Cop Baiting

[mc5aw]

Those videos bother me because they often present a Constitutional Right as an excuse for boorish, antagonistic, and often threatening behavior. Individuals who exploit 2A and open carry laws for personal agendas are doing us a profound disservice ... they add fuel to the 2A fire, and cause unnecessary friction between LEOs and the community.

 

[ChattanoogaPhil]

Speaking of video... I just heard on the news that the Los Angeles police are now wearing "Body Cameras". Started with just few, but by summer 600 officers will be required to wear them.

 

[goldenlight]

It sure seems like a stupid game to play, to me.

 

[Philadelphia Patriot]

Another guys likes to go through Border Patrol checks with a dozen cameras mounted all over his little car and refuses to answer a simple question "Are you an American Citizen?" He tries to stir up the Officers until they either arrest him or just waive him through out of frustration because the idiot has backed up traffic at the checkpoint.

If it is AT the border, then I agree. However if the checkpoint is not on the border, then he shouldn't have to answer any of those questions. In fact, I don't think law enforcement should be stopping anybody unless they are breaking the law. I feel the same way about DUI and seatbelt checkpoints too. FYI, I always wear my seatbelt and I don't even drink either. I think any kind of checkpoint violates the 4th amendment.

As for open carry. I see no problem with people open carrying handguns. Grow up, ...it's a firearm. I recognize people's rights to open carry long guns, but I look down upon people who do it in public.

Also I think it is stupid when states aren't "shall issue" in terms of licenses to carry. I think reciprocity with only certain states is stupid too. Every state should be shall issue, and your license to carry should be good in every state. I live in PA. My girlfriend lives in NJ. Every time I go to visit her I feel very defenseless. I feel like I am walking around with a target on my shirt.

 

[Faulkner]

A glazed donut with a string on it usually does the trick

Really now . . . you just had to go there with the donut thing. Surely you don't want us to start in on the lawyer jokes?

 

[Kensterfly]

If it is AT the border, then I agree. However if the checkpoint is not on the border, then he shouldn't have to answer any of those questions.

Well, sir... I'm guessing you don't have a heck of lot of illegal immigrants crossing borders and rivers to sneak into Pennsylvania.

Are you really giving up any rights or freedoms to quickly answer "yes" when you're asked if you're a US citizen? BAM! "Have a Nice day." and you're on your way to your next constitutional crisis.

Why be a jerk and waste your own time and that of the officer's, not to mention the people in the cars stacked up behind you? People who do this are not proving anything other than they are puffed up, arrogant jerks. Serves no purpose whatsoever.

Same goes with the blatant gun toters. And I'm not talking about someone walking down the street minding his own business with a legal, holstered gun in an open carry state. (thought I think the majority of us would chose to carry more discretely) I'm talking about the fools who are intentionally provocative, hoping to bring attention to themselves. Only hurts the cause.

 

[Philadelphia Patriot]

Well, sir... I'm guessing you don't have a heck of lot of illegal immigrants crossing borders and rivers to sneak into Pennsylvania.

Are you really giving up any rights or freedoms to quickly answer "yes" when you're asked if you're a US citizen? BAM! "Have a Nice day." and you're on your way to your next constitutional crisis.

Why be a jerk and waste your own time and that of the officer's, not to mention the people in the cars stacked up behind you? People who do this are not proving anything other than they are puffed up, arrogant jerks. Serves no purpose whatsoever.

I'm sorry, but I am going to have to agree to disagree. I don't think people should have to give up their 4th amendment rights in order to "feel safer" by going through checkpoints. Americans have A LOT of rights. Any time law abiding citizens give up one ounce of freedrom, then the terrorists/illegal aliens/criminals/etc all ready won. What's next? If you live within 300 miles of the border, LEOs can search your house for illegal aliens without a warrant? Don't get me wrong, I'm pro-LEO. I have a BA in criminal justice, and I work in the CJ field. However, I also believe the Constitution needs to be preserved.

 

[VictorLouis]

If I was in law enforcement and got caught up in a situation like this where you refused to provide I.D..
... or got a little snotty
...you would be taken downtown.
...Whether it's legal or not open carrying an AR-15 in the middle of a town is not most people's idea of what open carry is.

.

I recall an admonishment to me by a senior officer. "You know why our badges have beveled edges?...So it doesn't hurt QUITE so much when it's shoved up our ARSE!"

Seriously, absent your State's statutory requirement to provide ID 'on-demand, and your ability to maturely handle someone who's got an attitude, I'd hope you'd have your Department's arse sued-off for such heavy-handed activism....IF you were ever in a position to do so.

