Question of the Day: Does This Open Carry Takedown Reveal Police Racism?

We’ve been saying it for a long, long time (in Internet terms): all Americans have a natural, civil and Constitutional right to keep and bear arms. Some Americans have more of a pressing need to exercise that right than others; entire classes of people are more likely to be subject to violent attack than the average population. Members of the LGBT community, for example. And law-abiding citizens living in crime-infested neighborhoods. They should be armed. The recent “unrest” in Philadelphia and Ferguson has . . .

highlighted the need for law-abiding citizens in those economically-deprived areas – and others like them – to arm themselves against criminal predation. Simply put, the politicians and police left residents to the mercy of arsonists and looters.  Who saw that one coming? Anyone who understands that leaving law enforcement to the police makes you vulnerable to attack, that’s who. Not just when riots occur, either. Every single day.

But it’s worse than that. Urban cops in gun control-heavy cities who tend to cruise around in cars and respond to crime rather than integrate themselves into the communities they serve, don’t see citizens as equals. They see them as criminals, victims or passive bystanders.

Does that perception make cops racists? Of course not. Most cops are not racist. Or sexist. Or anti-Muslim. Most cops take people as they find them. Their behavior – good or bad – is independent of those concerns. But seeing citizens as vermin or sheep is, in many ways, worse. That’s how I interpret this video: evidence of a dysfunctional police culture rather than racism. You? [h/t John in Ohio]

comments

  1. avatar Dev says:

    I’d like to see unedited video and more background on the two incidents, especially as they were even in the same state!

    1. avatar Owen says:

      Ask and ye shall receive:
      Original first part video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rih1ogXCxAs <== Albany OR
      Original Second video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DU2RV0NgnZc <== Washoe County NV

    2. avatar Jarrod says:

      Man, If I were a black guy I would just do this until I got my payday.

      1. avatar Sian says:

        So long as you’re open to the possibility of your ‘payday’ being 32 hollowpoints from a pair of overly-twitchy responding officers.

        1. avatar sagebrushracer says:

          I doubt they would get ALL the bullets from two officers mag dumps, but still, more then anyone wants.

      2. avatar Bake says:

        There’s a good chance it would be your relatives’ pay day.

  2. avatar Sexual Tyrannosaurus says:

    Pigs gonna pig.

    1. avatar MDC says:

      so totally stealing that.

  3. avatar Farmer Tyler says:

    Was it the same department ?

    1. avatar Steve Cz says:

      No.
      The first was in WA the second was in NV.

  4. avatar Owen says:

    Complete LEO overreaction on the second part IMHO.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      Overreaction? More like criminal action. I don’t care what outfit and shiny metal accoutrements someone is wearing, drawing a firearm and pointing it at someone who is walking down the street, has NOT attacked anyone, and hasn’t even broken any laws (even unconstitutional laws) is a violent felony.

      1. avatar Bob says:

        Declaration of Independence:

        “All men are created equal…”

        “…except cops and politicians” — they forgot that part.

      2. avatar Steve Cz says:

        Agreed.
        However, the anti-gunners have created a culture of fear. They are teaching that only the State can safely have arms. The rest of us are too evil, stupid or careless.
        This is a real perception though and we must recognize that open carry WILL alarm the sheep.

  5. avatar LarryinTX says:

    Why don’t we just pick up somebody else’s rifle and carry it off, muzzling the entire world, without even a cursory effort to clear it? That would be the safe thing to do, right? I didn’t even see him check the position of the safety.

  6. avatar Mecha75 says:

    I am still confused on his crime? All i can see is his crime was being a black man exercising his god giving constitutionally protected 2A rights. And for that we get 5 patrol vehicles. just like driving while black i suppose.

  7. avatar Morgan Gatorsee says:

    Two videos with different cops handling the same situation = nothing. You would need the same cop to respond to both calls and then you would have a true racism test.

    Taking things out of context for your agenda is not a new concept. Two McDonald’s employees at different stores, 1 spits in food, 1 does not. The color of the patron would be irrelevant.

    Finally you discuss a class of people vs large population. I am not sure what this has to do with anything. I have not read many stories of LGBT getting savagely beat but in TN several stories of 50 youth beating on whites at Kroger, gas stations, Target seem to be more common and an attack on the “average population”.

    Still won’t scream racism by the youth as 50 black youth savagely beat a black man last month in Memphis.

    To counter 50 youths in Chicago beat up a white man, man attackers were white.

    Not sure what any of it means except all people should be able to protect themselves and nobody seems to have it worse than any other group. Pretending one group has it worse (or a bigger need for protection) only seems to divide us more rather than unite.

    1. avatar BigDinVT says:

      See that’s why I don’t eat at McDonald’s.

      I kind of got the same take-away but maybe a little different viewpoint. LE may have reacted out of caution rather than prejudice. If he was patrolling an area where a lethal threat was expected then public safety may have been a higher concern for him than civil rights.

      That doesn’t excuse the excessive use of authority; I’m just saying it might have happened regardless of skin color. It’s still a civil rights violation.

      Good thing that poor woman’s water hadn’t broken; that would have turned the whole scene into a real soup sandwich.

