. There are other – better – ways of normalizing guns without scaring the bejesus out of the uninformed masses.

      1. avatar Robert Farago says:

        Such as?

        1. avatar Brent says:

          Social media. Like it or not, Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and the like are great ways to reach the younger crowd.

          I’m not sure about the rest of the country, but here in MA, public access TV is big in some communities (especially those with an older population). A local show about firearms wouldn’t be difficult to do.

          Open house at the local gun range. Bring the public in. Unfortunately, this backfired (pun not intended) here in MA when am 8-year old boy accidentally shot himself… http://www.nbcnews.com/id/27399337/#.UoBEH6pLuJM

        2. avatar Ralph says:

          here in MA

          Brent, no further explanation is necessary.

          Fortunately, Wisconsin isn’t MA. And not everyone is as institutionalized as you.

          But I agree that there are better ways to advocate for open carry. Check the Alamo rally last month.

        3. avatar Cliff H says:

          Social media, sweet. We’ve seen how many times where people have posted pictures or pro-gun comments on social media and had the authorities and school boards and DSHS and every other hoplophobe government organization swoop down and threaten to throw them in jail and/or put their kids in foster care? Social media is not the answer, though it MAY be a part of the solution.

        4. avatar Patrick says:

          Such as … just good old open carry. If you don’t do it because you’re lazy, do it. If your friends don’t do it because they’re lazy, tell them to do it. Maybe even carry something less “military grade scary”, like a wood grip revolver – or an 18 rd mag if you don’t want to compromise safety for PR on the former. Either works.
          A few people at a rally can make a difference; many people doing this every day can make a bigger difference, IMHO.

        5. avatar John in Ohio says:

          @Patrick: +1000 Great post!

      2. avatar William Polster says:

        You have no clue.
        I started oc’ing in my town a couple months ago, cops made consensual contact. Now they don’t even stop me. It took 1 stop and they leave me be.

        1. avatar John in Ohio says:

          Sometimes it only takes one individual to do it and correct law enforcement misinformation (if necessary) in an area to clear the way for everyone else. Thank you for taking the personal risks and your time to do that. It’s important. 🙂

          If many, many more gun owners would OC regularly, it would be a non-issue with peace officers in no time at all.

      3. Furtive movement is the new phrase cops use to describe any type of movement or look. It is a phrase that a cop may use in court and instantly the judge or jury thinks omg the guy with a gun was going for his gun, which was most likely not the case.

        1. avatar Ralph says:

          “Furtive movement” is copspeak for “breathing.”

        2. avatar Cliff H says:

          “Furtive movement” is what got that man shot in his doorway by SWAT over-reaction o few days ago.

          As for this incident, they had three cops surrounding this guy who had a slung weapon. Haven’t these guys heard about Tasers or pepper spray or other less-than-lethal weapons? To have your back-up cover you with a drawn pistol AFTER you have admitted to the “suspect” that you know he is not breaking any laws seems a bit over the top.

      4. avatar William Burke says:

        Are you suggesting open carry is not designed to inform?

      5. avatar John in Ohio says:

        “Doing an “in your face” demonstration – which is what many open carry advocates are doing – is not only offensive to some, it is intimidating.”

        Okay, how, after contacting local law enforcement and being told that it’s illegal when it isn’t, is someone supposed to be able to OC (rifle or handgun)? Ohio has been an open carry state since the beginning and we STILL have those situations come up! People are told that they will be arrested if they open carry even a handgun. I OC regularly. Although, I also do so at organized protests (more rifle than pistol), I’m referring to everyday stuff in this comment. The only effective way we’ve found to get law enforcement (and often the public) to understand that it’s legal and just fine to do is by actually doing it. AFAIK, it’s never been against Ohio law to open carry but people tended to carry concealed over the generations because we didn’t need licenses then. As a result, the right to keep and bear arms fell out of public consciousness. Eventually, more and more people were getting jammed up in court on CC and had to rely on a statutory “prudent man” affirmative defense. That’s how we got saddled with licensing law here around 2005. It was NOT because of OC. It was because of the proliferation of CC. OC walks were used by some groups to encourage the legislature to pass concealed carry licensing law. Out of sight, out of mind works too well with the RKBA, at least in Ohio.

        1. avatar Cliff H says:

          “Doing an “in your face” demonstration – which is what many open carry advocates are doing – is not only offensive to some, it is intimidating.”

          Okay everybody, repeat after me: “Your discomfort or offense does not trump my natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms.”

          “…how, after contacting local law enforcement and being told that it’s illegal when it isn’t, is someone supposed to be able to OC (rifle or handgun)? Ohio has been an open carry state since the beginning and we STILL have those situations come up! People are told that they will be arrested if they open carry even a handgun.”

          Similar problem in Seattle. Probably Tacoma as well, but they have not made their policy public. Washington is an Open Carry state. Seattle police published policy is that if you Open Carry in the city you WILL be detained and investigated, even though in that same policy letter they state that no crime Is being committed. They will demand to see your papers(!) and they will disarm you/confiscate your weapon while they decide if there is any possible charge they can use to arrest you. If after all this harassment they decide to let you go they may or may not return your weapon.

          The whole point of all this is that they DO NOT LIKE this Open Carry shit and even though it is legal the will do everything they possibly can to make your life miserable to try to bully you and everyone else into not doing it. They cannot change the law, but they can sure as Hell change your attitude. And that is the point with any over-bearing cop. If he doesn’t like you or what you are doing he WILL find a way to fvck with you until you decide it isn’t worth the trouble any more. All you guys willing to push right back, more power to you. Until we change the attitude of the public and the police the idea will persist that EVRY man on the street with a gun is a psycho murderer. And the police will NOT change their attitude until the occurrence is so frequent that they just get tired of trying to deal with it. Even they will eventually find better things to do with their time. Be careful out there.

        2. avatar John in Ohio says:

          @Cliff H: The description that you give of the situation in Seattle resembles the situation in Ohio a few years ago. We prepared and then went out and OCed. We worked very hard and now problem areas are here and there. When we identify one, we take care of it through contacting officials and then OCing if necessary. IF we waited on our general public to accept it and then encourage the legislature to fix things, we’d still be waiting.

          Sometimes, you just gotta refuse to go to the back of the bus. In Ohio, it worked. Now we just do mop up.

          “Be careful out there.”

          Thanks, man. You too. If anything does happen to me, remember, I’d rather live a free life with risk than a seemingly safe one as a slave. 🙂

      6. avatar Chris Mallory says:

        Nothing short of the weapon being aimed at him and rounds being touched off would be justification for the cop even touching his weapon.

    3. avatar Ardent says:

      And this demonstrates the difference between those who would side with tyranny and those who would support liberty. Where you see ‘strange, angry young men’ I see citizens engaged in the exercise their natural and constitutionally protected rights.

      Where you see a potential crime and a threat I see no cause for alarm or suspicion and certainly no cause (either ethically or legally) to detain these citizens.

      I submit that your very grasp of reality is skewed in such a way that you out to sound out and test all your assumptions to see if they fit within the concept of a free people and if they do not, please do not ever accept a position of authority over others.

      A word on caution: All this ‘caution’ over citizens peacefully engaged in the exercise of their rights is not caution at all but a violent overreaction and an overstep of authority on the part of the police. At the same time these attempts at ‘caution’ viewed through a tactical lens are nothing but a theatrical display, whether intended to assuage the officers nerves or intimidate the citizen I’ll leave for you to decide.

      Using this video as an example, at the moment the lead officer sounded his horn to hail the citizens and begin his unlawful detention of them the officer was still seated in his vehicle and completely vulnerable to attack from the rifle one citizen carried. Not only was the likely outcome of a hostile encounter at that point heavily weighted in the direction of the citizen (since he already had a rifle near at hand) but the officers own actions (sounding his horn while still seated in his vehicle) indicate that he did not in fact view the citizen as a threat but rather was about to engage in a calculated effort to convince them not to exercise their rights.

      There is simply no cover of law, no argument to safety and no defense for the actions of these officers that does not smack of tyranny and the usurpation of the rights of the citizenry by pseudo-legal means.

      When the open transport of a rifle is sufficient cause to detain and question a citizen who was not otherwise engaged in suspicious behavior the right to bear arms is most severely infringed.

      This alone is reason enough to condemn the actions of these officer and were it the only reason it would still be cause for concern. That the officer then felt justified to repetitively threaten the citizen with death either by his hands or at the hands of the citizenry only demonstrates that the officers intention had nothing to do with either public safety or enforcement of the law.

      When the officer then mocks the citizen for asserting his rights under the forth amendment while he is unlawfully detained for exercising his second every person who is not immediately and seriously offended by the officers behavior must wholly accept that they in fact have no liberty and comfortably wear the chains of tyranny.

  5. avatar charles says:

    that was the single non emergency 911 call they got. does she sound scared? did she say we were in a school zone? in wi you can be in a school zone if you have your ccp. and it was a Sunday. i would not interrupt a kids education.

  6. avatar Mobrules says:

    Where is Wisconsin is this? How ridiculous is it for the tool to debate gun control with the citizen. Seems the motto “to protect and serve” is forgotten in todays world. Very sad. Cop says he is free to be stupid and They seem to forget they dont make laws just enforce them.

    1. avatar William Polster says:

      Neenah…between Oshkosh and Appleton.

    2. avatar Cliff H says:

      The thing is that they have the power and they know it. It only took a single phone call and THREE armed cops showed up to mess with and lecture someone they admitted was not breaking any law. A brief 10-code into his radio would have probably brought ten more squads and the SWAT guys in an MRAP. Possibly helicopter.

      In their position they can decide that even if something is NOT illegal, but they don’t like it, they can apply so much pressure and give you so much shit that you will think twice, thrice, four times before doing it in the future, even though you and they KNOW that it is perfectly legal. And the tactic works. How often do we see, even on this blog full of guys who are gung-ho pro 2A, pro Open Carry, pro Constitutional Carry, commenters who chastise these guys for making life difficult for the rest of us who just want to fly around under the radar?

