TTAG reader BG writes:
As a cop, how should I encounter a belligerent possibly intoxicated person open carrying a long gun? After several reports of irrational or possible drunken behavior of an obviously armed person? Or would he have been better off being cordial with the officers? I think his behavior was disorderly at the least . . .
From a police perspective, we get calls of “suspicious persons” all the time. What you call suspicious and what someone else sees as this can vary largely. When there are multiple callers and have specific information on why the person is suspicious or that may be a crime being committed. Police will respond accordingly. When police make contact it’s generally how the suspicious person responds that dictates what happens next.
The video shows the police going from citizen contact to using a minor infraction to detain the person. Is there a crime afoot? Maybe… It’s too soon to tell. Callers reported behavior consistent with being intoxicated and the officer sees the same.
If the open carry activist was cordial on contact. Spoke to the officer politely. The officer could determine if he was intoxicated or not. And either been on his way or not depending on the possession of a firearm while intoxicated issue.
Instead it went the other way.
I’ve experienced this a lot in my 14 years in police work. I’ve had drivers start screaming at me telling me I had “no right to stop them” before they listened to why I did. One example was the guy I stopped and went on a 5 min tirade on how I was “trampling his rights” before I could tell him I stopped him to return the wallet I watched him drop at the gas pump.
The officers may have information you don’t, and they may not know if the info is 100% kosher yet. More often than not your reaction to an officer will dictate how that encounter unfolds.
Obviously, the police were entirely in the wrong here.
The old man who was drunk had every right to parade around his town with a firearm over his shoulder.
He has no doubt influenced many to the cause of the right to keep and bear arms.
I hear he went to Chipotle afterwards to celebrate his bold exercise of his Second Amendment rights.
Yes… Because obviously the way to resolve this issue is to roll up, pull guns, and escalate the situation. This is clearly a situation where the cops could have just walked up the the guy politely and talked to him, rather than shouting orders with guns drawn.
In the good old days, cops on the street had to have some “mad peeple skillz” to be effective.
Nowadays, it seems like every response is go straight to brute force.
“But this one goes to 11”
Right, because there was so much “brute force” demonstrated in this incident. Get a grip.
Hey, Paul, I was not necessarily talking about this case. I was making a general comment.
“Excuse me, Sir?
Can you stop talking to the butterfly fairies for a second and listen to me?
Damnit Jim, he’s not listening! Should we ask him maybe a little… more sternly?”
Yes… Because that’s loads worse that drawing down on a random dude on the street who has not harmed anyone.
Are you suggesting that police officers should relate to citizens in their patrol areas as IF the citizens are their equals?
More often than not your reaction to an officer will dictate how that encounter unfolds.
Sometimes. And sometimes the cops overreact and overreach and the local PD ends up paying money to the citizen who did nothing wrong but got jammed up because a cop was having a bad day.
Stop covering for your “brothers.” Some of them are good, and some of them are as bad as any street thug.
I would respect the police more if they just stopped killing us.
No disrespect, but there is not enough info in that article for me to take sides, and I sympathize entirely with the family, and their loss- but we just dont know what happened on the spot.
Schizophrenia is a really difficult condition to deal with- or predict likely behavior, especially in someone you dont know. And sadly, it seems to be common that it comes on in most young men in later teens, early twenties. Very tough for families.
Another example perhaps of how more training for cops to understand behavior of the mentally ill might put a different tool on their duty belt, than just force escalation designed by lawyers to deal with criminals.
What is tragic, again- just like Rodgers, Holmes, Lanza, and many others is the repeating pattern, that gets lost in the anti-gun grabber hysteria,
is how the mental health system and court procedures designed to protect the rights of the sane individual, simply doesn’t leave the desperate family members of the dangerously insane any other option than to call the cops for help.
we just dont know what happened on the spot
And we never will.
So the courts will deal with this as they usually do. The cops will be exonerated, given a couple of weeks off and some trauma therapy. There will be a settlement of course, to shut the family up. And the killer will retire with a medical disability.
Because one cop will never be able to explain why he had to shoot a kid who had already been subdued by the two cops who showed up first. Or does being schizophrenic turn a kid into Superman?
Yes it can and frequently does. Fight a mental case and let me know how that goes for ya. If you live.