    2. avatar Static NAT says:

      “… Pretending one group has it worse … ” So, everybody is being treated equally? In this instance, there is no strict, scientific method for demonstating a difference based on skin color, so it is considered ‘incorrect’ to suggest that might be a possibility? Human nature and reasoning isn’t strictly logical all the time. In the state of Oregon, I’ve been pulled over more times that most drivers (that I’m aware of) just to be ‘checked out’ and released without issue. One cop pulled me over and asked “what are you doing here?” when I was looking for a specific address to work on someone’s computer. I’m not aware of that happening to citizens who are percieved as being “white”.

      1. avatar C.Z. says:

        “In this instance, there is no strict, scientific method for demonstating a difference based on skin color, so it is considered ‘incorrect’ to suggest that might be a possibility?”

        Actually you can use any emperical measure at all and it will show black people have it worse of in this country in every aspect of life. Incarceration, Health outcomes, Income holding constant for education, Sentencing holding constant for the same crime. Hell blacks with college educations are employed at the same rate as whites with high school educations, and blacks with high school educations are employed at the same rate as white felons.

        We have made strides but there isn’t any empirical data that would suggest there is equality in treatment in this country.

      2. avatar J. Zoss says:

        I am not saying that one group might not have it worse but if you are white and pulled over when giving someone a ride to what is considered a bad part of town there is indeed a chance you will be pulled over for being white. I know this from experience. The truth was absolutely laughable by the police because you know, they have seen it all before. The only reason for my white self to be in that part of town was to buy drugs or some other illegal activity and they would not believe otherwise.

        So I was taken to jail and had to spend a substantial amount of money for doing nothing wrong but being white and driving in “the wrong part town”. They had zero evidence other than my skin color and location. I doubt one story from a random person on the internet is going to help you out much but there it is.

  8. avatar JasonM says:

    I’ve seen cops do the same thing to enough white people to think it’s more likely a jumpy cop who doesn’t understand the law and the limits of his authority.

    Now if it had been the same cop in both videos, that would have been different.

    1. avatar Bob says:

      What “limits to his authority?” Cops can arrest anyone for anything at any time for no reason at all, including false reasons. There is little to no accountability for their actions. Their famous justification: “we’ll let the courts sort it out.”

      1. avatar Indiana Tom says:

        Been there, done that. The problem is if you are innocent the burden of proof is going to be on you as the Judge just gobbles the cops knob automatically.

      2. avatar JasonM says:

        There are legal limits, even if those limits rarely limit cops in practice.

  9. avatar Cliff H says:

    I am an open carry advocate, but I think it is important that this right be intelligently exercised.

    Carrying an AR or shotgun or other long rifle in places where there is no obvious purpose for that kind of weapon seems like nothing more than grandstanding with the intent to get attention, not open carry for the purpose of defense.

    If you do something that makes you stand out from the crowd in a way that may legitimately alarm the crowd you really have to expect some push back, no matter what the pigmentation of your skin. This guy seems to have been more intent on making a point about race than about the Second Amendment. I truly suspect that if he wre carrying a pistol OWB this would have either not happened or been a much different encounter.

    1. avatar Cliff H says:

      BTW – Do we have ANY information as to the final outcome of this incident? Was he arrested? Was he charged with any crime? Or did the cops talk with him, return his weapon and tell him to go home and stop being stupid?

      He was obviously trying hard to make a point and expected the results he got. Considering camera position (pregnant woman!) in line of fire it is very lucky that the obviously over-reacting policeman first on the ecene did not shoot both of them.

      One incident does not deserve a charge of racism. I saw nothing to indicate that the officer’s reaction was due to his skin color, only to an over-reaction to someone carrying a scary black rifle in a place where such a weapon has no legitimate purpose. Nevada is an open carry state. I have open carried in Clark County without incident and have met others doing the same, but we wore pistols.

      Unless you are grandstanding to get your video on YouTube, leave the damn rifles at home, please.

      (Above comments do not apply to Texas where the obvious point is that you can legally open carry a rifle or shotgun, but not a pistol. There is obviously some justification in that case to make a point, but don’t cry about it if you get an over-reaction.)

      1. avatar Tommy Kocker says:

        I agree with wanting to know the final disposition. RF should update or post it soon. How much was the settlement in the case? LMAO Can you imagine if a black man or woman actually tried to vote? Now that would very dangerous.

      2. avatar Bob says:

        Released with no charges according to the video poster.

      3. avatar Steve in TX says:

        As long as there are places where exercising your rights leads to this we need more “grandstanding”

    2. avatar Bake says:

      I don’t see anything wrong with walking around with pistol in a holster on your belt, but carrying an AR-15 is like walking around with a chainsaw.

      1. avatar JR_in_NC says:

        So no problem at all, then.

        There’s certainly nothing wrong with walking around with a chainsaw OR a rifle.

        1. avatar Dave says:

          But not with a hockey mask.

        2. avatar J. Zoss says:

          +1 Boom goes the dynamite.

      2. avatar What about Bob says:

        Can anyone suggest an IWB holster for a Stihl 250?

        1. avatar Gunr says:

          Is that WITH, or WITHOUT gas in the tank?