      WE ARE NOT BAD GUYS. Unless more people are willing to take the risks to put this in the face of the authorities we will ever change the attitude of law enforcement that they can ignore laws they do not agree with and coerce us to not do perfectly legal things just because they do not like it.

  7. avatar Ralph says:

    This happened in Wisconsin, where the previous governor said that concealed carry licensing was unnecessary because it was an open carry state. He even patted his hip — “wear it here.”

    And a cop with an exaggerated sense of self importance lecturing a citizen on the Constitution! It would be funny if it wasn’t so tragic.

    Do cops wonder why we don’t trust them? Are they really that stupid?

    1. avatar miserylovescompany says:

      No and yes.

      Tom

    2. avatar William Burke says:

      Stupid? He said, “egregious”, Ralph.

  8. avatar justAMan says:

    Anybody notice how he asked about 1000ft of a gun free zone to try to arrest him….

    1. avatar Tim says:

      I noticed that too. Shouldn’t they have probable cause to believe someone is doing something illegal *before* stopping that person? I think the cop should have just assessed the situation from afar and called it a day. He even told the men something along the lines of “I already know what you’re doing here,” indicating that he knew they weren’t a threat or doing anything illegal.

  9. avatar Taylor Tx says:

    at what point does the distrust of the people spill over into something else?

    Yea, I dont know about “protect and serve”, this reminds me of the saying on the side of the police car in Transformers, “to punish and enslave”.

    How dare you plebian subjects exercise your “rights”!

    Hes definitely a Decepticon.

    http://www.allfordmustangs.com/forums/attachments/2005-2010-mustang-talk/29976d1183945190-new-saleen-transformers-movie-punish-enslave.jpg

  10. avatar Casey says:

    The repeated “I will shoot you in the head” talk really makes me relate this to some sort of silly school yard argument.

  11. avatar JoshinGA says:

    This makes me absolutely sick, for many reasons. “Im going to shoot you right in the head”. Assuming that unlike the majority of cops this guy could actually hit what he was aiming for, that seems like an unneeded inflammatory statement to me. Continuing to hold them at with a gun at low ready out seems like overkill as well. The lecture about the Constitution is what really made me angry. The guy really seemed like a sack of douche juice.

    1. avatar Matt Richardson says:

      My first thought was, “Oh shit, is that guy being threatened with immediate injury or death?”

      One could argue a solid DGU case if a cop drew down on you and made threats while you were doing nothing more than carrying openly.

      To the sh*tbags arguing this dumbass was in the right drawing on and threatening a citizen; choose your sides carefully…

      1. avatar Bruce L. says:

        Funny Matt, I was just thinking the same thing.

      2. avatar Drew says:

        ^^ +1000 ^^

      3. avatar John in Ohio says:

        + another 1000.

  12. avatar Smaj says:

    A classic example of state-sponsored harassment and intimidation of citizens exercising their Constitutional rights. If that kid had turned suddenly that female cop would have shot him 15 times. And the patronizing, verbose fat cop can stick his “egregious” right up his fourth point of contact.

  13. avatar Anmut says:

    We have fought, and subsequently won, many legal battles in the past few years here in Wisconsin with over zealous and ignorant police officers who insist on making up their own rules on the spot. It really pains me to see that these police officers are never really punished in a way that would set precedence for possible future violators.

    1. avatar John in Ohio says:

      Aye. But, have you noticed it being much better now in WI? I know that in OH it is. (knock on wood)

  14. avatar Will says:

    Cliffs: Dude open carries, just to open carry. Cop makes unnecessary threat. Yadda, yadda, yadda…

    This has played out hundreds of times before. What’s the point of even discussing it?

    1. avatar Robert Farago says:

      Because it’s the truth about guns. Also because I’ve never seen a cop lecture an open carrier about the inadvisability of open carry based on its [supposedly] deleterious effect on Constitutional rights while holding the hectored citizen at gunpoint.

      1. avatar Mark N. says:

        What this cop says, in essence, is that exercising your second amendment right will lead to the loss of the right. The logic is entirely absent. If you don’t exercise the right that means you have already lost it. Or put another way, you can keep your tight (to bear arms, to free speech, to vote, etc. etc.) as long as you don’t insist on exercising that right. I mean, listen to this guy. He asks for ID, and the young man declines on the (correct legal) basis that he doesn’t have to. And what does the cop say, “Oh, we are going to play that game are we. You are not going to cooperate with me, huh? I call BS–but this is what cops do every day, intimidating people into waiving their rights.

        1. avatar William Burke says:

          “What this cop says, in essence, is that exercising your second amendment right will lead to the loss of the right. The logic is entirely absent.”

          And yet, how many times have we seen this same argument, right here? Hmmmmm?

        2. avatar John in Ohio says:

          “And yet, how many times have we seen this same argument, right here? Hmmmmm?”

          Yep. 🙁

      2. avatar Cliff H says:

        Not only The Truth About Guns, but more and more The Truth About Gun Rights. It’s a dirty job, but somebody’s gotta do it.

  15. avatar BillC says:

    So who you do you call when the cops are being out of control? The police for the police?

    1. avatar Hasdrubal says:

      Call 911 and ask for a supervisor. Whether you’re right or wrong, you will have better luck if you can be calm and polite. Especially if you’re more calm and polite than the officer that’s causing the problem. If the supervisor doesn’t solve the problem, and you believe you are legally and morally right, then the next step is to file a lawsuit. I have no experience with that side of the issue, though.

      I’ve had a supervisor called on me a few times. Usually because I told someone I couldn’t arrest their ex-something until they committed a crime, and that being a jerk wasn’t illegal in WA.

      1. avatar William Burke says:

        Just don’t reach for your cell while the fat moron is drawing down on you.

      2. avatar Cliff H says:

        If being a jerk was illegal Seattle cops would be busy 24/7.

  16. avatar Frank Masotti says:

    Police wouldn’t know the constitution or their state constitution if it jumped up and bit them in the ASSociation.

  17. avatar JOE MATAFOME says:

    This cop needs to review his shooting 101 class. You always aim for center mass, not the head or arm or knee or anywhere else. This fool would be lucky if he could hit center mass, never mind a difficult target such as the head. He’d most likely miss the head shot and take out another cop or an innocent bystander. I wouldn’t ever open carry, but I’m not against others doing so where it’s legal. If you do decide to open carry you stand a good chance of being stopped and questioned, or even shot if you make a wrong move. These two wanted to be stopped just to prove their point, but things could have ended very badly for this pair.

    1. avatar William Burke says:

      A point not proved is a point not understood.

    2. avatar Cliff H says:

      Right now the police have all the power to intimidate. Their attitude will never change until so many people Open Carry that the police cannot possibly respond to all of the calls. Then maybe they will decide to prioritize to calls where an actual crime is being committed. Second benefit, citizen hoplophobes will eventually learn that calling 911 just because you see a gun is a huge waste of time.

  18. avatar Jim Barrett says:

    Here is the part that sucks, though. The cop is right when he says that provoking the general populace by open carrying a long gun could lead to loss of those rights. A number of states have outlawed open carry and those laws have so far withstood legal challenge. The argument in favor of open carry is that through time, open carriers can normalize the sight of a gun and so change people’s perceptions of guns. While probably true, that willl take a fair bit of time. It may be more likely that open carrying will frighten the masses enough that the anti-gun crowd will be able to push through anti-gun legislation before the normalization has a chance to succeed.

    Damned if you do and damned if you don’t.

    1. avatar Shane says:

      How do OC bans not infringe? Something about keeping and bearing comes to mind.

    2. avatar Mark N. says:

      Yep, he is right; it happened here in California. Ronnie Reagan outlawed open loaded carry when the Black Panthers marc on the Capitol. Open carry of unloaded guns remained legal until a bunch of open carry advocates began having coffee klatches on the Board Walk in San Diego and at Starbucks in the SF Bay Area. The soccer moms were afeered, and called the coppers. The publicity lead the southern California democrats to first propose and pass an open carry of handguns ban, and a year later, a ban on long guns in all urban areas. (Obviously, open carry–even loaded–remains legal in most unincorporated areas, and state and federal forests, and on private property.) When they finally manage to ban hunting (limiting herd management to state and federal game officers), why, there won’t be any reason for anyone to carry anything but shotguns for ducks, geese and doves!

      1. avatar Cliff H says:

        Yes, but…you’re talking about California. The logic does not necessarily apply in the more sane portions of the nation.

        And if none of us Open Carry, even where open carry is absolutely and perfectly legal, just because we are afraid that exercising this right will cause the hoplophobes and civilian disarmament crowd to lobby for laws to take away our open carry right then we have ALREADY LOST THAT RIGHT and they needn’t bother to write the laws. All they have to do to get our compliance with any statist policy they want is to field enough jack-boot cops to harass us and we will just slink away and write nasty comments on blogs about people who were man enough to stand up to the bastards.

    3. avatar John in Ohio says:

      “The cop is right when he says that provoking the general populace by open carrying a long gun could lead to loss of those rights.”

      Not the loss of rights; infringement. That’s not a petty distinction. Where rights are infringed, there’s tyranny (however great or small).

      “enough that the anti-gun crowd will be able to push through anti-gun legislation before the normalization has a chance to succeed.”

      If infringement happens in enough places at the same time then people who wish to exercise their right to keep and bear arms most logically will consider civil disobedience. They’ll refuse to go to the back of the bus.

      Ohio always has been an open carry state and we still have to use open carry to get illegal signs/local ordinances removed and illegitimate MWAG stops/arrests trained out of the officers. In many places, the local powers that be simply don’t change their ways UNLESS we OC to get them moving. My oldest child was pulled over after work tonight. The state highway patrol officer (a very pleasant interaction) thanked him for notifying (it’s currently Ohio law if licensed, armed, and stopped) because, as the officer put it, “I have to repeatedly tell licensees that they must notify even if they are NOT carrying.” That is not correct and it has been this way since the beginning (AFAIK). The only way we get some to change is by repeatedly and politely correcting them and informing their superiors. Not much changes, at least here, without individuals getting out there and making it change. Some Ohio gun owners have a problem with us doing that but somebody has to.