This Is the famous “I don’t have time for this” statement from the cop before he pulled his gun and shot the 100 pound victim being subdued by 2 other cops.
@Walter – I have, and I did. Nobody died. But I didn’t have the Use of Force Continuum to dictate my actions and exonerate what I did.
Gosh, where have I heard that before… oh, right, probably from the Everytown for Gun Sense crowd. We know some of you gun owners are just a little weird, but lots of you are murderous thugs! Why don’t you stop killing us!!!
Cops shoot far more people than gun owners without felony records.
And gun owners shoot more people than non gun-owners.
Again this makes us all look bad. However if the people freak out every time they see a firearm what can we do? But this guy was crazy.
I dont think “this makes us all look bad”.
Unless the us you refer to is old guys who are drunk in their jammies.
I am not drunk, and its a bit early for my jammies, thank you.
So what was the original complaint about, The gun, or the plaid jammy bottoms!
yep, felony bad taste on that plaid pattern. So out of style.
I read hear how the greatest crime is not being respectful to the badge. Everything else flows from that.
“The right of the people to kiss my butt shall not be infringed.”
I was very impressed by the restraint these cops demonstrated. RESPECT.
This old guy was obviously drunk, drugged, or mentally ill, and one sign of early Alzheimers is angry disconnected behavior, I understand. It could have been a potential for “suicide by cop” situation in the beginning, too, correct?
I’m no shrink, and certainly dont have the experience to second guess street cops, but one thing I have noticed from many years of dealing with folks who are angry, is if you just hear them out, that deflates about 90% of the energy.
So, I was really impressed in particular with the senior guy at the end, who chilled everyone else out, and showed the courage and compassion to approach the old guy, hear him out, at his level, without escalating.
I’d be interested to hear from experienced LEOs reading here at TTAG, for your informal critique’s of the way the junior guy talking in the beginning was doing.
Not to double guess, just learn what you all think works best, for negotiations like this, given of course, that not all situations are the same.
Seemed like the young cop I took to be standing behind the camera wasnt getting very far arguing. But then again, the old guy wasnt shooting, either, while he was arguing…and that gave time for more senior guys to show up.
Well, it’s true. God bless ’em, the cops handled things professionally. But isn’t that what they’re supposed to do?
I’d be giving the good ones more “attaboys” and pats on the back if more bad ones were getting kicked in the ass.
“I’d be interested to hear from experienced LEOs reading here at TTAG, for your informal critique’s of the way the junior guy talking in the beginning was doing. “
I think the young guy (that did most of the talking) did a pretty good job.
This video (and its outcome) is a stark contrast to that one a couple of months ago where the cops were in the stand-off with the guy and they ended up killing him. A lot of folks defended what the cops did in that case because “well, they were there for HOURS” like that matters.
Compare the two reactions, the two approaches. Compare the two outcomes.
Hmmm, the video has been taken down. That’s never a good sign.
Personally I see many more “badge heavy” cops these days than ever before. Maybe we shouldn’t recruit so many ex military?
Prob’ly the old guy’s lawyer.
Wait a minute, I’m an ex-military cop, and I’m mostly not an a$$hole.
Most cops probably aren’t, either, but there are far too many out there who are, and their behavior is sanctioned by their departments.
What I don’t understand is why anyone who points that out is labeled anti-cop (not by you, but by many on TTAG, and everywhere, in general). You’d think that decent cops would stop covering for the thugs with badges, as they are making them look bad.
Again, the thugs with badges make the cops look bad, not people who shine a light on their behavior.
I’m not sure there’s any problem with cops who have a military background. Most of the ones I meet tend to have a better head on their shoulders. But I’m sure there are those who can’t turn off the ‘drill instructor’ mode.
In a time when a quick search of youtube can pop up any number of videos where the police were complete jerks/a-holes, unless there is more here, I don’t see that here and some co-operation (even if not legally required in some states) would have gotten him a long way.
Prior military LEO, the person’s attitude and body language can go a long way in keeping it handled in a non-escalated manner.
Being an a-hole and smart*ss to them does not help the person nor the cause.
I was a little surprised the first cop did position himself on the other side of the car with the engine block between them. You don’t know the intent at that point so…
“Being an a-hole and smart*ss to them does not help the person nor the cause.”
