.

Change that video title to "Extremely Angry Citizen" and it could well illustrate the feeling that many of us have in regards to the flagrant violations of individual's rights, especially as it pertains to photographing or legal open carry. Add to that the complete lack of accountability of the officers involved in those flagrant violations and you should be able to see why I want there to be penalties for those officers that so easily disregard law-abiding citizen's rights. 

This video is a prime example. Not only was the videographer well within his rights, but it was entirely clear that the police had no right to detain him, nor was he even remotely hampering their investigation. This was a prime example of false arrest for contempt of cop because the videographer choose to exercise his Constitutional rights. These two cops should, IMHO, be sanctioned. Either they did not know the law (unlikely, but even if that was so, it is no excuse...) or they choose to ignore the law, press on with their arrest knowing they could do so with impunity.

But therein lays the problem. If I ask if I am detained and the officer says no, then I am free to leave unmolested. If "yes" then maybe I can leave but I need to "test" the officer's response by physical actions that could easily be interpreted by the officer as a reason to utilize physical force when said force was otherwise unneeded to effect the desired outcome? Where is the logic in that? That's like having an officer come up behind you while driving and use his lights to try to pull you over but you're not quite sure if he really means to pull you over so you try to leave.

If as you suggest, that a plain "yes" or "no" isn't sufficient, then we must get into a discussion of subjective interpretation of what any particular order, command or request an officer makes of us and if indeed the plain language meaning is sufficient or if there is some sort of hidden meaning.

Of course I'm not questioning the case law you infer, but rather what a difficult position those decisions place a citizen in when trying to interpret police actions when such actions should, for the safety of all, be crystal clear.

You wouldn't like the way my one of my college professors approaches agency administration.

It's literally like "Fuck it. If they have a problem, let them find the resources to sue us.  For every ten good people that gets screwed, we get 20 bad apples. At the end of the day, as long as we have gotten rid of more bad apples than we have jacked up good apples - then we are ahead of the curve."  They later go to say, out of those 100 good apples, only 1% of them will likely have the balls, courage, resources, or drive to actually do something about it. 

While I don't agree with this principle, I can't deny that the theory has some security merit.

Of course I'm not questioning the case law you infer, but rather what a difficult position those decisions place a citizen in when trying to interpret police actions when such actions should, for the safety of all, be crystal clear.

And there lies the problem with conservative justices tossing the shit out of the fourth amendment so we can score the conviction on some stupid criminal instead of protecting the greater good.

The Fourth Amendment is a mind field of personal feelings, officer interpretations, and very - very fact specific scenarios.

As 2aHawaii's resident LE defender, Q will never concede any impropriety, let alone Constitutional violation, by LE.  He is precisely the LE analogue of DC politicians in that they both condescend to anyone with a critical opinion of them, predicated on 'they just don't understand how things work'; that no one but their brethren should be permitted to have an opinion on their matters; that anyone with a critical opinion of them is hubristic to even THINK they could pass judgement; that the masses should kiss their feet in gratitude for their very existence; that we should give thanks they exist to reluctantly care for our undeserving selves.  In his posts he bathes is his smug elitism and mocks all the low-life bottom-feeders that dare to question the hallowed halls of LE.  Never a substantive explanation as to why LE was justified in their actions.  Not even the eloquent, learned rebuttal of his elitism by HiCarry would solicit an intelligent response.  He is as implacable as the most pious statist is say on gun control, and as much in complete defiance of reality.  What fine LE material he is - what a cliche he is.

The membership here, while perhaps having conflicting opinions on certain nuances of the overall topic, still none the less seem to hold the same intrinsic values in regards to the 2A and personal rights.  This we should not forget and keeping that in mind perhaps we might temper our comments as getting personal is counter productive in the overall scope of things.

For myself, that guy and others like him can keep their mouths shut and actions to themselves.  I don't give a rats ass, what they think they are trying to accomplish.  Most if not all of these youtube idiots IMO are not modern day crusaders or Rosa Parks.  They are simply attention whores who are looking for their 15 minutes and are detrimental and do not add value to the beliefs that I hold in regards to this topic.  They definitely DO NOT speak for me, nor do they have my support. 

For myself, that guy and others like him can keep their mouths shut and actions to themselves.  I don't give a rats ass, what they think they are trying to accomplish.  Most if not all of these youtube idiots IMO are not modern day crusaders or Rosa Parks.  They are simply attention whores who are looking for their 15 minutes and are detrimental and do not add value to the beliefs that I hold in regards to this topic.  They definitely DO NOT speak for me, nor do they have my support.

I bet most of those guys are not even very active in their 2A community (NRA group, politics, training and education and so forth).  That is just my experience so far with many of them.   They are counterproductive to the collective efforts, especially in bad 'anti-gun' areas.