  19. avatar Shane says:

    I’ve noticed a trend that a majority of these open carrier/ police vids involve young open carriers (the famous Florida one of the old dude in the van withstanding). I wonder if the cops change their tone and keep the lectures to themselves when faced with a old dude OC’ing?

  20. avatar Skyler says:

    §1983 anyone?

  21. avatar JohnO says:

    Neenah is a nice little backwoods town. Been through it at least a hundred times. The officer appears a little badge-heavy, but the locals are good people.

  22. avatar Andy Jorgensen says:

    I think that kid is an idiot!!! If I were the cop I would have reacted in the same manner. Granted “shooting him in the head” was not the best way to put it. The kid should not be carrying a long gun while waking around town. Just because you can do something doesn’t mean you should.

    1. avatar Robert Farago says:

      Just because you can do something doesn’t mean you shouldn’t.

      1. avatar William Burke says:

        “Shouldn’t”? Am I reading your statement wrong? It IS late….

    2. avatar Bruce L. says:

      I am very glad you are not a cop.

    3. avatar Xanthro says:

      If the most important factor in life were not scaring people, then Black people wouldn’t still be legally required to sit at the back of the bus.

      How dare Ms. Parks try to change things and sit like everyone else.

      Unless you are directly endangering someone, there is no reason what so ever for the police to stop and question you, and certainly never any excuse to lecture you at gunpoint.

    4. avatar Ralph says:

      If I were the cop I would have reacted in the same manner.

      If you were a cop, you would have murdered a kid with an airsoft.

      1. avatar William Burke says:

        Fastest Gun on the Forum, folks. RALPH.

      2. avatar vioshi says:

        After the cop threatens (promises?) to shoot himon sight and unprovoked in a gas station: Sir, I do this so that next time some innocent kid with a airsoft/BB gun slung on this back, walks in to a gas station to get a slurpy you hesitate just long enough to NOT shoot him in the head with out justifiable cause.

        1. avatar William Burke says:

          It wasn’t Ralph that wrote that.

  23. avatar CG-23 Sailor says:

    There’s an internet meme going about right now about how we are not supposed to judge all Muslims on the actions of a handful… and wondering when all Gun owners will be given the same courtesy.

    Few here would disagree with that meme.

    I am wondering when all you assholes will give cops the same courtesy. Rather, you want to paint ALL police with the same brush based on the actions of a few. even going so far as blowing some cases out of proportion.

    A LOT of you here do this to include Robert Farago. a bunch of cop hating jackwagons.

    1. avatar JoshinGA says:

      It seems today that good cops that respect the right to keep and BEAR arms are the exception not the rule…

      1. avatar CG-23 Sailor says:

        “It seems today that good cops that respect the right to keep and BEAR arms are the exception not the rule…”

        WRONG.

        It’s the exceptions that make the news and not the rule.
        You get a false sense of what the majority is because only the minority is reported.

    2. avatar Hasdrubal says:

      RF doesn’t hate cops. He wants enough public awareness to make sure cops are doing the right thing. There are a lot of folks who post here that don’t feel the same way, though, but as a cop, I don’t mind what he’s doing one bit.

      1. avatar CG-23 Sailor says:

        “RF doesn’t hate cops. He wants enough public awareness to make sure cops are doing the right thing.”

        He has stated flat out several times on other posts that he has an anti-cop bias.
        And he has on MORE than one occasion took a legitimate situation and blew it out of proportion with biased BS.
        Not to mention how he allows the really psycho nuts on here go bashing merrily away on any and all cops.

        1. avatar Hasdrubal says:

          He is aware he has a bias, and he admits where it comes from. I don’t think it crosses the line into hate, I take it more as a wariness or fear of what could happen if society doesn’t watch closely enough. He’s not calling for US police to be disarmed or rounded up and executed, just held accountable for wrongdoing. We would probably disagree on a few points of tactics and equipment, but nothing huge.

          There have been times when I think he’s gone too far with the editorial language, but whenever anyone points it out in a reasonable way, he revises it even though it’s his site and he doesn’t have to.

          As for the rest, nobody would bother reading a page that says “everything’s fine, move along, nothing to see here.” And like some here have pointed out recently, it’s the other side that censors people.

    3. avatar Shane says:

      To be fair 90% of the cops are giving the other 10% a bad name.

      1. avatar CG-23 Sailor says:

        “To be fair 90% of the cops are giving the other 10% a bad name.”
        WRONG

        10% give the 90% a bad name.

        The 90% never get reported on national news. The 10% does so that’s all you see and that’s what you THINK the 90% is.
        Get your conspiracy sh!t straight.

        1. avatar William Burke says:

          Glug. Glug. Glug.

        2. avatar Gordon says:

          If that is the case, why don’t the 90% stop the 10%?

        3. avatar Mack Bolan says:

          FLAME DELETED

        4. avatar John in Ohio says:

          “If that is the case, why don’t the 90% stop the 10%?”

          That’s an excellent point, Gordon. Although I’m not getting behind either ratio, these things almost NEVER happen with just one officer present. Why aren’t the other good officers arresting the offending officer or just sending him on a ‘time out’? Not just with OC rights violations but even with some of the much more egregious incidents. Why do the other officers just allow it to happen and don’t even say or do something later about it if they are the good ones? Aren’t they complicit in their silence and, in some cases, covering up?

    4. avatar Ralph says:

      Rather, you want to paint ALL police with the same brush

      No, jagoff, we’re painting these cops with the same brush. Now pucker up and kiss some cop @ss.

    5. avatar William Burke says:

      To be fair, most of us don’t think all sailors are drunken idiots.

  24. avatar John in Ohio says:

    I’ve only gleaned through the post and have to try a faster system to watch the video. As it is, I have just a few quick comments.

    “Or, if you prefer, a representative of the government.”

    I prefer the term agent of government. Not only do they represent the vested authority and constitutional restrictions placed upon government in the immediate; they wield implied future power of government to bring about consequences beyond the present incident.

    “It was a verbal assault. Not illegal,”

    I’m not yet so sure about that ‘not illegal’ part. If the officer knew that OC was legal and didn’t have RAS or probable cause, then how can it be ‘legal’ to point a firearm at the person and verbally assault him? If the officer doesn’t like my skin color walking down that particular street, isn’t it ‘illegal’ if he points his sidearm at me and verbally assaults me; officer or not?

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      For us “average citizens”, what the other officer was doing would be called “brandishing” [displaying a firearm in a rude or threatening manner] and is illegal. Isn’t that what that army sergeant was being tried for in Texas?”

  25. avatar Calvin says:

    “what an awesome opportunity to learn.”

    More like, what a awesome opportunity to keep the oath you swore.

  26. avatar Jay1987 says:

    You know there is an old Tom T Hall song lyric that I think applies to the current open carry / gun control debate when paraphrased. first the original ” if we hang em all we get the guilty if we hang em all we cannot miss if we hang em all well you just remember this that someday they gonna hang you too.”

    Paraphrased: if we ban em all we get the guilty if we ban em all you cannot miss if we ban em all you just remember this that someday they gonna ban you too.

    so if you are one of those gun guys callin for a ban on OC just remember the antis won’t care a lick to ban concealed afterwards nor will they mind banning shooting sports and hunting then manufacture. To them hangin everybody seems perfectly logical.

  27. avatar Nordic says:

    Cop seemed reasonable to me. How’s he supposed to know if this guy is Joe Q. Law-Abiding Citizen or a wannabe Adam Lanza?

    Keep the gun at home, the shooting range, or the hunting trip and you won’t have this problem.

    1. avatar gloomhound says:

      The way you know is when they observe or receive a creditable report of someone engaging in an criminal activity. The mere possession of a firearm in that location is not a illegal action and as such does not warrant that officer’s action. Do you think he pulls his weapon on everyone he observes driving a car? Does he even pull it on every driver that he pulls over for a driving infraction? Of course not, but as we know a motor vehicle can be a deadly weapon. In this respect cars and guns are alike.

      This officer was wrong.

      1. avatar CG-23 Sailor says:

        “The way you know is when they observe or receive a creditable report of someone engaging in an criminal activity. The mere possession of a firearm in that location is not a illegal action and as such does not warrant that officer’s action.”

        So your solution would lead us down this path:

        911: “Nine one one, what’s your emergency?”
        Victim: ” A man with a gun just came into our building”
        911: “Well that’s perfectly legal, call us back once he starts killing people” [click]

        It’s called Proactive policing. When they get a call about a person with a gun, they HAVE to check it out to be sure the person is just legally carrying and not a criminal out to do bad.

        the officer’s warning to the guy with the gun was NOT a criminal threat. It was a warning of what would happen IF (I stress IF) the guy with the gun was to make a sudden move for his gun. There is nothing wrong with that.

        Remember: for the cop there is TWO possibilities. the guy may a) be a Joe Blow legal carrier. or b) the next Adam Lanza wannabe.

        Until he has checked him out he has to be prepared for b.

        This whole website, from Farago on down to the vast majority of commenters on here, are really going off the deep end of the conspiracy nutcase swimming pool when it comes to cop-hating. Don’t forget to stock up on the tin foil.

        1. avatar John in Ohio says:

          You switched from a public street to inside a building, possibly private property??? You also used “victim” instead of “caller”? Then you end with, “call us back once he starts killing people”? ONCE he starts killing people? Have an agenda there?