And just to put this into a broader perspective, being an a-hole and smart-*ss to anyone does not help a person or one’s cause.
Really, it does come down to some simple rules of social conduct…rules that have been largely thrown out the window some time in the last century. Go back and look at how even enemies spoke to each other 200+ years ago.
Cops don’t command more respect from other citizens because they are cops. We ALL should command respect. D1ck cops are d1cks; d1ck non-cops are d1cks.
Interesting comments by one officer at 9:05:
“I might walk up there and try talk to this guy, that’s gonna be against every fu****g bone in my body. What we should do, although I trust you, John, is shoot his ass.”
Up to that point, the man in his pajamas had done nothing to warrant shooting him. His “crimes” were being rude, wearing pajama pants, making goofy gestures with his pants, holding a rifle, refusing to provide identification, and refusing to put down his rifle. Oh, and allegedly J-walking. That doesn’t add up to shooting him.
Let’s keep in mind what the man in his pajamas did NOT do. He did NOT verbally threaten anyone. He did NOT point his rifle at anyone.
Don’t get me wrong. I don’t like the man’s behavior. Nevertheless, his behavior did not rise anywhere near to the level of justifying deadly force.
I think the police were entirely reasonable in this situation, and the man who was open carrying was entirely wrong in the way he handled himself.
First, let’s consider the idea of the police showing up ‘in force’. Exactly what would we expect them to do? If a single officer showed up and was shot, everyone would say ‘why didn’t he wait for backup’. If the police had just let this crazy old man wander and he had shot someone, everyone would have said ‘why didn’t the police stop him when they had the chance’.
The police were obviously aware of the open carry rules, and were attempting to simply determine if the man was a risk or someone exercising their rights openly. As others have pointed out, had this man simply approached the situation like a normal human being, he would have been on his way with his weapon in a matter of minutes.
As far as the BS jaywalking charge goes, that was simply so they could talk to the guy. Again, how do we expect the police to react when they have multiple callers about a man with a gun.
As I’ve said before in reply to other topics, if a person believes enough in the US constitution to fight for their 2A and open carry rights, they should also care enough about the rule of law to act within accordance of the law.
In Michigan it’s illegal to be in possession of a weapon when you are drunk. In Michigan, you are required to possess ID while in possession of a weapon. In Michigan, you are required to identify yourself to the police when asked.
Had this open carrier simply acted like a good citizen, the video would have been entirely different.
Had this open carrier simply acted like a good citizen, the video would have been entirely different.
I’ll provide you with more cases if you want them. Grand Rapids is particularly egregious in its abuse of legal open carriers, and pays for it.
Ralph, sometimes cops act like jerks and there’s no pleasing them. In this case it appears that the cops took a very reasonable approach to a very tricky situation. Presumably, if he’d cooperated from the start it would have been a good experience for everyone. And for the record, cooperation doesn’t mean total capitulation/surrender/slavery/etc. Some cops may think that’s what it means, but being willing to communicate is one form of cooperation. Ditto for ID-ing oneself. These are courtesies we extend to many people everyday – but not to everyone always. Cops responding to a call (they are legally required to respond, after all) usually deserve some cooperation, even if they are the biggest jerks on the planet. This goes double where there’s some sense to the call (drunk guy with AR wandering around).
“Presumably, if he’d cooperated from the start it would have been a good experience for everyone.”
This is exactly right.
At one point in the video, the cop even told the guy something to the effect of “This is far beyond Open Carry now. You’ve broken several laws in my presence and you still are not cooperating.” He also told the guy he was escalating his crimes…initially a ticket offense, moving into misdemeanor territory, etc.
He never said “You are a criminal for OC,” he said, “You’ve committed a crime in front of me…jaywalking. THAT gives me the right to ask your name and for your ID.”
I’m not in the “Zay shall submit to my every commant!” camp of street encounters with cops, but MI law is MI law…the cop had a right to ask for ID and he certainly had a right to ask the guy to safe the weapon even just to talk to him.
For cases like when the cops open fire when someone does not “cooperate,” we have HUGE problems, but that didn’t happen in this case.
The big question is what how they would have behaved had he cooperated from the beginning. “Ok, so you are OC…that’s legal so have a nice day!” ??