    3. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

      What kind of place with no obvious purpose for such a gun? You mean, oh, I don’t know, like a cafe, an art exhibit, a restaurant, a magazine’s offices? Short of a war zone, what kind of place has an “obvious purpose” for such a gun?

      Really, if you knew in advance that the place you were going to would obviously require the use of a rifle or shotgun for a looming self defense encounter, then never mind the gun. Just don’t go to that place. Who knows that in advance, though?

      1. avatar J. Zoss says:

        +1 again with sound of detonating Dynamite.

      2. avatar Johnny B Goode says:

        Regardless if he needed the rifle he was carrying the rifle in a safe, non threatening position. He had the rifle slung over his shoulder with the muzzle down. He was accompanied by his wife that was seven months pregnant. Those two do not fit the description of criminals on the prowl. Maybe the rifle was the only gun he owned. We can only speculate as to why he had the rifle. Most men tend to be overprotective of their pregnant wife. I would have carried the rifle if I had no choice to defend my pregnant and vulnerable wife. Criminals see pregnant women as vulnerable because they are not likely to put up a baby risky fight.

  10. avatar SkyMan77 says:

    To me it looked like the responding Officer really wanted to shoot this guy… Complete over reaction and likely did a good Chicken Little impersonation calling this in… I can’t help but think that without someone recording this it may have gone much different.

  11. avatar David B says:

    Most violence against the LGBTQ community is perpetrated by others in the LGBTQ community.

    1. avatar Sexual Tyrannosaurus says:

      Proof, evidence, etc and so forth.

      Pink Pistols might disagree with you on this claim.

      1. avatar JasonM says:

        I suspect police reports and other factual evidence would disagree with him as well.

        1. avatar JasonM says:

          …or maybe he means that the homophobes who beat up gays are all repressed homosexuals lashing out against the shame they feel over their desires.

        2. avatar Sexual Tyrannosaurus says:

          Bazinga!

        1. avatar Sexual Tyrannosaurus says:

          It is amusing how none of the links you posted backs up the operative word of your post, that being “most”.

          Muh narrative. 🙂

        2. avatar David B says:

          Did you not read that in 2008, there were over 3,400 cases of queer-on-queer domestic violence? Farago seems to think that the violence is coming from without the LGBTQ community. It’s mainly from within. If he and you got your wish of every member of the LGBTQ community defending themselves in a domestic abuse situation, you would have thousands of them dead every year. Not killed by heterosexual white Christian men, but killed by their own.

        3. avatar Sexual Tyrannosaurus says:

          3400 out of what? You do know what the word “most” means, right? Probably not. 🙂

          Also by parity of logic, heterosexual relationships are tainted and immoral because domestic violence exists. Oh noes!

        4. avatar J. Zoss says:

          Even if this were true, domestic violence is not the only kind of attack anyone has to worry about. So yes they are targeted for violence by people outside their relationships and in some cases specifically for their sexual orientation so they should be prepared to defend themselves like anyone else. Not say “oh we have X amount of domestic violence so we need not be concerned with any other”. There is no ratio of domestic violence versus other that in any way changes that. Also no where did Robert claim it was white Christian heteros committing the violence against them. That is something else you invented.

      2. avatar Ura Moron says:

        why don’t you STFU already spouting BS about crap u think u know anything about.

        Yeah you, “Sexual Tyrannosaurus” with the tiny penis name.

        read this and STFU.

        http://www.advocate.com/crime/2014/09/04/2-studies-prove-domestic-violence-lgbt-issue

    2. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

      Sounds about right. There’s an analog in the black community, whereby most homicides of blacks are committed by other blacks.

      Nothing special about either community, though. Most violence committed against anyone tends to be by a family member, friend, or a loved one. Especially in the case of murdered females, there’s your list of prime suspects.

      1. avatar Sexual Tyrannosaurus says:

        The Holocaust was actually Jew-on-Jew violence. News at 11.

        1. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

          *Yawn* You have an exaggerated sense of your own entertainment value.

        2. avatar Sexual Tyrannosaurus says:

          Says the guy peddling anti-gay hate. 🙂

    3. avatar Grindstone says:

      And used motor oil is an excellent lawn fertilizer!
      See? I can make up bullsh!t too!

      1. avatar David B says:

        Used motor oil is actually useful around the homestead. If you build a wooden fence and want to preserve it, paint the wood with the motor oil. It retards rotting unbelievably.

  12. avatar Mk10108 says:

    First that black man got a big sack and deserves a huge medal. I couldn’t do that, magazine in the well etc.

    I see it for what it is an overly cautious policeman following procedure calling back up and 5 show up. All to verify ownership and then, I suppose lecturing a brother on how not to piss the man off.

    One cop uses discression, the other caution, don’t think skin color had anything to do with it.

    1. avatar JasonM says:

      I doubt that’s their official procedure (although it might be their de facto one), because it was illegal. Carrying a rifle openly is a completely legal activity in that jurisdiction. The police have no authority to stop, question, detain, or (especially) threaten with a firearm a person unless the police have reasonable suspicion that he’s committing a criminal act.