          911: “Nine one one, what’s your emergency?”
          CALLER: ”A man with a car just drove down our street.”
          911: “Well that’s perfectly legal, call us back once he starts killing people.” [click]

          911: “Nine one one, what’s your emergency?”
          CALLER: ”A man with a hat just walked down our street.”
          911: “Well that’s perfectly legal, call us back once he starts killing people.” [click]

          911: “Nine one one, what’s your emergency?”
          CALLER: ”A man with a tape measure just walked down our street.”
          911: “Well that’s perfectly legal, call us back once he starts killing people.” [click]

          911: “Nine one one, what’s your emergency?”
          CALLER: ”A white man with just walked down our street.”
          911: “Well that’s perfectly legal, call us back once he starts killing people.” [click]

          911: “Nine one one, what’s your emergency?”
          CALLER: ”A black man with just walked down our street.”
          911: “Well that’s perfectly legal, call us back once he starts killing people.” [click]

          911: “Nine one one, what’s your emergency?”
          CALLER: ”A Jewish man with just walked down our street.”
          911: “Well that’s perfectly legal, call us back once he starts killing people.” [click]

          Try this instead (it can be used for all of the above with minor changes):

          911: “Nine one one, what’s your emergency?”
          CALLER: ”A man with a gun just walked down our street.”
          911: “Is he threatening anyone? Is he aiming it at anyone?”
          CALLER: “No. He just has that scary gun (on his back or in his holster)!”
          911: “Well that’s perfectly legal if he’s not otherwise committing a crime. Please, call us back IF he threatens someone or seems to otherwise be committing a crime.”
          ————-
          “When they get a call about a person with a gun, they HAVE to check it out to be sure the person is just legally carrying and not a criminal out to do bad.”

          That’s patently false. Calls get prioritized all of the time and not all 911 calls generate a unit response. They are under no obligation to dispatch for the NON-commission of a crime. They can go out and observe but they have no duty to check out a crime NOT in progress or have privilege to detain someone (in most states) without probable cause or RAS. If you’re an officer and you do as you are asserting (in most states) then you ARE part of the problem.
          ————-
          “Don’t forget to stock up on the tin foil.”

          If you’re a law enforcement officer then don’t forget to keep your resume current because if you act as you’ve written in this comment then you should, one day, get fired and possibly sued. It’s only a matter of time.

        2. avatar William Burke says:

          This is gonna be good, I can tell already.

        3. avatar Nordic says:

          “It’s called Proactive policing. When they get a call about a person with a gun, they HAVE to check it out to be sure the person is just legally carrying and not a criminal out to do bad.”

          Right, and then these same folks complain when the police aren’t at the scene of a crime in a split second.

          “We would have been here earlier, but since open carry was normalized we really had no cause to suspect the crazy-looking guy with a long gun who was hanging out near the school to be a threat.”

        4. avatar gloomhound says:

          Hey Nordic last time I checked being “crazy-looking” was not a crime.

    2. avatar Xanthro says:

      How’s he supposed to know if this guy is Joe Q. Law-Abiding Citizen or a wannabe Adam Lanza?
      ————————
      He was Joe Q. Law Abiding citizen, because he had committed no crime. None, not a hint of a crime.

      The police do not have the legal right to pull you over without the suspicion of a crime.

      It is not within the scope of their powers to stop citizens and somehow has those citizens explain their legal actions.

      1. avatar William Burke says:

        Well, with the exception of NYC.

    3. avatar Ralph says:

      How’s he supposed to know if this guy is Joe Q. Law-Abiding Citizen or a wannabe Adam Lanza?

      Maybe he should have spoken nicely and moved on. And gone back to cop school.

      1. avatar Mark N. says:

        Ralph, you being the criminal defense attorney, how about writing an article as to what are the rights and duties of a citizen during an investigatory stop? Now this cop acknowledged that the young man had no duty to provide an ID–but did he have a duty to provide his name and address? Any other information?

  28. avatar gloomhound says:

    The cops was trying to scary him because he did not like that “citizen” open carrying. It’s as simple as that.

    He was trying to prove a point, and the way he did it was be threatening to blow his head off.

  29. avatar Hasdrubal says:

    I’ve posted comments before about how my encounters with open carry guys have gone, and none of them went like this. This is because I remember the oath I took, both in the Army and for the police. You know what would be great, though? If more people who love the Constitution became cops. I know many people will be rolling their eyes or spitting in disgust at the idea of putting the badge on, but think about it for a minute.

    Anyone who went through the public school system in the past fifty years knows that the environment there has changed dramatically over time. Like it or not, the schools have become liberal to the point of near socialist indoctrination, at least here in western WA. I place the blame for this squarely at the feet of the teachers, the boots on the ground of the education system. Enough people who wanted to push a liberal agenda signed up to be teachers that they changed the entire system.

    What if enough people who wanted to push a Constitutional agenda signed up to be cops? I know, good luck trying that in NYC, or DC, or Chicago, or any number of liberal big cities. What about everywhere else? What about anyplace else that has stories about police corruption? My department is hiring right now, and we’re washing out over 90% of our applicants for one reason or another. Most places you go, it’s a similar story. What you see is the best of what applied.

    I know I’m never going to get promoted, but every day I go to work, I know that I’m holding the line against erosion of liberty. I do this by speaking to people like human beings, by knowing the law and not acting outside of it, and by whenever I see someone on a call pushing the limits to try and make a case, stopping them and reminding them what we’re doing. So far I’ve never seen anyone in my department do anything illegal- this may be because I got lucky and work in a great place, or it could be because people know me and know I wouldn’t stand for it.

    All I’m saying is, all the guys in the videos you think should work at WalMart? They need to be replaced by someone. Wouldn’t it be great if they were replaced by someone better? I want to work with people who can shoot better, know the law better, can speak more politely and don’t need to have a DOJ supervisor to avoid infringing on people’s rights. If that’s you, then maybe you can make a difference.

    1. avatar Jay1987 says:

      I have tried to get on with the local PD before I opened my shop (which shameless plug is actually open although as of yet I have no new inventory just pre owned and the leather goods we make and a few scopes and such) and have had bout 12 officers in checkin the place out wantin to now what all I got ordered and such and askin if I might wanna job in case it don’t work out. After I applied about 5 times and never heard anything back even after callin everday t

      1. avatar Hasdrubal says:

        Sorry to hear it didn’t work out, I won’t pretend to know all the stuff that goes into the hiring process. Where’s your shop? Not sure how they treat promotions in the comments section here, but at least what region? Either way, thank you for applying.

        1. avatar Jay1987 says:

          Hanson KY we do all sorts of stuff repairs sales trades buys modifications and even custom make stocks. Right now I got 2 pistols and about a dozen rifles in stock. Plus 3 holsters and a gun belt we made.

    2. avatar CarlosT says:

      Just out of curiosity, where in Washington are you?

      1. avatar Hasdrubal says:

        My department has no policy against me posting here as long as I don’t do anything which damages the reputation or public standing of the department or the city, or publish restricted information (case info for privacy reasons and such). Still, I’m not comfortable giving the specific department out considering the nature of the internet. Sorry to sound like that, but I don’t have facebook or any other type of social media going either.

        South King County, that is, south of Seattle. Moderate size department, over 100 officers. We’re not in the news that much.

        1. avatar CarlosT says:

          I completely understand. South King is enough to satisfy my curiosity. I only asked because I’m in North Seattle, so fellow Washingtonians pique my interest.

    3. avatar John in Ohio says:

      Where I live, officers in the small town PD and rural county SD tell me the same thing. They try to wash out anyone that isn’t serious about rights and encourage locals who understand Liberty to join the ranks. Unfortunately, the older ones retiring before too long, have been lamenting the lack of candidates who understand the Constitution and why its restraints on government are important. These older officers live in our small community and don’t feel like getting jacked around by the new officers after they retire (or have it happen to their family members) either. You make a good case for those who understand Liberty to enter the field. Thank you for remembering your oath, sir!

    4. avatar Michael B. says:

      I would, but I cannot in good conscience arrest someone for drug possession or stand by while the state takes their house and all their belongings for some drug beef.

      There’s also the whole issue of being Serpico’d if you see corruption and report it.

  30. I’m all in favor of open carry. Like Ralph, I don’t think that “being a good little gun rights advocate” and keeping your firearms hidden from view makes it any more likely that the enemies of firearms freedom are going to stay their collective, metaphorical hand. Open carry creates “gun normalization” that protects our rights. Besides, if something is legal to do then it’s legal for you to do it.

    Coming from Farago, Mr. Open carry is okay sometimes, but not All of the time. LOLZ

    1. avatar Ralph says:

      Lenny, we’re not against open carry. We just don’t like douchebags.

  31. avatar Dave S says:

    document, write em up, complain to their chain of command, If they arent set back a bit, take it very publicly to the City Council.

    After that much hassle they will choose their battlegrounds carefully.

    1. avatar William Burke says:

      Just curious: after filing the complaint, why wait to go to the council? If it had happened to me, I would have been on the zapper to my councilman the same day.

      1. avatar John in Ohio says:

        Yes, it’s often more effective if all contacts are made at once so that the issue doesn’t drag on or get ignored. Getting as many ‘official’ eyes looking at the issue, at once, is usually better.

  32. avatar James1000 says:

    Personally I didn’t have a problem until the whole shoot you in the head threat. Then, they had to put on their “thinking caps” to try and put charges on the guy? And LEOS wonder why they aren’t trusted…

  33. avatar JFP says:

    Officer “Sean” at about 9min in after his speech to the man with a rifle: “Thinking cap time. Larry are we within 1000ft of any location here”.

    This cop is looking to arrest him just for carrying the rifle… under a bullshit unconstitutional law that was tossed out in the Supreme Court years ago. Lautenberg ammendment I think it was. Namely no guns within 1000ft of a school.

    This is a prime example of why Dick Metcalf and his reasonable regulations theory is dead wrong.

    1. The law was tossed and rewritten. Many have been prosecuted under the new law. The federal law does not apply to antique weapons, but there could be an equivalent state law.

      1. avatar William Burke says:

        Wasn’t it tossed because, partly, it was a “the border crossed us” thing? How could a law stand that makes a criminal out of some resident who suddenly finds himself in the morning in Gun Free Zone?