The idea that we all should just be polite needs to start with the LEO. Not only does the suspects’ reaction set the tone, but also the way the LEO approaches the situation.
You know, that thought that respect is earned, not given?
I have been stopped by cops many times in my 60 years. I have noticed the general lack of respect on the part of some younger a##holes. I’ve never been in serious trouble but it’s getting harder & harder to be cordial. Especially with the midget ninja type. I would be brave too with body armor, automatic weapons & massive backup.
Great. Open Carry Texas has a Michigan branch.
Michigan, the state where cops can be criminally disqualified from obtaining a carry license but still be a cop anyway.
47 state misdemeanors disqualifies one for a carry license
1 misdemeanor disqualifies one from being MCOLES certified
What are we doing now, fighting for the right to open carry a gun in your hand? Hand open carry is more comfortable than a holster or a sling, has superior weapon retention attributes, and is much quicker on the draw. Can we fight for the right to point them at people next? That would more effectively deter attacks!
I have been reading TTAG for about 3 months now and have really enjoy it. This is my first post.
I am NOT a LEO.
From experience, I would say the LEO’s in the video did an excellent job at handling the man.
Would you walk up to a drunk, armed, angry person ??
I have been stopped many times and have had LEO’s reach for their guns without cause. If this would have been a major city such as LA, I believe they would have shot him and moved on.
Based on the information in the video, I believe the LEO’s handled this situation very well. I fully support the rights of individuals to OC. Long guns, handguns, it doesn’t matter to me. These officer responded to a report of a possible threat. The person appeared to be behaving “out of the ordinary”. No one was injured, and that’s always the best possible outcome. There will always be people on both sides who add fuel to the fire. We know this person doesn’t represent all gun owners, nor does it represent all OC’ers.
But sadly, nor does the talking cop and the supervisor represent all cops. There even was one in the video that said they should shoot him. Actually, I think he said, “shoot his ass.”
From the video evidence presented, that would/could have been a bad shoot. The guy was armed and agitated, but jeopardy would have been questionable (arguable, but not certain) so long as he kept the rifle on his shoulder.
For the cop to suggest shooting him at that stage in the confrontation is very troubling.
That is the “cop attitude” that have a lot of people, including myself, concerned. That group of cops in the video have a bad apple in their midst.
So, what are they going to do about it?
Were I that supervisor, I’d write that guy up, do what I could to get him off the street (certainly my shift) and perhaps even off the department with very clear documentation as to why. I would not want to be anywhere around him…he’s a hand grenade waiting to go off (in my opinion) and when he does, he could take other (good) cops with him.
We hear a lot of lip service about indicators pre-act spree killer behavior. Well, here is an indicator of a cop that wants to shoot people in legally and morally gray area situations.
put the ‘shoot his ass comment in context. what he said was… I’m going to walk up to him, even though it’s against every bone in my body . but I trust (name of officer) to shoot his ass.
Reasonable idea when walking up to a possibly crazy man with an AR
You can hear the exact quote better on the you tube version starting at 9:10
No, I think you are misunderstanding what he said.
He was talking to the supervisor, John. “What I think we should do, and I trust your judgment, John, is shoot is ass.”
It sounds like he is telling the supervisor that he would shoot him, but he is willing to defer to John’s greater experience and responsibility at the scene.
The bit about approaching him being against every bone in his body is because John was talking about someone doing that…and this guy’s response was to tell John, “nah, man, I wouldn’t do that. I think we should shoot his ass. But, you’re the boss, so it’s your call.”
The guy that said “shoot his ass” is NOT the same guy who ultimately said, “I’m going to walk across.”
At least, that’s the way *I* am hearing it and interpreting it.
The officer’s exact words, as the best that I can discern from both the MLive and the YouTube videos, are:
“What we should do, although I trust you, John, is shoot his ass.”
The fact remains that even though the sentiment was voiced, no asses were shot while dealing with the situation, which in itself is commendable.
The cops did a great job here dealing with a drunk (or whatever) person with his hands on his gun. I see absolutely nothing wrong with what they did, although the comment about shooting his ass was very wrong. Kudos to the cop who walks up and calms everyone down, Sherrif Taylor style. We need many more cops like him.
I see nothing wrong with how the police handled this one. Good work.