      The only way that stop was legal would be if there had just been a call about a black man committing a crime with an AR-15 in the neighborhood.

      1. avatar Mk10108 says:

        No disrespect but ya gotta flush that lawful thing out of your head, Video shows how to secure the area, so police can “have a conversation” with a black man. Which is perfectly legal.

        They can illegally search a vehicle as well. Drug interdiction officers do it every day.

      2. avatar Mark N. says:

        Bingo. The officer had no cause to detain, and it sure looked like an arrest by the other responding officers, who did a pat down search as well. That was a clear violation of constitutional rights. In fact, the cop just stood there and made no attempt whatsoever to even talk to his victim, much less try to explain why he was being detained.
        Why did he order the woman to the ground? No reason at all, as far as we can see, to detain her either.

  13. avatar JWM says:

    It ain’t got nuthin’ to do with race. It’s the corn rows. Wear them in public and stuff gonna happen.

    1. avatar Gunr says:

      Except in Iowa.

  14. avatar TX Gungal says:

    Four backup patrol cars, really? If I were a tax payer I’d be p*ssed at the waste of tax dollars.

    1. avatar Veidt says:

      That’s not how it works, that’s now how any of this works.

  15. avatar Leo says:

    I do not like open carry, when it comes to long guns and urban environments. Over penetration, scaring the locals, drawing unnecessary attention. 99.99% of the time there is no genuine need for a long gun in an urban environment. Yes i know this might be the only option to be armed in some states. – Those laws need to be changed. I have no problem seeing a sidearm being open carried, But if i see a guy with M16 or a shotgun for that matter in the mall or the store, my alarms start to go off.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      So, we cannot exercise a right if a bunch of people feel really uncomfortable about it? Try again.

      This is a matter of human dignity. An open carrier does not have to satisfy anyone or justify anything to anyone’s satisfaction. To claim otherwise is to rob that carrier of their fundamental value and AUTONOMY as a human being. Period.

      What if lots of people equated black shirts with ardent support for ISIS (the terrorists)? Do we start telling people that they cannot wear black shirts in urban environments? Do we instruct the police to jump out of their car, point their gun, and order any person to the ground if they wear a black shirt? After all, anyone wearing a black shirt could be an ISIS terrorist or an ardent sympathizer — both qualifying for the crime of treason as stated in the United States Constitution. No? Then neither is it okay to do the same to an open carrier absent any evidence or facts that the open carrier harmed someone or is on their way to harm someone.

      1. avatar Leo says:

        Please read what I wrote. I did not say forbid open carry I said I do not see the need. And you think you need an AR to be adequaly armed – you are in the wrong hood

        1. avatar JR_in_NC says:

          ” I did not say forbid open carry I said I do not see the need. “

          Ah, the old Bill of Needs argument again.

          In other words…who gives a rat’s rectum what YOU think anyone “needs?” Are you that special that what YOU think someone “needs” sets the rules for everyone else?

        2. avatar Leo says:

          Wow way to be respectful. How about you respect my 1st amendment right to an opinion even if you do not agree with it? Yes I think that a person who open carry a rifle just because he can, for the is being stupid while exercising his 2nd amendment right

        3. avatar Leo says:

          Wow way to be respectful. How about you respect my 1st amendment right to an opinion even if you do not agree with it? Yes I think that a person who open carry a rifle just because he can, he is being stupid while exercising his 2nd amendment right

        4. avatar Indiana Tom says:

          And you think you need an AR to be adequately armed – you are in the wrong hood…or in Baltimore.

        5. avatar J. Zoss says:

          So the 2A is based on you personal viewpoints of needs and the 1A is about individuals respecting the opinions of others, not that the government shall pass no law that limits free speech. Got it.

        6. avatar David B says:

          ACK-CHEW-ILLEE, the 1st and 2nd amendments protect us from the government. It’s stretching to say that AR-15’s at Squiggly Mart and Junior’s Day Care are protected. I think we have read too much into the Constitution that which is not there.

        7. avatar Sexual Tyrannosaurus says:

          The 1st amendment has nothing to do with being respectful, pigster.

        8. avatar JR_in_NC says:

          “Wow way to be respectful. “

          I don’t owe you one ounce of respect. You have to earn it.

          Given that you seem to think your OPINION on what people “need” to carry matters in a free society, you are not earning it at all.

          Your opinion, as worded, lies at the root of all the Statist cancer that has infected our nation.

        9. avatar JR_in_NC says:

          “It’s stretching to say that AR-15’s at Squiggly Mart and Junior’s Day Care are protected. “

          The Right of the People to Keep and BEAR Arms Shall Not Be Infringed.

          No stretch at all…bearing arms is bearing arms.

          Where does the word “government” appear in the Second Amendment, anyway? The First starts with “Congress Shall Pass No Law,” so that’s pretty clear. But, the Second simply says “Shall Not Be Infringed.”

          The only way YOU can infringe on me doing something is to lobby to have a law passed. So, by using the word “infringed,” it is pretty clear the amendment DOES apply to government, but it also means you have jack squat to say about where, how and what anyone else carries (that’s “bear arms”) with the single exception of YOUR OWN PROPERTY.

          This stuff is not that complicated, really.