    2. avatar dsreno says:

      If all of the unconstitutional laws weren’t on the books, how could cops keep peace? Everybody knows that freedom makes people vile, thieving, murderous, stoned, rapist monsters. It is the default state of humanity. Thank God the cops are here to save us from ourselves.

  34. avatar Sixpack70 says:

    I am usually fairly careful with my words. If I am trying to keep a situation from spiraling out of control, the last thing I am going to say is that I am going to shoot someone in the head. I guess having a conversation as a gentleman is too hard for some people to have. This also looked like a massive waste of everyones time.

  35. avatar William Burke says:

    Wow. A cop using the word “egregious”. Which dimension did this happen in, again?

  36. avatar Cubby123 says:

    Time for lawsuit,andI suspect suspension before firing !

  37. avatar JoshuaS says:

    While the cop is free, when not acting in his capacity as a police officer, to express his opinion to an open carrier, I don’t see how one can defend him acting that way as an officer. It is called police intimidation.

    While he is not the worst offender as far as verbal assault, am I right that one officer had his gun drawn. That is irresponsible. If the man was holding the rifle in front of him, hand on the pistol grip, then I would understand. Slung behind his back? The cop could approach with hand on the gun, but not drawn. No reason to have it drawn.

    Now that many cops? Well I had 4 cop cars once pulled over for a broken brake light. That seems to be the modus operandi, but I think that is a sign of police reacting to every situation like a felony stop.

    Now if the cop and pulled up beside them and said “hey we have gotten some calls. I know open carry is legal, but I have to check it out. Also you are in a school zone and therefore need a permit [federal law].” “I know you are within your rights, but do understand that people will call in and we will have to stop you and check it out. I am sorry for that, but that is the way it is.” I would understand. He cannot ignore calls, what if it was not a peaceable carry? But not the time and place for lecturing.

    1. avatar William Burke says:

      “Now that many cops? Well I had 4 cop cars once pulled over for a broken brake light. That seems to be the modus operandi”

      You mean like 100+ cops and 163 shots fired for a backfire? So it would seem.

  38. avatar Bob Fairlane says:

    Why does anything have to be “kosher” in America. I hope they sue the cop for that. hahhaha. Maybe discrimination or something, by a “kosher” kop.

  39. avatar Bob Fairlane says:

    Why doesn’t he give his ID or address? Is it because he knows they’re probably trying to peg him for some technicality and take his weapons? Looks like Good Cop Bad Cop.

    1. avatar John in Ohio says:

      These stops involve more than the RKBA. Giving identification when not required by law, and I don’t know the law in WI, is a 4th and possibly a 5th Amendment issue. If one is not required to ID then “Am I being detained?”, “Am I free to go?” is not uncommon.

      Exercising our right to keep and bear arms doesn’t automatically mean that we give up our other rights. For some it’s basically, “Shoot me, arrest me, or cut me loose.” With a small few, IMHO, it’s necessary. With others, not so much. It’s difficult to read the best course of action in the moment of a MWAG stop.

  40. avatar Bob Fairlane says:

    Why does all this take 20 minutes? Why can’t they run his info, run it by HQ, and tell him he’s free to go or not.

    1. avatar B says:

      Because then the perp wouldn’t know who’s boss. He’s just lucky they didn’t throw in a rectal exam, just to really push it home. America is occupied by the largest, best funded, most politically insulated gang in the history of the world. They are the untouchables (see India,) the SS, and big brother all wrapped into an American flag.

      1. avatar John in Ohio says:

        Not to mention, our nation has the most advanced military system and information gathering apparatus the world has ever seen. Never before has world domination been so ripe for a dictator’s picking. I’m serious. If freedom is snuffed out in the US, so goes the world. The light of Liberty will be extinguished for hundreds or thousands of years; until someone else get the bright idea that individuals are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. I don’t think we’re that close yet but these are definitely the labor pains of real tyranny.

  41. avatar Out_Fang_Thief says:

    It has become all too clear that there should be laws against people making OC gun rights asshole’s of themselves in public. If you think open carrying an AR or AK, or any other long gun in an urban area should be no big whoop for anybody who sees you, you’re an asshole. What fucking century do you think you live in?
    News flash for the assholes. People haven’t open carried long guns through populated urban environs for over a hundred years. Not since the days of the late 1800’s. But that’s not what makes you an asshole. What makes you a complete asshole is that I can guaran-goddamn-tee that you long gun OC people would be screaming with sphincter twisting howls if you saw your local police and deputy sheriffs suddenly openly carrying AR’s, HK MP5’s-9’s, or similar tactical platforms as their EDC firearms. Don’t even bother attempting to deny it. You’ve insulted my intelligence enough as it is. Your normalization by force sounds just like something a government would do. No carrot, and all stick. Guess what? That pisses people off. Especially if they’re still cautious about accepting the carrot. The fact that so many of you OCer’s carry a handy video camera to document your assholishness shows that even you know that what you are doing is so out of the norm that the inevitable confrontation with police is practically a given. As if our LEO’s don’t have enough to do without your stupid publicity stunts that only divert valuable, and sometimes strained, manpower resources just to deal with you. What you are doing is the opposite of help. ~ Isn’t it just astounding how prevalent, and non-partisan, the insidious entitlement mentality has become in this country?

    1. avatar John in Ohio says:

      Just one of the ‘assholes’ checking in…

      “People haven’t open carried long guns through populated urban environs for over a hundred years.”

      Bullshit! Many of us did in Columbus Ohio, Cincinnati Ohio, and other cities multiple times this year. I’ve seen it before throughout my life.

      “But that’s not what makes you an asshole. What makes you a complete asshole is that I can guaran-goddamn-tee that you long gun OC people would be screaming with sphincter twisting howls if you saw your local police and deputy sheriffs suddenly openly carrying AR’s, HK MP5′s-9′s, or similar tactical platforms as their EDC firearms. Don’t even bother attempting to deny it.”

      More bullshit! Speaking for myself and most of my compatriots; what pisses us off is when agents of government can do it unmolested but We the People cannot. If the People, who hold the legitimate power, could do so without problem then I’d argue, protest, and comment in favor of officers being able to do so on the job.

      “No carrot, and all stick.”

      I know where they went and when you pull them out of there, we don’t want them back!

      “As if our LEO’s don’t have enough to do without your stupid publicity stunts that only divert valuable, and sometimes strained, manpower resources just to deal with you.”

      Yeah, them poor old bosses need all the help they can get. ROTFLMAO The bad ones need to stop wasting valuable time infringing upon, harassing, and threatening citizens going about their private, lawful daily business armed then they’d have time to perform their jobs.

      1. avatar Out_Fang_Thief says:

        I wasn’t going to respond to your response, but since I was born, raised, and spent my first 24 years living in rural Ohio, this former Ohioan will extend a courtesy to a fellow buckeye.

        Carrying a long gun this year in Columbus and Cincinnati is not representative of the last 100 years, is it? Not since the days of the expanding wild West, and the days of Winchester ’73’ or Red River, has it been normal to carry a rifle as an EDC. Unless you hail from the old Kentucky hills of Sargent York, where hunting was where you procured your daily food, long guns are not a normal sight in the more urban cityscapes of America where we hunt our food at the local grocery. There are very few real threats that require carrying a rifle as your self defense platform. That is the result of having the rule of law to keep the peace, not the individual loping down the trail who must act to save his life because there is no law around to do it. Those were the days before wild territories became states. The minute they became states, the job of law enforcement fell to designated peace officers, and people no longer felt the need to be so heavily armed. That’s what’s called a civilized society of law and order. It got so civilized that even the duly designated peace officer didn’t carry a rifle as his daily kit. Believe it or not, that’s a good thing. If the people charged with keeping law and order don’t carry rifles as their EDC, why do you think you should? Hint: Because it’s your 2nd amendment right is not the correct answer. A society built on law and order does not require such immediate and lethal firepower, at least, not at the 50 yard mark and beyond, which is exactly what carrying a long gun says. Shoot someone at even 20-30 yards away, with a hand gun, and you’ll find that law enforcement and the courts will take a very dim view.

        “Agents of government” you say? Just what agents of the government are you referring to? We’re talking about your local LEO’s for crying out loud, not the FBI. And even they don’t walk around carrying tactical rifles as EDC. Then you finish that remark with, “…I’d argue, protest, and comment in favor of officers being able to do so on the job.” But of course you would, right? Ahhhh….do you have a fucking clue as to what a socialist police state looks like? It’s the government agents you describe, who you would “argue, protest, and comment in favor of…”
        walking around with select fire military weapons as their EDC. No, no, no, no, NO!!! We should not be forcing anybody to accept the miniscule notion that the presence of such overt firearms should be no great cause for concern, whether they are carried by civilians, and especially so, if they are being carried by “your” government agents. All of you are assuming, and conflating a Constitutional right into a selfish personal act whenever you feel like it…because you can. You are not defending the right, you are expressing the right. That’s what annoys the Hell out of me. Do you really expect me to believe that you WANT to live in a society where people are walking around town with military-styled/inspired tactical rifles? And you further compound this foolish thought that you would argue, and protest that government agents will be so armed as well? You need to take a few steps back and think this thing through. Having the right does not constitute a need to express that right, all for the sole reason, that you can. We should want a society that develops a civilization that doesn’t need to carry handguns, let alone rifles. Why isn’t protecting and defending the right to carry them enough for you? Why?

        1. avatar John in Ohio says:

          Cincinnati born and raised… I’ve seen long gun carry in the the city and perhaps didn’t see it again after at least 30ish years or so ago, until lately. I don’t right off the bat recall any in the downtown proper region back then except once in OTR and he might not have been kosher. I particularly remember one afternoon walking down along Mehring Way, going to the river. My companion had his rifle. Granted, it wasn’t at all common but it sure as Hell was done. I’ve ran into Ohio officers as recent as this year who insisted that even handgun OC isn’t legal in Ohio and that nobody has done that in xxx years.

          “If the people charged with keeping law and order don’t carry rifles as their EDC, why do you think you should? Hint: Because it’s your 2nd amendment right is not the correct answer.”