"Whether it's legal or not..."? WOW. Someone totin' a rifle certainly merits attention; but, if it's NOT illegal you'd do well to watch yourself in providing anything more than a civil(polite) 'lecture' about choices, and making better ones.

So why, when the little old lady calls and says, "There's a man walking down the street in front of my house and he's WEARING A GUN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

Why don't they just say, "There's nothing illegal about wearing a gun, ma'am."?

Well, they're going to ask a few questions more, but simply put....they often DO tell the complainants JUST THAT. "Ma'am, where did you live prior to moving here? Uh-huh, I see. Well, understand that such things are lawfull here in our state. Since nothing else is going on, please, have a nice day"

 

[xray97]

Most often, in the cases that get attention locally, it's not the oc that's the main cause of the problem it's the "context".
Two recent incidents come to mind. In the first the police are called to the report of a male standing in front of a convenience store, in the middle of the city, glaring at the customers "menacingly". He has a handgun holstered on his hip.
In the second, which occurred in a suburb of Portland, the police are called to the report of a male standing in front of a school with a rifle.
In both incidents the guys with the guns weren't going about their business. Both had obviously, and admittedly, posted themselves at a location " to show their support for the 2nd Ammendment".
I believe that the police would have been called, in both instances, if the guys had been standing where they were, holding double bit axes or anything else that wasn't typical and could be used as a weapon. The police were called primarily because they were acting suspiciously. I haven't heard of any situations where someone was hiking, fishing, hunting, working, target practicing, etc. in a location where oc is legal and there being a police incident.
I believe in the 1st Ammendment too, but if I stand on the sidewalk in front of a church on Sunday and spout profanities for an extended period at the congregation as they come and go, someone will call the police and they will respond. If I walked past the church under the same circumstances and uttered profanities I doubt there would be a police response.
Normally it will come down to common sense and context. Just because something is legal diesn't mean it's "right" at all times and in all places. Doesn't seem so difficult to understand to me. The police respond daily to incidents where no crime has occurred. It generally falls under the heading of peacekeeping.
Whether they are baiting the police, or trying to prove a point, those who act unreasonably do nothing to help those of us who support the 2nd Amm. In my opinion often they perpetuate and legitimize the myth of gun owners as "gun nuts".

 

[Beemerguy53]

I'm sorry, but I am going to have to agree to disagree. I don't think people should have to give up their 4th amendment rights in order to "feel safer" by going through checkpoints. Americans have A LOT of rights. Any time law abiding citizens give up one ounce of freedrom, then the terrorists/illegal aliens/criminals/etc all ready won. What's next? If you live within 300 miles of the border, LEOs can search your house for illegal aliens without a warrant? Don't get me wrong, I'm pro-LEO. I have a BA in criminal justice, and I work in the CJ field. However, I also believe the Constitution needs to be preserved.

The 4th Amendment protects you against 'unreasonable' searches and seizures. Courts have consistently ruled that security checkpoints, and the administrative searches conducted at them, are not 'unreasonable'.

You (and I) might not like to be screened to fly, or go to a courthouse, or get in City Hall, or visit the Statue of Liberty, or see your Congressman at his office...but it's Constitutional.

 

[Philadelphia Patriot]

The 4th Amendment protects you against 'unreasonable' searches and seizures. Courts have consistently ruled that security checkpoints, and the administrative searches conducted at them, are not 'unreasonable'.

You (and I) might not like to be screened to fly, or go to a courthouse, or get in City Hall, or visit the Statue of Liberty, or see your Congressman at his office...but it's Constitutional.

I'm not talking about the above underlined. I'm talking about driving in your vehicle (even walking) on a public road, being told to stop your vehicle, and then being interrogated by the police. I have a problem with that. Americans should be able to travel freely on public roads without being stopped and questioned by police.

Obviously if you broke traffic law or LEOs have reasonable suspicion that you broke the law, then they by all means can and should pull you over, question you, and take it from there. Just because you're located within 30 miles of the border doesn't mean they should be able to randomly pull people over to see if they are US Citizens. Also just because somebody is driving down a street with a nearby bar doesn't mean police should pull them over to see if they are DUI. They should be required to have reasonable suspicion for these things. Our Founding Fathers are rolling in their graves.

 

[Rastoff]

The difference I think some are missing here is intent. These people aren't walking down the street minding their own business, they are baiting cops trying to get their 15 minutes of youtube fame. That's what I have an issue with.