Calm. Professional. Respectful. The cops did a damn good job, here.
I stopped reading after the first five incomplete sentences. I am not a stickler for spelling errors or typo’s but at least write a comprehensive sentence.
+1. There are a whole lot of periods in this article that should be commas.
JAYWALKING? Can’t have any of that, slippery slope from there. Everything after that is hyperventilation BS from a cop/cops think he controls all within his sight.
You missed the point. He used the jaywalking as an excuse to talk to a man who acted aggressively towards the officer, without any provocation other than the officer being there and trying to determine if the subject with the rifle was a danger to the public or not.
Had the man respectfully said that he was just there to do some sort of open carry awareness and to have a good day, the cop would have probably just turned around and left without further incident
It’s a pretext stop. If you don’t want the police to be able to temporarily detain someone for jaywalking, there should be no rules against jaywalking. Okay, but I bet everyone who drives a car won’t like that…
Nobody obeys jaywalking laws anyway. In a lot of places, w/o sidewalks, there are no marked places to cross. What, I should walk two miles out of my way to a crosswalk just to walk 40′ across the street?
Jaywalking is a bullshit law that should never have been put on the books. It might have made sense once upon a time in cities when horse and buggy started giving way to trolleys and cars, but not anymore. NOBODY obeys it.
I have seen the video.
I am normally one who is suspicious of cops. One of the guys who has seen all the bad cops that outnumber the good ones who cover for them. In short, I don’t like modern day police as a whole.
The lead cop on this deserves an award. He did everything I would do if placed in his situation if I was a cop. He did not violate the man’s rights, and specifically said he had no intention of violating those rights multiple times. After the man proved belligerent to an excess given the situation (why don’t you <expletive) shoot me?), he wisely detained him for a minor traffic infraction (jaywalking) rather than trying to blame the gun to determine what this man's state was. He was firm on his own safety but also firm on this man's rights.
The only questionable thing he did was confiscate the rifle when the man refused to take an alcohol test, but my understanding is that is the law there. The officer did say (and did allow) the man to pick it up the next day after he could sober up rather than permanent confiscation.
I don't know what this officer could have done differently to make it more positive given the circumstances. And as I noted before, this is coming from someone who is almost always critical of police and looking for the "bad cops" out there.
@ 9:03 The dispatcher says he is demonstrating his right to open carry. The very next thing that comes out of his mouth is, “he has definitely overextended those (his right to open carry) at this time”. While I don’t condone this guy for being so belligerent from the get go, there’re better ways to handle police questions, I don’t think the dispatcher has authority to make that call. other than that i think the police handle it well. SWAT team alpha-omega wasn’t called in so that’s good.
I could be wrong, of course, but I don’t think it was the dispatcher that said that. I’m pretty sure it was one of the officers on the scene.
Of course standing on the side of a street = Jaywalking and that’s a crime! So naturally the cops need to step in, surround, point guns and escalate a non issue into a deadly situation. Well done.
Did you miss the part where the cop said he SAW him walk across the street right in front of him?
Agree or disagree with the cops using jaywalking as a justification to escalate beyond Terry Stop, but at least get the facts straight.
He was not just standing on the side of the street. He jaywalked which is, apparently, a ticketable crime in that jurisdiction.
I thought the same as Lee for most of the video, until I heard the “in front of me” part. That’s when I got it.
Legally, I think the cops were using what they had at their disposal to try to diffuse (and cover their asses) in the situation, and I think they did very well.
If I were to walk up to an armed man in that state, I would want some backup too.
Ultimately, I think the cops did very well in this situation.
Note to fellow OFWG’s. If you are putting on plaid pants and not going to play golf leave the long gun at home.
Gotta go with the police on this one. Their are a lot of dead cops because the citizen went violent and their are a lot of dead citizens because cops went violent but just as in 1778 if you are holding a gun with a screw loose the ol’ well regulated militia is going to step up.
What constitutes just cause for police to arrive on scene and then get heavy handed?
A man was walking on the sidewalk and had a rifle. Three people called in to report the man with his rifle. One caller reported that the man stumbled and might be drunk. One caller clarified that the man was not pointing his rifle at anyone nor threatening anyone. One caller reported that it might be a pellet rifle and wasn’t sure.