          There is no way to answer a “why should you” question when the premise is incorrect at the outset. Asked back, who are you to say we shouldn’t? Hint: There is no answer. It’s a troll question just like yours. 😉

          You wrote simply of carrying long guns through urban areas and not particularly as EDC but it may have been implied and I missed it. You also set the time frame of ‘over a hundred years’. I’ve seen it with my own eyes so what am I to tell someone who insists that it just cannot have been? I answered you succinctly and honestly. What you do with the answer is all you.

          “Agents of government” you say? Just what agents of the government are you referring to? We’re talking about your local LEO’s for crying out loud, not the FBI.”

          Agents of government… yes. That is what they are; even local law enforcement. Again, I answered you honestly. Anyone that knows me IRL (shout out to my peeps! 🙂 ) would attest that I am like that. *If* the people are free to exercise their RKBA, I’d be behind local law enforcement being able to do so too. Again, asked and answered… what you do with the answer is all up to you.

          Frankly, your reply was well thought out on the surface but still amounts to bullshit as relates to OCing long guns today. I tried to slog through it but wasn’t very successful. Granted, long gun OC carry was rare in urban centers over the last 100 years but it did happen and is happening again. Your statement was, “People haven’t open carried long guns through populated urban environs for over a hundred years” and that simply isn’t true.

          We’re at an impasse. I and many others will continue to OC long guns in Ohio just fine. Shall I dig up a picture of my buddy carrying his AR on Fountain Square and in Wendy’s downtown last time? We had total strangers express their gratitude for us OCing. We’ve had similar experiences in Columbus too. Thank you for taking the time to write that out and I wish you well.

          Regards,
          One of the ‘Assholes’

        2. avatar William Burke says:

          Oh my God! Folks. They’re here! The Evolved Ones are finally here.

        3. avatar John in Ohio says:

          @William Burke: I, for one, welcome our new Bullshit overlords. 😀

  42. avatar ZM 1306 says:

    I see this situation as justifiable homicide as in self defense. Although he was in a bad spot in the situation. Two members of a gang were threatening his life and brandishing a handgun. He, in a just America, was well in his rights to defend himself. Away from any cover and gun over the back he was in no position to act.

  43. avatar Nelson says:

    Constitutionally clueless cops are detrimental to the Constitution and the American Republic, as are their sycophantic coterie of tyrannical statist dildo fuckers.

  44. avatar Tilefloor says:

    He was being over jumpy on his approach, and he is a complete idiot for giving his political views on any subject while on the job.

  45. avatar Kevin A. says:

    “Who the hell is this police officer to debate open carry with a legally armed American?”

    Another legally armed American? Putting on a badge doesn’t take away your citizenship, nor does it strip you of your first amendment rights. Why NOT debate the cop?

    Oh, wait, TTAG hates every cop always all the time.

    Cops are to TTAG as gun owners are to liberals. -eye roll-

    1. avatar B says:

      So the cop was right to threaten to blow the head off a citizen not breaking any laws? The cop’s first amendment right ended when he pulled the gun on a law abiding citizen, committing a crime that would put any other person in jail. That whole your rights end at my nose thing. But they are special, the laws don’t apply to them, they are the law.

    2. avatar Skiballa says:

      As someone who has worn a uniform, I’d say that most organizations discourage any expression of any individual opinion while wearing it, and have policies to that effect in place. Because the uniform is a symbol, it lends the appearance of lawful authority to the stated opinion, the fact that he’s not just metaphorically stating his opinion with a gun pointed at someone’s head, with no consequences to that action, further distances him from the average “legally armed citizen”.

      And as far as TTAG’s position on LEOs in general, I see many posts from folks here that are in that career field, and most decry the abuses of power that RF is so good at tracking down.

    3. avatar John in Ohio says:

      When he’s operating under the color of law, as an agent of government, he is operating in part under privilege. It is a voluntary job that he agreed to do for compensation. If he isn’t willing to accept the terms then he shouldn’t take the damned job. When that badge is on the officer, he is representative of the power of our government. He is constrained just as his employer (government) is restricted.

    4. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

      Hates cops like this, yes! Absolutely, always, all the time.

    5. avatar c4v3man says:

      I’d say his right to lecture someone about their own OPINIONS ends when being forcibly detained at gunpoint. At that point the citizen would be justified in simply repeating “Am I being detained? Am I Free to Go?”

      Why should the citizen be required to listen to the cop exercise his first amendment rights? This stop took 15 minutes… most departments claim to be short-staffed, why aren’t they using their time better?

      I’m not necessarily supporting those who open-carry a long gun, but whether or not you or I support that course of action has nothing to do with it’s legality, or the justification for harassing them at gunpoint.

  46. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

    I think, “You don’t pull your gun and I won’t pull mine” would suffice…

  47. avatar Rank Hank says:

    The cop is a dick.

  48. avatar Christopher says:

    Love that the video is framed such that the US flag is flying over the incident…hope it always will.
    BTW- Thank you, Veterans of the US armed forces.

  49. avatar GS650G says:

    “he is free to act stupid”
    Was the cop talking about himself or the carrier? I love that paternalistic attitude. Gee, thanks Dad.

  50. avatar Bob says:

    Cops are not supposed to “serve and protect”. This has been decided in many court cases. They are there to enforce the will of the politicians.

  51. avatar middleagedmama says:

    IMHO, the cop was reasonable, he wants to make it home at night and was polite with the OCers. The points the cops make are reasonable. OC is legal, depending on your state, but it’s making a statement to push anti-gun people out of their comfort zone. It hurts our 2A rights because it does get the anti’s up in arms and when they get rolling and the media get involved then restrictions are placed on us. I’m with the cops.

    1. avatar John in Ohio says:

      “he wants to make it home at night”

      How was this citizen, in this incident, going to directly contribute to this officer not ‘making it home at night’? If anything, this citizen was contributing to that officer being able to go to his home in a free nation every night. The officer’s actions and threat were working towards the opposite effect. There’s irony in an agent of government giving a lecture, at gunpoint, to a citizen about harming the Constitution while that officer is violating multiple rights of that same citizen. Can you not see what’s wrong with that picture?

  52. avatar Hannibal says:

    “Open carry creates “gun normalization” that protects our rights.”

    That’s funny, because I see more places banning open carry as time goes on… doesn’t sound like there’s a normalizing going on.

    That said, it’s entirely unprofessional to debate someone’s political actions when you detain them as a uniformed police officer. It’s also just a bad idea. Save it for TTAG…

    1. avatar John in Ohio says:

      It hasn’t had that effect in Ohio. The result of people primarily carrying concealed over time resulted in our legislature creating concealed carry licensing law. Carrying concealed was something we could do without license or permit before but the general public and the State couldn’t see that so many were armed everyday in Ohio. The assumption was that people weren’t armed. In order to eliminate open carry in Ohio, the Ohio Constitution will have to be amended. Ohio courts have already made its opinion clear that, in agreement with the Ohio Constitution, concealed carry is a privilege and can be licensed BECAUSE the right of open carry is unlicensed. If Ohio tries to ban open carry then it’ll have a problem with its own court rulings. If legislators would have simply amended one line (IIRC – or at most a few lines) of the Ohio Revised Code, then concealed carry would have remained a right and they could have theoretically banned open carry. Open carry has been an effective tool here to get local government and state government to update their laws and policies. It’s also been indispensable in getting law enforcement agencies to update their training and reign in their ‘bad apples’.

  53. avatar Ardent says:

    Let’s just turn this direction and see if anyone still wants to defend these officers’ actions.

    Picture a similar scene, 2 young men protesting legally in support of their civil rights, only this time its 1964 Mississippi and the young men are black. Now imagine them being detained by the police and told that if they keep legally protesting their rights to protest will be taken from them, as one officer says, even if it’s contrary to higher law (the state in the case of the video, the federal civil rights laws in my example).

    Continuing, imagine that officer telling the protesters that the act of protest makes him suspect they are a threat and that he will shoot them ‘in the head’ if they make ‘furtive’ movements, then telling them that what they are doing is upsetting to the public to the degree that some people might murder them if they continue their protest.

    Imagine that officer telling the men that every time they protest legally the police will respond in force, draw weapons on them, detain them, brow beat them, threaten them and look for any excuse to arrest them (‘are we within 1000ft of any place. . .’). Imagine the officer telling the men that the assertion of their civil rights is a ‘game’.

    Actually all this is very believable in the Jim Crow south regarding two black men, all this and much worse happened. How many are willing to say that was reasonable and good? How many think those officers in the south who actively tried to prevent people from exercising their civil rights were doing the right thing to protect the public and enforce the law? Eventually the FBI investigated and a giant spotlight was turned on officers who would take it upon themselves to decide what civil rights people were ‘allowed’ to exercise. It took a massive public disapproval of their activities and a spotlight from the media to correct that situation and a few people had to die before it was finally resolved.

    I think it is only because we’ve all seen so much more egregious abuse of the RKBA that we’re not up in arms about this incident. We’re desensitized and simply giving the officers a pass since they neither shot nor arrested these citizens and that is perhaps the most frightening part of it, that this seems acceptable in light of the worse abuses occurring, because this is not acceptable in a free country.

    Given that this was unlawful detention (at any point did you hear an officer articulate a suspicion that a crime was in progress?) that was then used as a pulpit to suggest that the exercise of a civil right was apt to cause those exercising it to be murdered either by the police or by the citizenry this incident is a despicable example of what a police state looks like.

    If you’re comfortable that these officers acted correctly and in a lawful manner I ask you to re-examine your beliefs about civil rights and the meaning of right and wrong. This was a disgusting and unlawful abuse of power that ought to be investigated (along with many such acts) under the 1964 civil rights act to see if it constitutes denial of civil rights under color of law. It probably doesn’t, but the more light you shine the less officers like this will be willing to step into that spotlight and the greater the share of liberty we will have.

    1. avatar John in Ohio says:

      I think your post could use a page of it’s own on TTAG (Quote of the Day?) since it’s brimming with truth. I especially liked paragraph 6 & 7. Well done, sir! My hat is off to you.