        10. avatar FreakinPeanuts says:

          You cant reason with those open carry radicals and trolls. There is no middle ground with them, there is no common decency. No one is arguing their rights to carry open. If I saw someone open carrying an AR or AK on my street I would call the police. Not because we aren’t afforded that right, but because I don’t live in a war zone or a crime ridden 3rd world country; and its not necessary. Carry CCW or carry a pistol open; leave the rifle in the car. THAT makes a polite society. Carrying an AR or AK makes a fearful society full of loud mouthed bullies who get off on “protecting their rights” in front of soccer moms at Chipotle. Soccer moms don’t care about their plight, they are concerned about their kids safety when an man with an aggressive attitude and a black rifle gets to close. There are many things that are legal but still douchy and in poor taste open carrying a rifle is one. Sure the cop over reacted, I’m not going to call him a racist, who knows. I do think the wife was put in unnecessary risk. These open carry guys want a response and they may just get it if they find the right Barney Fife. A settlement doesn’t FIX anything. Trolls respond all you like, with your vile comments and hatred of opposing ideas. Show the hate that is deep inside, prove me right.

    2. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

      Then……..why do police cruisers so often come equipped with ARs? Why do SWAT teams wield them? They all operate in the same urban environments we live in, yet they’re armed with ARs, with citizens and perhaps their partners in the same building, despite your advice. Why?

      Over penetration? Good grief. Dude, you’ve been over penetrated by Internet chit chat. For crying out loud, your basic lever action rifle chambered in .22lr will penetrate an inch of hard pine at 400 yards. Not much around town is going to stop it or just about most other common firearm rounds, except brick in some cases. A window, a couple of inches of drywall, or a hollow core door are going to get penetrated but good, regardless. Sheesh.

      1. avatar J. Zoss says:

        +1 and “Good grief. Dude, you’ve been over penetrated by Internet chit chat.” made me laugh so thanks for that. 🙂

    3. avatar TheBear says:

      There are sure a lot of hidden statists around here in the comments these days.

    4. avatar Roymond says:

      “Need”?

      Do you only talk when you “need” to?
      Is the press only free when it has something that “needs” to be said?

      Need is irrelevant to rights.

      1. avatar Cliff H says:

        Rights are rights. This is not in question. The issue is respect for your neighbors, IMO. Even if you have the RIGHT to say any GD thing you want, don’t we all from time to time bite our tongues and keep our fool mouths shut?

        The same goes for the Second Amendment. The fact of choosing NOT to exercise that RKBA in a certain way at a certain time or place may not be required (SHOULD not be required), but choosing to do so anyway, just because you can, seems disrespectful and downright rude.

        Both guys were grandstanding for a specific purpose – to get the very videos we all watched at the beginning of this post – and they got exactly what they expected. They may or may not have believed they were serving a higher purpose in this effort, but all they really proved is that if you carry a scary rifle in a place that generally exhibits no particular purpose for that level of armament you are going to get the muggles’ panties in a bunch and some face time with police officers.

        Moral of the story for Open Carriers – Don”t bring a sledge hammer when you may only need to drive tacks, people will think you are a little off.

  16. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    I don’t know if that was a racist thing … for all we know the first deputy on scene may have reacted the same way to a white person carrying a rifle on their back.

    Having said that, this video seriously pi$$es me off. The first responding deputy had no business drawing down on the carrier and no business detaining the carrier nor his wife.

    The carrier and his wife should go after the department for violation of civil rights under color of law. And they should demand that a special prosecutor prosecute the first deputy for assault with a deadly weapon. I smell a payday coming for the carrier … and they deserve it.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      Furthermore, the carrier, after laying down on the ground, stated the legal requirements of a Terry stop and then informed the second deputy on scene that he did not consent to any searches or seizures. I can assure you that violent criminals don’t walk around with their pregnant wife in tow, carrying video cameras, and stating the legal aspect of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and the Terry v. Ohio Supreme Court case.

      1. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

        It’s a well dressed violent criminal indeed who sports Constitutional citations.

        It was clear from the start what this was, but Officer Chunky McTrigger Finger desperately wanted to provoke it into becoming something else.

        He’s exactly the kind of cop I referred to the other day with my theory about police work being a “bimodal profession.”

        He sees “To protect and serve”, but reads it as “I wish a MFer would….”

        1. avatar Fuque says:

          From what I saw, officer chunky McTrigger had his hands full Just trying to keep his composure … Thank God the second deputy showed up, Otherwise McTrigger would have messed his britches..

  17. avatar Max says:

    From some user comments on Reddit (so judge the validity accordingly), the caucasian gentleman is a known open-carrier (troll?) and has interacted with the police before.

    As pointed out by others, there are too many extranious variables to draw any kind of conclusion; other than those various political, anti-gun, and anti-law groups would have you draw.

    1. Troll? Ya think? He is trolling to regain your rights my friend. Show some respect.

    2. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

      Troll? It’s pronounced “patriot.”

      He’s doing some of the heavy lifting in the premier civil rights struggle of our time.

    3. avatar Jack Gault says:

      You might be a racist if you can’t see what just happened in that video just as you might be ignorant of the US Constitution if you don’t believe those two young men have the Right to carry there weapons.