Fine. So the police can go and check it out. Show up and observe the man. Walk up to the man and engage him in a consensual encounter. If the man wants to talk, then talk. If the man doesn’t want to talk, then leave him alone or shadow him if that seems prudent. If there is evidence that the man has committed a crime, then arrest him. Why is that so hard?
Note: being armed and uninterested in a consensual encounter with police is NOT a crime. Or do we lose our right to free association if the police are present?
You ask some excellent, big picture questions that I wish more people took the time to contemplate.
This one is a bit tricky.
Actually, what a lot of people that have never been cops don’t appreciate is that at the time a lot of real situations are tricky.
The report was that he looked drunk. What are the laws there about OC while drunk, if there are any? What are the laws about drunkenness in public, if there are any? What kinds of ‘reckless endangerment’ laws do they have?
One problem I have with a belligerent drunk carrying around a rifle on the side of the street is that they can be unpredictable. Well, kinda like most of real life is unpredictable…but more so if there is such a scale.
In the early stages of this encounter, it rings a lot like a Terry Stop (see case law Terry v Ohio for details) to me. “Reasonable Articulable Suspicion” has been ruled adequate cause for street encounters / investigation, and to my read, the cops certainly had that here: numerous 9-11 calls, dude certainly acting drunk, the presence of the weapon, and his belligerent attitude all, collectively point to satisfying Terry….in my opinion as “not a lawyer.”
That is…they satisfy the right of the cops to ask basic questions, but not arrest. And, he was not arrested at that time.
At some point DURING this encounter, the cops witnessed an infraction (jaywalking) that moved it up the chain. Now the cops certainly DO have the legal right to ask for ID (to write the ticket) and basic info like name, etc. Cheesy charge? Perhaps. But legal if the cop saw it.
At THAT point, the dude refused to provide that info, so it further escalated. Now, as the cop pointed out to him…he’s into misdemeanor territory for refusing to cooperate. Had he given name / ID, etc to get his jaywalking ticket…it may have been over. We can speculate. And hope.
So, now he’s into “arrest” territory, and NONE of it has directly to do with the rifle and the cop even said that on the video. I do NOT know what they would have done had he cooperated from the beginning. I would hope it would have been “reasonable,” something along, “Okay, have a nice day.”
So, let’s wind it back to the beginning. People see a drunk guy walking along the road and call 9-11. Cop shows up and asks the dude for a conversation. Dude says, “yeah, just exercising my right to OC. Am I breaking a law?”
If no jaywalking at this point, the answer is “No.” (Assuming MI is OC state, of course….). But, there remains “reasonable articulable suspicion” to continue the encounter to gather information…are you drunk, are you harassing people, etc.
The point being is, so long as the cops can articulate “reasonable suspicion,” they have a right to keep talking to him even if HE does not want to talk…to address your comment. It has boundaries and perhaps not much teeth. If he is breaking no law and asks to go, I guess they’ve done their investigation per Terry and its done.
Disorderly Conduct was this guy’s big problem, though, in my opinion…and that has nothing to do with the rifle.
So, bottom line (to wrap this up)….these things are NEVER as straightforward as they appear in hindsight. The cops in this case did “okay” in my opinion. The world is not perfect.
“More often than not your reaction to an officer will dictate how that encounter unfolds.”
My brother’s a police officer and from what he and his coworkers have told me this is 100% true. Don’t act like a prick, regardless of who’s in the right at the moment, and you’re basically guaranteed a more positive outcome than an a-hole attitude would bring.
Amazing how OC fanatics are trying to defend a guy who was yelling and screaming, flipping people off and acting like either a drunk or lunatic,and trying to find fault with the police.
You are the best friends MDA could have.
I’d love to see Robert Farago complete a police academy, gear up, and work the streets for about a year or two in a decent sized city. I’d pay more attention to his opinions on law enforcement after that. Walk a mile in someones shoes…
You seriously think that someone cannot see the daily, numerous abuses of power by police and have an opinion because they themselves are not a cop?
Why are the bad cops (and the system that protects them) beyond reproach? If anything, people should be mad at them for tarnishing the reputation of honorable cops.
“If anything, people should be mad at them for tarnishing the reputation of honorable cops.”