      1. avatar William Burke says:

        I’m putting one on so I can take it off. Well done.

  54. avatar Chris75 says:

    Game wardens approach guys with long guns all the time without threatening them. Why can’t this cop do it? Personally I think open carry doesn’t make much sense, I’d rather crooks not know I have a gun but rights is rights, right?

  55. avatar Lars says:

    When I open carried in WI I never had an issue with police. The state supreme court dealt with this in early 2011 when there was a rash of police officers stopping and harassing open carry folks after the state of WI re-verified the lawfulness of open carry.
    The behavior of these officers is despicable and illegal. One does not need to have a ccw in WI to carry openly therefore the officer saying because the one guy has a ccw they will not arrest or detain him is meaningless.
    The job of the police is not to debate the law but to enforce it. Being the WI state law says every citizen has the right to open carry and also added legislation saying police must end the harassment of these citizens this incident is very disturbing.
    Also, you can hear the cop ask about the 1,000 feet rule which has nothing to do with firearms, it has to do with drugs. One does not have to avoid a school or any other building or area that bans firearms, the 1,000 feet rule does not apply to firearms.
    This harassment just goes on way too long and the two with the guns should not be participating in this conversation and should be asking “am I free to go” and go.
    This police officer has the absolute worst argument for not open carrying. I hope more and more begin to open carry so the police will be overwhelmed and they will stop this behavior.

  56. avatar neo297 says:

    I have to weigh in here, IF I were to live in a predominately white neighborhood and I called the cops because I saw a black man walking through wearing a red bandana and I felt uncomfortable with that , might be a gang banger, so I called the cops. What would the public outcry be if multiple cops showed up and pointed a gun at this person just because they were making sure he was not a threat. After determining they were not they stood arond and tried to find a reason to arrest them and not having one chastied the person for displaying an obviously offensive and derisive garment/object that can only be meant to arouse fear and to intimidate.Proof of which is many schools have banned the colored bandanas as being associated with gang activity so I have every right to be scared when I see someone wearing one and I am allowed to assume that if they are not doing anything yet that they will soon. There would be a shitstorm of protest descend upon that town and those cops but threaten a law abiding citizen with a gun with being shot in the head he should lose his job. Should every cop at every traffic stop be trained to pull their weapon and threaten the driver that if he were to make any sudden moves it would be interpreted as you are trying to run over me so I will shoot you in the head before asking for license and registration????? CG-23 was that your daddy in that uniform? You are so wrong to say we here are anti leo. IF any of us citizens faced with a similar situation i.e. in a public environment were to come face to face with an armed but non agressive , non threatening, non law breaking citizen and we pulled a gun and threatened to kill them if they made any move WE FELT was furative we would be going straight to jail. Loss of liberty and gun rights. The police are supposed to be better trained to asses a situation and use the skills they have been taught to de escalate not escalate a given situation. This video only proves that they are not trained or ignore their training and abuse law abiding citizens and place them at risk of death, accidental discharges do happen and people are more likely to suffer a bad outcome if the weapon is pointed at them when it happens, for what to prove a point. They the cops could have protected each other without drawing their weapons, made a legitamate stop to asses the intentions of the citizen and even mention that openly carrying could have a negative affect on future legislation but as long as he is not threatening anyone or carrying in a school zone essentialy not violating the law then he is free to continue to do so but expect to be questioned if someone were to report them as the police have an obligation to look into calls regarding persons with guns. Instead they abused their authority , threated a citizens life and in essence illegaly detained him to force him to listen to his personal political stance. I think there were multiple laws broken b the cops and we all get so worked up because of the lack of consequences when it is some one in uniform breaking the law or violating rights.

  57. avatar atc_tech says:

    “We’re the good guys, and we’re here to protect you” he says, not long after telling him that if he made a “furtive move” he was going to pump lead into his head. What the heck is a furtive move? A sneeze? Adjusting his stance… they had him standing for a long time, what if he shifted weight from his left foot to his right.

    Also, I have another question for cops. Is it only open carrying a gun that gets somebody harassed like this? What are the other complaints that can be made about someone that is not doing anything wrong that will cause them to get harassed and treated like this?

    I also have a question, and of course, you’ll all think I’m nuts, but when would it be wrong for someone to shoot back? I’m saying, if the cops did what they want and shot at him and missed (missed? yeah… they’re cops, let’s face it, they’ll miss). So, at that point is it okay to return fire? He obviously wasn’t breaking the law. If a cop shoots at someone that isn’t breaking the law, what is that? Is it illegal for them to do that. I only ask that question because it seems as if they are above the law.

    Also, what is all of this “duty to respond” crap. WHY do they need to identify him? Someone calls 911 and reports a “Man with a gun,” so, even if cops respond and see him walking down the street with his gun, why do they need to stop him and why try to ID him? If the police decide they HAVE to respond, when the car arrives and they see, “yep, he’s walkin down that street just like he owns it… gun and all, not breaking any laws,” why not leave him alone? You gotta hang out to make sure he doesn’t shoot anyone? Okay. What does that have to do with stopping him and asking for ID (PAPERS!!! SHOW ME YOUR PAPERS!!!)

    I know this was long, but can anybody respond?

    1. avatar William Burke says:

      “I also have a question, and of course, you’ll all think I’m nuts, but when would it be wrong for someone to shoot back?”

      Did you mean:
      A) wrong?
      B) illegal?
      C) fatal?

      1. avatar atc_tech says:

        Well, I guess to narrow it down a little, when would a citizen be legally justified in opening fire or returning fire against a LEO. Not in the situation we saw here obviously, but when? Actually I guess it’s more rhetorical than anything, because the presumed answer is “never.”

  58. avatar Frank McGhee says:

    That officer was a jackass, plain and simple. I hope the department is embarrassed by his actions and punishes him accordingly (of course not).

    From the article above: “He’s supposed to serve and protect. Period.”

    To serve yes, to protect, no. ALL Americans must learn the following facts regarding the responsibility of ANY police department to protect anyone.

    1. The United States Supreme Court (USSC), (and other circuit courts) has ruled on numerous occasions that law enforcement organizations have NO duty to protect you. I bet the average cop on the street (or your typical Lib/Dem gun grabber) does NOT know this. So throw that out to them at will. Ask then straight out “Is it the job of the police to protect us?”

    2. Police don’t like it when honest citizens point out their weaknesses. Hell, no human likes it. But we hear a constant barrage of “call 911 and let the police protect you” responses to why we need guns.

    3. Police do not like YOU doing their job. Yes, they have “To Serve and Protect” on the side of their patrol cars, but the USSC has ruled that is a lie. When they see you open carrying, that means that they are not seen as the “protector”, and you are to be intimidated.

    The below extracts are great cases for midnight reading…..

    In Warren v. District of Columbia (1981), the D.C. Court of Appeals ruled, official police personnel and the government employing them are not generally liable to victims of criminal acts for failure to provide adequate police protection… a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular citizen.

    In Bowers v. DeVito (1982), the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled,[T]here is no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen.

    Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States, in which the court ruled, 7-2, that a town and its police department could not be sued under 42 U.S.C.§1983 for failing to enforce a restraining order, which had led to the murder of a woman’s three children by her estranged husband.

    In its landmark decision of DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services (1988), the US Supreme Court declared that the Constitution does not impose a duty on the state and local governments to protect the citizens from criminal harm.

    Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Department, in which legal land “authorities” stated that police had no constitutional duty to protect people from crime, after a woman, who’d filed numerous complaints and had gotten restraining order, was continually harassed and had her property vandalized by her ex-husband.

    Hartzler v. City of San Jose. In that case I discovered the secret truth: the government owes no duty to protect individual citizens from criminal attack. Not only did the California courts hold to that rule, the California legislature had enacted a statute to make sure the courts couldn’t change the rule.

    Hartzler v. City of San Jose, 46 Cal.App.3d 6, 120 Cal.Rptr. 5 (1975) (The administrator of the estate of Ruth Bunnell who had been killed by her estranged husband brought a wrongful death action against the city whose police department refused to respond to her call for protection some 45 minutes before her death. Mrs. Bunnell had called the police to report that Mack Bunnell had called saying he was on his way to her home to kill her. She was told to call back when Mack Bunnell arrived. The police had responded 20 times to her calls in the past year, and on one occasion, arrested her estranged husband for assaulting her. The Court of Appeal held that the police department and its employees enjoyed absolute immunity for failure to provide sufficient police protection. The allegations that the police had responded 20 times to her calls did not indicate that the police department had assumed any special relationship or duty toward her such as would remove its immunity.)

    South v. Maryland, 59 U.S. (How.) 396, 15 L.Ed.433 (1856) (the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that local law-enforcement had no duty to protect individuals, but only a general duty to enforce the laws.)

    Davidson v. City of Westminister, 32 Cal.3d 197, 185 Cal.Rptr. 252 (1982) (A husband and wife who were assaulted in a laundromat while the assailant was under surveillance by officers, brought legal action against the city and the officers for intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress and for negligent investigation, failure to protect and failure to warn. The Supreme Court held that: (1) the mere fact that the officers had previously recognized the assailant from a distance as a potential assailant because of his resemblance to a person suspected of perpetrating a prior assault did not establish a “special relationship” between officers and assailant under which a duty would be imposed on officers to control assailant’s conduct; (2) factors consisting of officer’s prior recognition of assailant as likely perpetrator of previous assault and officer’s surveillance of assailant in laundromat in which victim was present did not give rise to special relationship between officers and victim so as to impose duty on officers to protect victim from assailant; and (3) victim could not maintain cause of action for intentional or reckless infliction of emotional distress, in view of fact that it was not alleged that officers failed to act for the purpose of causing emotional injury, and that in the absence of such an intent to injure, officer’s inaction was not extreme or outrageous conduct.)