      It’s a straightforward video. Things really get any more simple than what I just watched. I pray for the day racist gun owners just shut up or die of old age. You make all of us gun owners look/sound stupid.

      And yeah–the gun “troll” is a patriot, who apparently isn’t a racist.

  18. avatar E says:

    I have seen quite a few youtube videos of cops doing this to white people.

  19. When a man pulls up to you in a car and jumps out screaming at you and he draws a gun and points it at you and you have a rifle, are you not authorized to shoot him in self defense?
    Oh yeah and the man is a cop but laws are laws right?
    The only way this bullshit stops is if law abiding citizens start fighting back, and I don’t mean murder.

    1. avatar Fuque says:

      Michael, Yu gotta keep in mind that officer cr@p his pants is doing it how he was trained.These dolts are circus seals with balls on their noses… change the training and you change the act….they don’t exercise anything close to critical thinking… It’s training, training and more training…to the point of it being automatic..No thinking… just reaction to action…. For it to change, it has to be in the training… Watch the animal training show on saturday morning on CBS, and you will see the potential that police have with the right training..A pocket full of scooby snacks and some encouragement, can get these mindless nit-wits to do pretty much anything.

    2. avatar Kyle says:

      To the best of my knowledge you dont have a right of Self Defense verses law enforcement personnel. As screwed up as that sounds.

      You do not get the “in fear for my life” excuse when confronted by a police officer….ever.

      1. avatar JR_in_NC says:

        Actually, that’s not quite true.

        For example, there was the case from last year in Texas where the guy shot and killed a Deputy forcibly entering his home on a no-knock, no-announce warrant service. As soon as the other officers identified as cops, he surrendered.

        He was charged with murder, but the Grand Jury did not issue a True Bill.

        That is not an isolated case.

        So, there ARE circumstances where self defense against a cop has been seen as justified under the principle of Objective Reasonableness.

        No doubt it would be an uphill climb to prove your were in the right, though.

        1. avatar Sexual Tyrannosaurus says:

          >He was charged with murder, but the Grand Jury did not issue a True Bill.

          That is absolutely delectable.

          I can just imagine the DA going apoplectic, raging against the peasants for refusing the recognize lèse majesté.

      2. You’re not a U.S. citizen. Are you?

  20. avatar Nick says:

    The first video is actually a cool cop if you have seen the full video of that stop. Even goes to show off how much better his rifle is then theirs. The second cop is just true doughnut eating swine

    1. I saw that video a long time ago. Cool cop? To the contrary. I thought he was an asshole. He disarmed them (for everyone’s safety) then the part about saying his gun was better is what a jerk would do when he sees your Windham Weaponry AR at the range and says “mines not that POS, it’s a Colt”. What an ass.

  21. avatar CBI says:

    Question: how quickly did the gentleman get his firearm back?

  22. avatar preston says:

    in THIS situation, yes, this cop is racist.

    1. avatar doesky2 says:

      You don’t know that.
      The only thing we know for sure is that the cop is an idiot.
      You have no idea if he is a racist idiot.
      It could be argued that you are an idiot for making the charge that he is a racist.

  23. avatar Swarf says:

    I think they arrested the black guy because they were afraid he was going to hurt someone with his giant brass balls.

    Damn.

  24. avatar Grindstone says:

    When driving the same, fully functional car separately, my brown, Hispanic wife has been pulled over far more often than I have, usually for BS like “headlight out”, even though they’re brand-new.

    I won’t say that white suburbanites opinion that racism doesn’t exist is invalid, just… flawed.

    1. avatar Fuque says:

      Grind………My entire family is a mixed breed, Black, Asian,Mexican, Jewish, I totally get it….Tell yur wife she is in good company…

  25. avatar Someidiot says:

    A few things (might have been mentioned already):

    1. Cameraman in the line of fire?!

    2. Worst police stop ever. First deputy should have secured the “suspect.” Should have holstered weapon if he/she/it felt inclined to take eyes off the “suspect” to speak with the recently arrived deputy.

    3. Did their conversation not include “Did the individual make any threatening or otherwise suspicious moves? No? What did he do? HOLSTER YOUR WEAPON, STUPID!!”

  26. avatar shawn says:

    Why the different sling configurations? I don’t think it’s an apples to apples comparison.

  27. Down with the pig gestapo …

  28. avatar Former Water Walker says:

    “Beats” the heck outa’ me. I only wish I could carry a rifle around…

    1. avatar Fuque says:

      Could Be Illinois doesnt mesh with your idea of freedom….

  29. avatar Indiana Tom says:

    Oh this might have happened with separate white and black men being harassed equally. This would be the Separate But Equal Doctrine.

  30. avatar Calvin says:

    So if these fools had killed the patriot … act of war?

    1. avatar Sexual Tyrannosaurus says:

      The cops started the war decades ago.

  31. avatar neiowa says:

    entire classes of people are more likely to be subject to violent attack than the average population. Members of the LGBT community, for example

    REALLY? Sounds like this needs some provin from a nonbiased source. As anything the libtard left spouts bound to be BS. Are perhaps more proof for stupid people in stupid places doing stupid stuff?