 

[Palinvan]

The 4th circuit court of appeals has ruled that simply open carrying a firearm does not give police officers the right to search someone. That person can refuse to show their ID. Arresting that person for doing nothing illegal and refusing to show ID is in violation of the court ruling and any officers that does so should lose their badge. The officer is the one breaking the law, not the person with an OC firearm.

sent from my Galaxy S3, superior to the iPhone.

 

[Faulkner]

As for DUI checkpoints, I suppose we should just let drunks roam the roadways unmolested.

 

[Beemerguy53]

I'm not talking about the above underlined. I'm talking about driving in your vehicle (even walking) on a public road, being told to stop your vehicle, and then being interrogated by the police. I have a problem with that. Americans should be able to travel freely on public roads without being stopped and questioned by police.

Obviously if you broke traffic law or LEOs have reasonable suspicion that you broke the law, then they by all means can and should pull you over, question you, and take it from there. Just because you're located within 30 miles of the border doesn't mean they should be able to randomly pull people over to see if they are US Citizens. Also just because somebody is driving down a street with a nearby bar doesn't mean police should pull them over to see if they are DUI. They should be required to have reasonable suspicion for these things. Our Founding Fathers are rolling in their graves.

Well then, on this point we agree. But...

Many Americans are not aware of their Constitutional rights. If you are stopped by the police while driving for a traffic violation, you are not obligated to engage in conversation, or permit a search of your car absent probable cause for such a search. You can simply decline to answer questions and request that you be given a traffic citation if one is warranted and be released.

We had a big brouhaha here in Maryland about 20 years ago over the Maryland State Police stopping vehicles on I-95 and arresting drug trafficers. (The ACLU was whining about 'profiling'.) Turned out that arrogant criminals, thinking they were smarter than Maryland State Troopers, would consent to searches of their vehicles...and the troopers would then find their drugs. The idiots didn't know that all they had to do was withhold permission for such a search, and the troopers would have had to let them go.

 

[GerSan69]

The 4th circuit court of appeals has ruled that simply open carrying a firearm does not give police officers the right to search someone. That person can refuse to show their ID. Arresting that person for doing nothing illegal and refusing to show ID is in violation of the court ruling and any officers that does so should lose their badge. The officer is the one breaking the law, not the person with an OC firearm.

sent from my Galaxy S3, superior to the iPhone.

Well, that's the 4th Circuit. Doesn't apply elsewhere unless the appropriate Circuit decides to adopt the 4th's reasoning.

 

[Palinvan]

That is true. But 4 others have also made similar rulings. I believe even the liberal 9th circuit court came to the same conclusion. As more people bring suit against police over stepping their authority by harassing people who OC eventually it will make it to the SCOTUS.

sent from my Galaxy S3, superior to the iPhone.

 

[Philadelphia Patriot]

As for DUI checkpoints, I suppose we should just let drunks roam the roadways unmolested.

I don't condone drinking and driving (heck, I don't even drink), but I also don't condone LEOs pulling people over and questioning them without probable cause. If you want to combat drunk driving, then take an unmarked car (or more) and have them patrol areas around bars. When they see cars swerving over the line, driving too fast, driving too slow, etc. (basically giving them PROBABLE CAUSE) then they can pull them over and proceed with their DUI tests. Heck, I don't even care if they put plain clothes cops in bars to spot drunk people who leave the bar and climb behind the wheel. My point is nobody should be pulled over and questioned if they are doing nothing wrong. Maybe they do that in other countries, but they should not be doing that in the United States.

 

[GerSan69]

This is a no-win argument. While I'm not in favor of OC, it's for no other reason than I think it's tactically stupid, especially in an urban environment. The ideal to me would be that OC should be legal and accepted, but no one would do it because they don't want to give away the element of surprise.

As for checkpoints: I've seen the YouTube moron that goes around baiting the USBP, and I wish someone would have the stones to yank him out of his camera-equipped studio-mobile and beat him to a pulp, strictly because he's a whiny twit... and throw him back in while pointedly NOT asking if he's a citizen.

Seriously, though. If checkpoints were a part of a comprehensive border protection plan, that was actually closing the border and protecting us from God-knows-what or who that's sneaking across, instead of making excuses, letting anybody and everybody in, and pretending to do something, which is what the gov't is really doing, I'd agree with checkpoints. But what we have (and no fault of the poor Border officers that are made to do them) is more smoke and mirrors instead.

Also, I want to be sure to give kudos to the USBP. I do not envy those guys, but I am damn sure glad they're out there, and they have my respect and professional admiration!

 

[rwsmith]

I want to be able to carry

I want to be able to carry, so that I can carry if I so choose. Being a jerk about it doesn't serve the right purpose. I believe that will just make more people lean toward more restrictive laws.