I can think of dozens of ways to be more productive and have a net benefit greater than stunts like that.

OK let me explain better. 

Freedom to act how you will.  IMHO it is inherently going to end with chaos especially in crowded urban environments.  No laws, no enforcement, etc. will lead to this fact. 

On the opposite end you have security from other things; terroristic acts, robbery, etc.  You get this under control by putting your thumb on the population and reducing their inherent rights.  You restrict free speech, you put in place and enforce curfews, unlawful search & seizure, etc.  You deal with criminals severely and immediately.

Both of these have problems that you get into when you push too far one way or the other.  Many people now hate TSA with a vengence.  I sure do.  I hate that these guys are supposed to man their lines at 04:15AM every morning but due to varying briefings sometimes take longer than that (when GZ has to get a 04:30AM boarding time).  I hate that idiots who stand in line cannot figure out to take off their shoes, watches, belts, computers, etc. ahead of time.  I hate that I a person who flies the same flight for weeks on end has to be searched with the guys who take trips infrequently.  I hate all of that, but I understand it is a price of security.  My personal freedoms are impacted.  Some people think it's too much and some not enough, but it is what it is because we are human and humans will always have that differing point of view.



Intuition based on fact.............if you are a beat guy and have seen things time and time again you will get a feeling about people and situations.  These are rooted in your experience and that basically being fact.  With this respect Q & KK are 100% accurate that we don't (always) know this day to day stuff.  As I have said however it has to be tempered and our voice is still importantly something that has to be heard.


Finally I am disappointed that you are getting angry.  You want people to take your side and if they don't you get frustrated and angry.  I can handle that, it's your right to do so.  However it doesn't make me think of you more highly than Q if this is what you resort to when people don't agree with you.  HiCarry and I have got a bit into it before on the Rail/Mayor issue, but I respect what he has to say no matter if I don't agree with it or if I later find out I'm wrong.  I certainly hope/think he feels the same about me.

Hmmm.  Not sure how you arrived at that?  I never stated I was angry, I don't think I used words of anger or called insulting names, nor did I use all caps or massive quantities of exclamation marks. 

The biggest problem with the digital age of communication ... no visual or verbal cues to provide feedback regarding the emotions or state of mind of the participants.  You're reading anger that absolutely doesn't exist.  I'm enjoying the debate immensely, and I think we have discovered quite a few useful and interesting things about several members here.  Knowledge leads to understanding, which in turn leads to meaningful exchanges and relationships. 

If you thought the perceived anger was directed toward you, again the anger was never there.  I apologize if what I wrote demonstrated otherwise.

Maybe the overuse of emoticons causes these misunderstandings?  Plain text gets boring, so maybe using them too much conveys something which I didn't intend?

Whatever the reason, I just wanted to address the angry impression you got.  I hope that helps clear it up! 

Thanks!   

^^^Point taken bro.  I apologize for mistaking your intent/feelings.  I respect your opinion and we'll agree to agree/disagree on points.

.

.....HiCarry and I have got a bit into it before on the Rail/Mayor issue, but I respect what he has to say no matter if I don't agree with it or if I later find out I'm wrong.  I certainly hope/think he feels the same about me.

We can, and should, be able to discuss our views civilly even when we disagree. We can all look at facts and come to different conclusions. It is when the discussion veers off into "you can't understand because..." or "I feel..." but has no factual basis that I think we start running into problems.

Isn't it "us" pro-2A guys who are constantly complaining about the anti's and their pleas to emotional arguments versus facts? We should hold ourselves to the same standard. I'm OK with agreeing to disagree....

GZ - Never a hard feeling after our discussions......"...I love you, man..."

I hear some of the folks say they don't think those open carry advocates that end up confronted by the police aren't doing "us" any good. I disagree.

I may agree that some of them come off as too militant, condescending, or disrespectful, although that too is a bit subjective....after all, why should respect is a two way street. But, beyond that issue, I think it is interesting that most of those here would cheer anyone "wronged" to "sue them" for those perceived transgressions. Seemingly, winning a settlement or influencing future enforcement of suspect laws is the measure by which many judge advocacy efforts. Well, if that is truly the case, here is one more example of how open carry advocates, by successfully challenging the officers who didn't know the law and who therefore stopped and detained him illegally, are indeed helping us in our overall 2A advocacy.

http://gunssavelives.net/blog/gun-laws/video-washington-open-carrier-awards-15k-settlement-after-cop-drew-gun-on-him/

..............GZ - Never a hard feeling after our discussions......"...I love you, man..."

GZ no homo...............not that there's anything wrong with that.