    1. avatar doesky2 says:

      I’m confident that the “violence toward LGBTQWERTY crowd” crisis is just as valid as the 1-in-4 sexual assault against college women…in other words a big load of leftist BS crisis mongering.

      I was at a college freshmen orientation for my son and that fu@king 1-in-4 stat made it appearance on a PPT and I stood up and challenged that crap and the admins were not amused. The comment that puts them back on their heels is “Why shouldn’t parents of incoming ladies just not get up and withdraw their daughters now and take them to a faith-based school and significantly avoid your apparently horrible sexual assault problem?” No they don’t like that question at all.

  32. avatar Kyle says:

    This is what happens in communities where the citizens are enemies of the police.
    I personally think the ‘Open Carry’ guys are nuts, but i’m sure I do lots of things that they think are nuts!

    America was supposed to be a land of freedom, the 2nd amendment was suppose to be part of that. We have given law enforcement too much power in some areas, and not enough in others.

    This guy should have been approached by a wary 2-person unit, checked, politely and quickly, and sent on his way. A good cop would have been able to determine that this guy and his girlfriend were not a threat in very little time.

    That will not happen until the police are not considered “the enemy”.

    1. avatar Dustin says:

      The cops are the ones who adopted the “us vs them” attitude. We can’t force them to stop being our enemy without using violence, which we’re still, for some unknown reason, trying to avoid. It’s their choice to be like this, not ours…

  33. avatar David B says:

    I love it! Don’t answer the points and change the question! Confuse, muddle, and obfuscate–reminds me of a section of Gogol’s book “Dead Souls” where he addresses arguing. Great read by the way if you can stand the ending.

  34. avatar AllAmerican says:

    Gun control began as, and continues to be a racist institution. Hell, the democrats don’t even cry for gun control unless white people die. Mention the idea of a black conservative like Clarence Thomas to them and you’ll see the real Democratic party come out of their mouths.

  35. avatar Dustin says:

    I always enjoy the point-gun-at-guy-tell-him-to-grab-his-gun-then-kill-him-because-he-grabbed-his-gun gamethe cops play…

    Only happened to me once. Told the cop I was not going to grab my gun while he was pointing one at me. I could see in his eyes that he immediately realized how dumb that was… As if it were the first time he actually thought about the demented stupidity he had been trained to do…

    As another poster mentioned; “Circus seals with balls on their noses.” Zero brain function going on in their heads. And guns pointed at you…

    In fairness, if there are good cops out there; we’d never know because they’re leaving us the fuck alone.

  36. avatar Gunr says:

    I’ve said it before, and I’ll probably say it again, just because it’s legal, doesn’t mean you should do it!
    A tough looking lumberjack can wear a frilly dress down main street USA, which is perfectly legal in most states.
    An average looking adult can also walk down the same street with an AR-15 strapped over his shoulder, this also is legal in many states.
    Both of these folks are doing something that is bound to attract attention. Some people will be downright offended by their actions.
    Unfortunately, until the world is tolerant enough to overlook these different gestures, we will have to accept the stares, giggles, and occasional phone calls to the police.
    If you are offended by these conditions that exist in today’s world, then join a group that promotes more tolerance, or consider slipping your long gun into a simple case, when you take it for a stroll!

    1. avatar Anonymous says:

      I’ve said it before, and I’ll probably say it again, just because it’s legal, doesn’t mean you should do it!

      That may be the case – but that shouldn’t be the case.

      I mean… maybe I legally could wash my car at home … but maybe I shouldn’t do it?

      1. avatar Gunr says:

        Not really sure what you mean?? I guess I should have put the accent on “should”, meaning just because it’s legal, doesn’t mean we HAVE to do it. Does that make more sense?
        Off topic but I noticed in a post of yours that you used to live in Oakridge. I live near there, and go there to shoot. They have a nice little gun range there. How long ago did you leave?
        Have a great day
        Gunr

        1. avatar Anonymous says:

          A person should be polite regardless of whether or not they are openly carrying or not. If a person is polite and openly carrying people should not dictate their opinions over the open carrier. Openly carrying is not a form of being rude. But many see it that way.

          I lived in Oregon long ago when I was a boy. Decades ago – around 1991 maybe.

  37. avatar Ralph says:

    Hell, I don’t know if the fat cop with the itchy trigger finger was a racist or a Contributing Benefactor of the NAACP. I just know he was a horse’s ass.

  38. avatar Anonymous says:

    I’m going to quote Chip here:

    For example, US v Black: “Being a felon in possession of a firearm is not the default
    status. More importantly, where a state permits individuals to openly carry firearms, the exercise of this right, without more, cannot justify an investigatory detention. Permitting such a justification would eviscerate Fourth Amendment protections for lawfully armed individuals in those states.“

    http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2015/05/daniel-zimmerman/quote-of-the-day-drop-it-like-its-hot-edition/#comment-2148549

    So black guy legally open carries. Gets detained pending an investigation by 5 cop cars and dozen or so cops.

    I think it was the corn rows. Cops saw those corn rows and something that looked like an AR and then totally flipped out. My speculative cop statement at the scene: “Rights??? We got a person here with corn rows carrying a rifle… openly!”