    Westbrooks v. State, 173 Cal.App.3d 1203, 219 Cal.Rtr. 674 (1985) (The widow and sons of a motorist who drove into the void where a collapsed bridge had been, brought action against the State, county, and county deputy sheriff. The California Department of Transportation (Cal Trans) was aware that a violent storm with heavy rains had caused a bridge on State route 118 to collapse. A county deputy sheriff had observed the beginning of the collapse, reported it and requested assistance from Cal Trans. A jury award of $1,300,000 was reversed in part by the Court of Appeal which held: (1) the county deputy sheriff had no duty to warn drivers that the state highway bridge had collapsed during the storm, and his efforts to warn drivers did not in any way increase the risk of harm to users of the highway, and therefore the county was not liable to motorist’s wife and children; and (2) the judgment was upheld against the state because the Cal Trans was notified at 1:52 a.m. and at 2:35 a.m., but no Cal Trans personnel nor CHP officer appeared at the scene until 5:45 a.m., and that such delay was unreasonable.)

    Susman v. City of Los Angeles, et al., 269 Cal.App.2d 803, 75 Cal.Rptr. 240 (1969) (An action was brought by several landowners against the City of Los Angeles and the State pleading eleven separate causes of action for damages arising out of the Watts’ Riots’ of 1965. The Court of Appeal held that none of the allegations presented was sufficient to show any duty owed by any of the officials named as defendants to act to prevent or avoid the harm suffered by the plaintiffs.)

  59. avatar Pat says:

    What is all this “I am going to shoot you in the head” crap this dirty, filthy, public servant pig keeps snorting?
    I would start telling him he couldn’t and that he was too poor a shot. Argue with him, tooth, nail, and claw.

  60. avatar Matt B says:

    I completely agree with the cop.
    Wait a sec, let me get my Nomex underwear on.
    What the cop meant to say, but didn’t quite word it well is this:
    The Open Carry movement can, will and has had ONLY the opposite effect from what they mean to have.
    They are actively pushing the public against gun owners and then actively pushing legislators to create NEW gun laws to ban the open carrying of guns.
    Then, when you and I carry our gun from the house to the car trunk, we can be construed as breaking the law.
    This has already happened in California. What was previously legal only a couple years ago is now illegal. It would not have happened except for the Open Carry activists.

    I do completely agree with the logic and sentiments of these guys, but it can and does only have the opposite result.

    1. avatar William Burke says:

      I *finally* got what you’re getting at! If we get our fellow Americans starting to appreciate the Bill of Rights, getting to understand its finer points, they’ll be disgusted and turn towards Hard-Shell Fascism.

      Thanks for setting us straight on that, Matt. Nothing sets people so absolutely against liberty as the eventual understanding of it.

    2. avatar John in Ohio says:

      The Open Carry movement can, will and has had ONLY the opposite effect from what they mean to have.

      Not in Ohio. With the exception of open carry walks being used to encourage Ohio lawmakers to draft concealed carry licensing law, OC has been consistently effective in improving the individual’s ability to exercise the RKBA. It has taken proactive OC in many situations to enable others to then go about their daily lives exercising their rights. It has improved departmental and officer respect for the 1A, 2A, 4A, and 5A in all cases of which I’m aware,

    3. avatar John in Ohio says:

      This has already happened in California. What was previously legal only a couple years ago is now illegal. It would not have happened except for the Open Carry activists.

      If it was legal on paper but they couldn’t exercise it in the real world, of what use was it? Was it really a right recognized and protected by the State of California or was it merely lip service. A right you cannot exercise is a right infringed.

  61. avatar William Burke says:

    Comment editor figure is blank and can’t be entered into. Just as well. Nothing like freedom of speech to make folks long for boots to lick.

  62. avatar Nathan Pieters says:

    I open carry every day in Wisconsin at all times except when dropping and picking my kid up at school, and at that point, it’s unloaded and encased in my trunk as is allowed by law. I’ve only had a handful of encounters: once a local city LEO was curious what type I was carrying, how it handled and how much it cost… and the other was when lightning struck my shed and burnt it down, the deputy directing traffic jumped out of his SUV and demanded to know “what is that on your hip?” Before even looking at him, I put his engine block between him and I and turned myself at an angle to present a smaller target and said “open carry is constitutionally protected by the constitution of the state of Wisconsin.” He gave me an odd look and said “oh” before immediately leaving. I shot an email off the the Sheriff, with my concern that the deputy may not know the laws regarding carry, open or concealed and he apologized and promised to counsel the deputy on the matter. It pays to know the law, even though you’ll probably be the only one who does. 😉

    1. avatar William Burke says:

      That there is what I call a “day maker”.

    2. avatar John in Ohio says:

      Well done! I believe those are the way many OC encounters end up going in the more free states. My oldest was asked by an officer recently if my son liked that particular sidearm. The officer was trying to choose what to carry when he retires soon. That’s the way things ought to be in every state.

  63. avatar Nathan Pieters says:

    John, that seems to be the way things go the majority of the time. Most people have come to the same conclusion that we have but haven’t taken the leap yet because others have convinced them that people will panic and SWAT teams will show up guns blazing. I’ve had two bad experiences within the last year and they are with CC only snobs. And believe it or not, people come to me regularly when I’m out and about and ask if I get bothered. Just a few days ago, a woman asked me if people ever give me any crap for carrying…I.just told her the truth…yup, but that it’s rare and it’s usually gun snobs who think that their way of carrying is better than everyone elses. Turns out she was asking because her fiancee wants to carry but is afraid that the public will panic. I told her he’d be crazy not to carry his piece to protect a woman good enough to marry. Made her day. Hope he does.

    1. avatar John in Ohio says:

      Yeah, I’ve had similar experiences. The most common flak is from “CC only snobs”. Prior to concealed carry licensing law in Ohio, we carried openly or concealed. Concealed became the most common. People and government got used to there not being visible firearms on citizens so the public consciousness assumed nobody was armed. Sometimes when I get grief from “CC only snobs”, I let them know that I’ve been carrying all of my life and most of that was concealed. The difference now is that it costs me money to do so and there are ‘no firearm signs‘ in many more places! Back then, we usually only saw signs at places like bars and a few others. I like the options of carry but don’t like all of the collateral damage of licensed concealed carry.

      My most common answer when any person give me a really rough time about open carrying is, “I’ve carried practically all of my life; sometimes openly and sometimes concealed. I have every intention of continuing to do so for the rest of my days.”

      I told her he’d be crazy not to carry his piece to protect a woman good enough to marry.

      Now that’s a classy answer! 🙂

      1. avatar Nathan Pieters says:

        Haha yeah she blushed a bit. Guess she liked my “rig.”

  64. avatar WI Patriot says:

    In the last month or so, there have been numerous accounts of LEO’s harassing law abiding gun owners, and I for one am appalled at the behavior of WI LEO’s…

  65. avatar Nathan Pieters says:

    I had a response for WI Patriot, but I was identified as spam and am much too lazy to retype it…

    1. avatar William Burke says:

      From one lazy person to another, I don’t always follow my own advice, but it’s good to copy your text before sending it.

  66. avatar Progressive thinker says:

    The cops were right. Idiots like these two gun nuts are going to ruin gun rights for everyone. The public has no idea who these freaks are and certainly don’t want them roaming around in public spaces armed to the teeth with loaded weapons. I have no idea what these gun nuts were thinking. After all, how often would someone need a rifle just by going out on a walk down the street in broad daylight. Let them “exercise their 1st Amendment right,” but let’s see how long the public will tolerate it before they force their legislators to severely crack down on gun-carrying rights. With gun nuts like this walking around, this country is spiraling downhill so fast it will make your head spin.

    1. avatar John in Ohio says:

      are going to ruin gun rights for everyone

      I LMAO every time I see someone write this line or says it in person. So… everyone’s “rights” are going to be “ruined” huh? Can a true right actually BE “ruined”? We’re not talking about permissions from Mama. ROTFLMAO! Grow up and be free already.

  67. avatar Josey Wales says:

    “Actually, threatening to shoot someone in the head when there’s no lawful reason to do so IS illegal…..this worthless excuse for a police officer needs to be fired before he someday makes good on his threats. The fact that he believes he is allowed to use the threat of force under color of authority to inflict his interpretation or feelings about the Constitution while he’s on duty are prima facia evidence that he is not suited to employment as a police officer. A prime example of the species of cop that believes HE is the law. Power trippers like this are supposed to be weeded out of the hiring process, obviously the pre-employment psych test is inadequate to the task. In any event, since he has now self-identified as such, FIRE HIM and revoke his P.O.S.T. certifications so he cannot just go get a job elsewhere.

  68. Method 3: Get Free DC Universe Online Beta Key for PS3.
    Of the seven new cards, Vampire’s Grace is the only one not to make the cut.
    There is still the free-aim feature, but the new lock-on feature will surely
    improve your accuracy.

    1. avatar William Burke says:

      Hey! Big funny joke!

  69. avatar William Burke says:

    In the long run, open carry is better for our rights, not worse. Once folks are used to seeing them, and finding out that there is no open invitation in it for wild and bloody violence, but rather peace and safety, is our winning ticket. All others have the losing ticket.

    1. avatar Andy Jorgensen says:

      I support anything that does not infringe on a persons right to carry a gun. My fear is some people will carry it to extremes. They will load themselves up like Rambo. That will instill fear in all around them. If a person who is sitting on the fence on the second amendment, it might just push them over the wall and they will vote against it. Just because you can does not always mean you should. Discretion is the better part of valor!!!!

      1. avatar John in Ohio says:

        Odd people do odd things in any culture. It’s human nature and there’s really nothing we can do about it except discourage it but still support their right to appear in public that way.

      2. avatar William Burke says:

        Andy, they’re already sore afraid. Open carry will allow them to see that their fears were needless and badly-conceived.

    2. avatar John in Ohio says:

      Exactly. It’s never going to become a societal norm (again?) until people actually OC everyday, everywhere. Once it is reestablished in everyday life, many of these gun control arguments will easily be recognized for the ridiculous rubbish that they are.

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