Nope, but I am honestly saying that his tensions eased after he cleared the weapon/firearm for ammunition. You know, the logical reason for an easing of tensions (cameras generally make people more tense; where as clearing a weapon usually makes people less tense).

 

ignorance must be blissful

and the easing of tensions is what caused the cop to state his name and id number?

 

I honestly did not notice any marked change of behavior from before vs. after he asked if he was being filmed. He was professional and courteous, and explained what he was doing the whole time.

What's the big deal?

 

nothing to discuss. agree to disagree. wish you were right about cops in general.

 

We've had this discussion before.

The way I see it, I like to offer them the benefit of the doubt on any individual interaction, because I can't understand what it must be like to have a job where on any given day, you could show up to work and run into someone who might try to kill you.

Given that, I try to cut them a little bit of slack. With that mindset, I don't (at all) see anything objectionable about how the cop behaved in the video in question.

 

What exactly IS the point of open carry if the weapon must be unloaded. What is the point of carrying an unloaded weapon? Make you look like a badass or sometheing?

 

Its the only legal means of excersizing the 2A in CA, aside from making a minimum of a $25k "donation" to the sheriffs campaign or being a celebrity.

It's also a deterrent to being a victim. If you haves gun, whether unloaded or not, and the person next to you doesn't, a criminal will likely choose to victimize the unarmed person. Everyone has an instinct to live if they can.

Also, the difference between unloaded and loaded is about 2 seconds. That beats the hell out of taking your phone out of your pocket, dialing 911, explaining that you are being robbed, then waiting for a cop to show up. I agree that unloaded is not preferred, bits it's all we have right now to defend ourselves.

When seconds count, the police are just minutes away.

 

your "points" have been discussed.

cop doing is job is not an excuse, his job is to uphold and defend the constitution, he failed at his job.

being scared of guns is not a reason to waste police resources on someone acting within the law.

cops do not have a responsibility to to make sure that someone is carrying legally, you are spreading FUD.

the big deal is that PC12031(e) is a violation of the 4th amendment.

harm was caused when the gun carrier was victimized by the police officer and had his rights violated.

people should not have to fear being stopped by the police for any amount of time while practicing a legal act.

cops should have no right to stop someone to make sure they are not up to no good, that is a just ridiculous thing to say.











lets take the gun out of the equation everyone. pretend that person is walking down the street with something else strapped to them that is also legal, say, a back pack, or a woman with a purse. is it fair for a cop to come search the back pack or the purse to make sure that nothing illegal is inside of it?

LEO are generally required to establish reasonable articulable suspicion that a crime; has, is, or is about to be committed. thats why they cant stop someone to search their purse, and why they should be allowed to stop someone for legally carrying a gun absent RAS.

you might say "but how does the cop know if the gun is unloaded if he doesnt check?" how about, "how does a cop know that a woman isnt a drug mule unless he searches her bag and her bra?". until there is a reason to feel that the gun in question has been, is being, or will be part of a crime, theres no reason to search it.







as far as cops acting different when being recorded, its on a case by case basis. my last "major" interaction with police involved several rights violations and they knew they were being recorded, i explained the laws that they were planning to break and the rights that they were planning to violate and they said "were going to do it anyway." the recording didnt stop them from doing anything illegal, its just proof that can be used in court later. on the other hand, there are cops that will change tone when they find out they are being recorded.

heres a cop changing his tone a bit:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...92117793977759




and this video is a must if you have any chance of talking to a police officer:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc

 

Those of you who think this cop was "nice" are the reason why we are losing rights left and right. The cop should be fired and then sued for "official oppression." Google that term if you don't know what that means.

Police have VERY LIMITED authority given to them by US, the people. They cannot CHOOSE what they can do. They have EXTREMELY specific boundaries that they must follow. If you choose to forego your rights, thats your business, but don't dare say "oh look the cop was nice" when he broke at least 3 laws ON CAMERA.

The video CLEARLY shows that the officer KNOWS that he is overstepping his authority. He KNOWS that in NO STATE, is ANYONE required to provide physical ID (like a DL) outside of a vehicle. Name is good enough, and in the video, you clearly see the officer acknowledges that, but the problem is HE STILL TRIED. For states with a stop and identify law, there MUST be a RAS of a crime and detainment.

Furthermore, he has no right to touch the guys gun. Just like a cop has no right to touch your iphone, the gun is legal, no crime is being committed, and yet the cop is all let me check it for safety blah blah blah. The cop needs more training.

The funny thing is, cops on the most part are SO corrupt and dickheaded, that cops like these, while breaking laws, actually look good....and the secondary problem is that many people buy this koolaid, and don't see what is ACTUALLY going on.

Go to the 9 minute mark....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=pUd_00Xrf_U

Now take a look at this video....long, but you better sit down....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kassP...layer_embedded

The cops have been suspended and a full fledged IA investigation is underway....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kassP...layer_embedded

The three videos are not that different, the difference is LANGUAGE, but the crimes being committed are actually quite similar.

 

No, you're the kid who doesn't understand what is legal and what is not. A legally owned gun is no different than a legally owned iphone. He was clearly persecuted SIMPLY BECAUSE he had a weapon on him. Officer safety is NONE OF OUR CONCERN. The USSC ruled that officers HAVE NO DUTY TO PROTECT, which means, that in essence, we are all responsible for our own protection. He was not causing a disturbance, committing a crime, or stirring up a panic. If the officer is uncomfortable, then he can choose to find a new profession, but under no circumstances, do his rights trump ours.