  39. avatar Dan says:

    Does it show racism? I doubt it. To most badges the color of your skin is irrelevant be it black, white, brown,
    yellow, red or even green. What matters is “YOU AIN’T BLUE” meaning you don’t belong to the elite club of
    badges sprinkled with the magic fairy dust of government authority and ‘qualified immunity’.

    What this does show is a complete disregard for the Constitution, rights and the law.

  40. avatar Preston B. says:

    Yes. This is what I live in fear of everyday as a POC that owns guns. Most would shoot before asking questions if it’s a POC.

  41. avatar Mike says:

    First of all, let me say I’m disappointed that TheTruthAboutGuns even posted this. This web site is supposed to be about TRUTH. Not about staged incidents designed for no purpose than to provoke controversy.

    Now, does this video show racism on the part of the police? I don’t know and neither does anyone else other than those directly involved. There are way too many factors involved in how police respond to an incident that we can’t determine from the video. For instance, walking down the street with a gun is likely to provoke a much more aggressive response in an area near where an armed robbery was recently committed then in an area where the only illegal activity going on is 3rd degree jaywalking.

    And the action of the citizens involved can also alter the response. One thing glaringly stands out in the second incident involving the black guy. The police car pulls up and stops. It’s obvious to anyone with enough brains to pound sand that the cop is responding to the guy carrying the gun. What does any rational person do at this point? STOP and acknowledge the presence of the cop. Move your hands away from your body and demonstrate that you aren’t a threat. Comes under the same category as remaining still and keeping your hands on the wheel in plane view during a traffic stop. But what does the black guy do in the video? He continues to advance toward the officer, very stiffly, with his hands at his sides, near the weapon. As if he was attempting to provoke the very response he got. I don’t know a single cop who wouldn’t react that way in that situation.

    Now, having said all that. Could racism have been a factor? Of course. There are racist cops. Always have been. Always will be. But does this video demonstrate such racism? Not necessarily. Does the video prove that the officer in the black incident is racist? No. But even if it did, and the officer were racist, does this show that “cops” are racist? No. Any more than news video of looters in Ferguson and Philly proves that black people are thugs.

  42. avatar BlueBronco says:

    I don’t think he is racist. However, that cop needs to 1) lose some weight; 2) resign and get a job he can handle; 3) get that holplophobia treated by a psychiatrist; and 4) have that service weapon shoved up his ass.

    Plus, that whole agency should be issued Depends.

  43. avatar Joe Public says:

    FIrst, I think it worth noting these guys were not carrying their rifles in the same position. The white guy had it slung behind his back, whereas the corn-rows guy (who’s skin tone appears no darker than the other carrier) had it at his side, in easy reach of his shooting hand. That alone might merit a higher level of caution by the cop, though actually drawing his weapon right off the bat seems like an over-reaction. I think popping his thumb break and keeping his hand on his gun, while holstered (which would not have been visible behind the open door) would have been a more reasonable non-escalating approach to take if he had reason to feel a slightly higher potential ‘threat’.

    But consider the following also, and feel free to flame me if you want. Politically correct I am not, so I am used to it.

    Let’s say you are walking down the street, and on one side of the sidewalk is a person walking a labrador, and on the other side a person walking a pit bull or rottweiler. You don’t know either person or dog.

    Are you more leery or cautious about walking close to the pit bull or rottweiler, say within biting range, rather than the lab? If so, does that make you a ‘breedist’, which some dog breeders say is the equivalent of racism applied to dogs?

    Suppose you or people you know, have a history of encounters with aggressive examples of those two breeds (pits and rotties), or have read about many such encounters in the news. In contrast, you have a more positive history of encounters with labs. Should you completely disregard prior experience about the breeds and treat each animal with a blank slate approach? Or is it rational to factor in your prior knowledge or personal experience when making a quick judgement about which side of the street to walk on, and hence which dog to pass near to? Be honest.

    Cops like this one do not live in a vacuum prior to each encounter. If they are experienced, they have a history of encounters with people of various ethnicities and, consciously or subconsciously, they are going to factor in ethnicity/race, clothing, posture, maybe hair style, and other things when they encounter individuals on the street. Because they may have learned through real-world experience that, despite the claims of some to the contrary, these things can be useful predictors of behavior in some cases. They do this, for better or for worse, because their brains, like all humans, are designed to form associations that aid in personal survival. This human tendency to create psychological associations about visual indicators of relative threat level may have a biological basis rooted in evolutionary history.

    Jesse Jackson, one of the most prominent black civil rights activists, admitted years ago: “There is nothing more painful to me at this stage in my life than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery. Then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved…. After all we have been through. Just to think we can’t walk down our own streets, how humiliating.
    Remarks at a meeting of Operation PUSH in Chicago (27 November 1993)

    What if this cop has a history of encountering corn-row wearing gang bangers in black shirts who were involved in crimes with guns, but little or no such history with clean-cut looking white dudes in striped polo shirts? Can we really condemn him for a human tendency to form associations, even if he has been trained not to do so? Because human instincts can be a hard thing to overcome, especially under stress.

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