As someone with LE experience, I am appalled by some of the actions and attitudes on display with far too many contemporary cops.
I don’t see anything wrong with the officer’s response. Erratic man walking around with an AR, is going to result in calls to 911. The police are going to respond, and they are going to do their best to resolve the situation. This requires them to verify that the subject isn’t posing a threat to himself or others. Subject jay walks, and as minor as that is, it is sufficient reason for the officers to identify him. The guy is acting like a total ass, being obscene, gesturing, etc. They should add that to the rules of safe gun handling as : do not act like an emotionally disturbed person while obviously armed.
The conversation with the “shoot his ass” quote is obviously meant as “if he makes a threatening move, I trust you to drop him before he kills me”. Nothing wrong with communicating a plan incase things go bad.
To those criticizing the response, what should they have done differently? How would YOU have dealt with a guy who appeared disturbed, with an AR, started being belligerent, gesturing wildly and obscenely? Would you consider that person a threat? Would you have a plan of what to do if he mounted the rifle toward you? For those saying the officers shouldn’t have had weapons drawn, how fast do you think this guy could have pointed and fired? Faster than the officer could draw, safely target and engage?
I’m all for 2nd amendment rights. However, if you are going to be in public, with an AR in hand, and the cops show up, being polite is probably the best approach, acting like an idiot isn’t going to do anything to help your, or your fellow gun owners.
Maybe less than obvious, since quite a few of us “heard” it differently.
He didn’t say “I trust you TO shoot his ass,” he said “I think what we should do is shoot is ass.” He inserted the phrase, “but I trust you John” into that statement, but looked at grammatically, it sure looks like he’s not saying “if he makes a move, shoot his ass.”
He never said a single word about “if he makes a move.” You are putting those words into his mouth.
Going by what he DID say, and the inflections and cadence in which he said it…it reads a whole lot “less obvious” to me that your interpretation is correct.
I think this was handled exactly as it should have been. And to be honest, I think an argument could be made for additional non-lethal implement use on a belligerent perp. Although I can agree there is a lot of a-hole LEOs out there, most of them just want to do their job, get through their shift without dying, and collect their paycheck at the end of the week. Is it really worth starting a war with them when they are just trying to do their jobs? You aren’t going to win your rights battle on the scene of an incident, that’s what court is for. Better to live and see that courtroom, than dying being stupid. When the “revolution/civil war” comes you’ll know it; this ain’t it. Better to have as many friends in LEO as we can get, then make them all our enemies. Stupid crap like the jerk in this video, just makes it easier for the anti-gun groups.
This is not about the police officer, it’s about carrying a gun while intoxicated (I assume the guy met the legal limits for intoxication in Michigan). When you carry…open or concealed…you must recognize the responsibilities you’re assuming, whether inherent or explicit. One of those is not voluntarily entering into a state of mental impairment that would jeopardize your ability to safely carry and operate your firearm. It’s similar to driving a car…you’ve disregarded your responsibility for the safety of yourself and others, taken on when you get a driver’s license, by driving while intoxicated. Ditto with firearms. Booze and guns don’t mix. You wanna go on a bender, that’s fine…just leave your guns (and your car keys) at home when you do it. Personally, I come down on the side of the LEO on this one.
Life lesson; try not to be a dick.
Michael in ga I apologize for the poor grammar I’m finding hard to type with a recent hand injury. …
“AM I BEING DETAINED???” “YES YOU ARE BEING DETAINED!”
I am all about our rights and police responsibilities etc. But people have it in their mind that there is this secret phrase “AM I BEING DETAINED???” and if you say it to the police it magically enables your Shield of Cloaking Inviolability and you can’t be messed with.
This is another example of how open carrying idiots ruin it for everyone. *NOT ALL 2nd Amendment supporters* need to be all about open carrying ARs to be down for the cause.
JOE SCHMOE here is the best example.
I wonder if his real name is JOE SCHMOE, what do you guys think? Real name?
“NO YOU’RE NOT FREE TO GO” lmfao
“WHY ARE YOU SO ANGRY? WHY ARE YOU CURSING AT ME??
I am not here to fight a revolution!
What do you want me to do?? I just want you to be reasonable! How am I acting like a prick??? I am not acting like a prick! I am not in a gang!!!”
This copper needs a promotion, seriously.